Rome and England

R O M E A N D E N G L A N D

ECCLESIA ST ICA L CON T IN UITY

APR 1 9

!CM 333

K R EV . L E R IV IN T N M . U G O , . A

MA DA G LEN COLLEG E , OXFOR D

LON D ON : B UR N S A TE O S , LIMITED

1 89 6

C O N T E N T S

I N TR OD UCTORY C H A PTE R

I The . Thesis C 2 . anon Law uthorities 3 . A

C H A PTE R I

TH E EARLY EN GLI SH CHU RCH A N D ITS RELATI O N TO RO ME

§ Int rodu ctory l I . P 0 e St . G os t e En l and § p regory, the real A p of g R o o a nd C u 2 . me the M ther M istress of anterb ry Th u d c o u d R 3 . e Lines of J ris i ti n n er the Care of ome Th E C urc F e d and d o 4 . e nglish h h Reare by R me Wilﬁ id P 5 The H istory of St . a roof that the Whole of the E ngl ish Chu rch lo oked to R ome as he r M istress in the Seventh Centu ry c 6 . Some Angli an Writers on the Early E nglish Ch u rc h

C H A PTE R I I

’ \V ILLI AM TH E CO NQUEROR S RE F USAL TO D O H OMAGE TO T H E POPE

Introductory

H o . 1 . mage ’

2 P P c . . eter s en e v i CON TENTS

C H A PT ER I II

T H E WI N F N T ESS O ST . A SELM

’ I . Bishop Creighton s Argument Th 2 . e General Sit uation

3 . St . Anselm and the Palli um A 4 . St nselm goes to Rome ’ 5 . Bishop Creighto n s Dedu ctions E xam i ned ’ 6 . St . Anselm s M otive

C H A P TER IV

A N D O N A N D O F O O WH Y ARCH EAC A PR ESS R ; R, THEY B ELI EV ED I N PAPAL SUPREMACY

Th I . e Question 2 The T c Gi rald us . ea hing of

3 . Adam M arsh

C H A P TER V

B ELI E F I N PAPAL SUPREMACY IN T H E RE I G N O F

2 6—I z z H EN RY 1 1 1 . ( I I 7 )

I The u . Q estion 2 Freedom accord ing to Modern Angli can Writers cc c d s ecu i ed 3 . E lesiasti al Free om as by Magna Charta c c d u d d 4 . E c lesiasti al Free om as n erstoo by the Epis

' copate The Barons of England on Papal Supremac y The P rotest of the Ch u rch of England agai nst Spirit ual Independenc e of Rome : ” m x The Far- off S uzerain m o ’ o p G c Bishop rosseteste s Letter CON TENTS v ﬁ

CH A PTE R V I

’ B I SHOP CREI GHTON S ACCUSAT I O N AGAI NST PO PE H ONO RI US I I I

I The u d . Acc sation state 2 The G C cu c . eneral ir mstan es The P cu C cu 3 . arti lar ir mstan ces ’ H u 4 . onori s Letter

C HA PTER V I I

THE QUARREL AB OUT PATRONAGE

C H A PTER V I I I

A THE RELATI O N O F THE POPE TO E CC LESIA ST IC I . B EN E F I CES

C H A PTE R IX

THE FAI TH O F THE CHURCH O F E N GLAN D WHEN THERE WERE R I VAL CLAI MANTS TO THE PAPACY

C H A PTER X

’ TH E TEACH I N G O F C RA N M ER S PRED ECESS O R I N TH E SE E O F CANTER B URY I N 1 5 3 2

IN T RO D UCTO RY C H A PT E R

' Tﬁ lz z I . e T es s.

T H E thesis o f this book may be put into the following syllogism

no I . There can be real continuity between two re l i u one f ig o s bodies, o which has persistently held that the government of the Church was committed by our

. P t Lord to St eter and His successors, whilst he other “ maintains that the Church of Rome hath no jurisdiction

” in this realm .

2 a of now - b . ( ) The Church England as y law estab lishe m d, aintains the latter position , and has maintained it since the middle of the sixteenth century ; whereas

o f the Church of England , from th e days St . Augus

of f tine Canterbury onwards, held that the government o the Church lay with the Bishops of Rome as successors o f P St . eter by D ivine appointment .

3 . Therefore the Church of England as now by law

not or established , is continuous identical with the

' ' E t c/esza A ng/zm na or Church of England fou n ded by

G G . 771 0 ! St . Augustine or St . regory the reat Church of England must be looked for elsewhere ; it will be P found only where the doctrine is held that St . eter and i x x I NTRODU CTORY CHA PTER

his successors, the Bishops of Rome, are regarded as the rulers of the Universal Church . This book offers evidence in behalf of the second

of m 2 half the minor premiss in the above syllogis ( , B)

f of namely, that the Church o England from the days Augustine held the Pope to be the divinely appointed ruler of the Catholic Church . This is the position which is strenuously opposed at this moment by the great mass of those who belong to the present Establishment . Everywhere they have set “ themselves to declare their continuity with the old

Church of England . It is asserted that the Church in England was always in a state of sufﬁcient antagonism to Rome to j ustify them in saying that the separation in the sixteenth century did not change any essential feature f o her ecclesiastical government . It is said that when most she went hand in hand with Rome, or most sub

of ordinated her life to the rule Rome, she did so, not because of any conviction that submission to Rome was

of C a necessity ath olic life, but because it suited her

n purpose o other grounds . I have therefore set myself in this book to answer f the question , What is the value o those instances which are adduced to prove the supposed independence of the Church o f England in past times ? If I have placed myself at a certain disadvantage in conﬁning myself, for

to of the most part, such instances, instead choosing my o wn ground and producing other positive evidence for my contention , I shall , at any rate, avoid the accusation f of not fairly stating the Opinion o my opponents . A nd I venture to think that sufﬁcient evidence has been I NTRODUCTORY CHAPTER x i

of produced, in dealing with these instances the repudia f tion o Papal jurisdiction , as our Anglican friends deem them , to prove not only that the present titular Church of England is not a spiritual continuation of the old f Church o England , but that the Roman Catholic body

s in England i .

to It is not, however, my purpose deny a certain kind of continuity between the present Establishment and the

- Anglican Church of the past . There is a kind of legal continuity ; there is a sort of material continuity ; there f is a continuity o nomenclature . But this is not what is

’ i Cizur c/z meant by the cont nuity of the , or, at any rate , of the Church in her deeper aspects . The Church is regarded in the following pages as the Kingdom of

Heaven upon earth . Her life consists in her supernatural

of relations with her Creator . Unity government, unity f — o faith , unity of sacraments, constitute her unity not

or or . unity in name, material privileges, local habitation

N do not of ow, in this work I touch on the unity sacraments . It m ight easily be shown that the Church in England for a thousand years administered seven sacraments as the provision wh ich our Lord made for

“ ” her spiritual life, and that Anglicanism has muti lated the spiritual organism of the Church through

having materially changed this Divine economy . But it is with the subject of government that I have dealt in

particular in this work . That subj ect comes indeed

under the head of faith it was , as I hope I have shown,

held to be a matter of faith that St . Peter and his suc cessors were appointed the governors of the Universal

C of hurch but it is with this matter faith alone , and INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER

not with the whole range of the Divine deposit, that I have dealt here .

And the question is not whether the old Church of England was right or wrong in believing that the See of Peter is the divinely appointed centre of unity ; it is merely the question of fact, whether she did or did not

so . c of believe It is, therefore, stri tly a matter history .

or —b Is it, is it not, true that the Church of England y

n P which I do ot mean the arliament, but the accredited teaching body in England— held that doctrine concern ing her relationship to Rome to be a part of the faith once delivered to the saints ? That this was the doctrine f 1 H o the Primitive Church I have shown elsewhere . ere

n con I have entered o no doctrinal disquisitions , but fi ned myself to the facts of history . e t There is, however, a c r ain difﬁculty in meeting the arguments for “ Continuity ” advanced by our Anglican

‘ ' diﬁerences friends , arising from the amongst themselves as to the cogency of the various arguments in its favour. The late Lord Bowen is said to have suggested that the judges, when drawing up an address wh ich began with “ our the words, Conscious as we are of shortcomings , but which was felt to be beneath their dignity, should “ ’ of one h substitute, Conscious as we are another s s ort ” comings . And it would be difﬁcult for a committee f o Anglican writers , judging from those works which I

“ ” 1 c a nd of P The P rimitive Ch ur h the See eter, by the L n m a n s The d e u R . . o Rev . L ke ivington , M A ( g , rea r is referred for an a nswer to the c riti cisms o f Can on Bright “ ” d ce I s . o n this boo k to a little wo rk calle Replies (pri ,

B urns Oates). I N TRODUCTORY C HAPTER x iii

have personally perused , to refrain from expressing some consciousness of their considerable differences of opinion on N o these historical questions . book has had such ’ “ an enormous circulation as Mr. Nye s Popular History of the Church of England and yet it would be unfair

’ to saddle a writer of Bishop Creighton s calibre with

N e . some of the extraordinary statements made by Mr. y : Mr Lane, again , has numerous statements which are contradicted by Dr. Stubbs, whilst Dr . Bright has suc cessf ully refuted Bishop Lightfoot on an important point ” 1 f . C connected with this question o continuity Dr . utts ,

‘5 i n his series of Public School Text- books of Religious

” Instruction, makes a point of the imaginary fact that

- 2 Lanfranc would not go to Rome for the pall ; whilst “ Mr . Hunt, in his work on The English Church in the

’ o f Lanfranc s to Middle Ages , (rightly) speaks journey 3 Rome for that symbol of authority . On the other hand ,

’

. 1 this writer disagrees (p 9 ) with Dr . Bright as to Wilfrid s “ ” appeal to Rome . Dr . Child , on Continuity , disagrees f with all o these . But last year a paper was read at the N orwich Church

C . C of P ongress by Dr reighton, Bishop eterborough , which met with such general and emphatic approval , C both at the ongress itself (according to all reports), and

u uar di a n afterwards in s ch representative papers as the G ,

' Cﬁu r cfz Ti m es R ecom the , and the , that it may be safely

1 i n a . C r . f f , p 3 2 H f C u c d . o o . ist ry the h r h of Englan , p 74 3 “ ” “ he E C u c . E T &c . c C u c nglish h r h , , p 79 ( po hs of h r h ’ There is no doubt about Lan franc s j ou rney t o

o . C o e c e o c s ub am zo m an d Vi l a R me f Fl r n of W r ester, m ,

P 1 8 . L em r a n d . . 6 / , cap xi aris , 4 x iv I NTRODUCTORY CHAPTER assumed to represent the general trend of opinion in the

C of of hurch England . According to the programme

u the Congress , that paper dealt with the Contin ity of

” the Church of England in the Middle Ages the continuity between the body so called then and that

n w which has the same title o . The advantage of select

: ing that paper for my purpose seemed twofold ﬁrst, it touches on what , according to the admission of Anglicans and ourselves, are the salient points of the controversy ;

one secondly, its writer is whose record is such as to command attention for whatever he writes on such a subject . He has had the honour of ﬁlling a professor ship of history at the sister University to his own ; he

' has been the editor of the E ngl zs/z R eview ; “ ” of of P he is the author a History the apacy, con spicuous for its courtesy of tone ; he is generally sup posed to have been selected for the high ofﬁce which

n w he o holds, in part at least for his historical writings he is at this moment president of a society called the

Church Historical Society, recently called into existence for the express purpose of defending the Church of Eng

u and land o historical grounds ; , lastly, he has lately been selected to represent the Anglican Episcopate at f the coronation o the Tsar, having been described in the letter of recommendation sent by the Archbishop of f P “ t . Canterbury o the Metropolitan o St etersburg, as a i distingu shed historian , and one of the most learned of

” living scholars and divines . Further, this paper which Bishop Creighton read on the occasion of the Church of England Conference at N orwich (October 1 8 9 5 ) has been since republished by the Church Defence I nstitu INTRODUCTORY C HAPTER X V

of of C tion , under the auspices the Archbishop anterbury , “ ” N . with the title , The ational Church in the Middle Ages I have therefore taken this paper as fairly repre sentative of the line of argument adopted by members

of of the Church of England on the subject continuity,

to and I have endeavoured answer the question , Is ’ Bishop Creighton s argument sound ? D o the instances he adduces from history bear out his conclusion ? There is one point on which I have thought well to lay

of of special stress, and that _ is, the bearing the Statutes

' ' P r owsors and P rwm u m re on the question of continuity . These are the armoury from which the weapons used of late in defence of the continuity theory as held by

Anglicans have been mostly taken . I have avoided as much as possible any abstruse ° disquisitions on this part

of Ch. V I I . my subject, but what appears below ( ) is the

of o f result a careful study of the R lls o Parliament, and other original sources belonging to the period of the original promulgation and successive re- enactments of those statutes. The result is that I have been more than ever convinced that most o f the current h istories of England grievously misrepresent the bearing of these

’ statutes on the question of England s faith in Papal

Supremacy. These histories either identify Parliament

or of with the Church , take the side Parliament against 1 h for the C urch , or mistake a moan dogmatic teaching, or convert the resistance to a particular exercise of autho

of rity into a repudiation the authority itself.

1 “ ra The u c . C dd th g English h r h in the M i le Ages , in e d d o C e c d E c series e ite by Bish p r ighton , alle po hs of Church ” ’ H a nd o C istory, Bish p reighton s own paper . x vi I N TRODU CTORY C HAPTER

I would also draw particular attention to the teaching h of Archbishop Warham , contained in C . X . Mr. G ladstone , in his recent letter on Anglican Orders, has repeated his erroneous conception (as I must consider

’ of Warham it) Archbishop s concession in 1 5 3 1 . His G ’ C race s letter, ﬁrst published in full by anon Moyes ,

. G owing to the indefatigable researches of Dom asquet , appears for the ﬁrst time in a book dealing with English

Ch. history, in the following pages ( Its impor tant bearing on the faith of the English Church at that time will be seen at once . It precludes the idea that

- C the Episcopate of the hurch of England, that is to say, the teaching body, had imbibed the teach ing of modern Anglicanism , even in germ , before the tyranny V I th of Henry I I . swayed e minds and determined the action of many of its members . It shows that, although the soil had been prepared , and the conditions rendered

o for fav urable a separation from Rome, the Episcopate had not up to that time contemplated the idea of an

u c independent national Ch r h . The idea of ecclesiastical c w jurisdi tion , which the following pages sho , if they show

C of n anything, to have been that of the hurch Engla d

of . from the days Augustine, was still in possession We may dismiss from the items of evidence on this head the

- so called petition from Convocation about separation , which ﬁgures in so many English histories . It was

n - a certainly ot petition from that body, and probably nothing more than a proposed rough draft from a civi

’ 1 lian s hand . But the moral conditions favourable to

. ”

C . c c . u v . 2 f Angli an Falla ies, by Rev L ke Ri ington , p 3

T . c 8d . C c u (pri e , atholi r th Society) I NTRODUCTORY CHAPTER x v i i

of separation , in the shape of a s pirit subservience to royal tyranny , and the preference of earthly to heavenly interests, were in existence . These, together with a lack of learning consequent on the distressing condition of ecclesiastical England after the Black Death , led to the submission eventually tendered to a sovereign of unpre cedented u power and nlimited unscrupulousness, which Archbishop Warham would have regarded as schismatic in form and Erastian in substance . Archbishop War

’ ham s defence, of which I am speaking, completes the chain of evidence which shows that in the intellectual sphere there was no gradually gathering volume of dis belief ih Papal j u risdiction ready to burst upon the

W m land , which is such a favourite idea ith any Anglican writers on the sixteenth century.

2 . Canon Law.

of on There is, however, one sphere proof which I have dwelt but little in the following pages , as it seemed f to demand , for ef ective treatment , more space than

to could be given it in this volume, and that is the evidence to be derived from the Canon Law of England .

to on It will be well, however, say something the subject here .

1 - A few years ago I ventured to question the historical accuracy of a sentence to be found in the Report issued in 1 8 8 3 by the commissioners appointed to inquire into the constitution and working of the Ecclesiastical Courts

1 D R c o 1 0 2 u bli n evi ew O 8 . . . . , t ber 9 art i p 4 5 x v iii I N TRODU CTORY CHAPTER

h f C o . in the urch England That Report, which is signed by such great names as Stubbs and Freeman , speaks “ 2 8 (p . ) of the canons passed in Legatine Councils ” under Otho and Othobon as having been r a tiﬁed N C P ” 1 by the ational hurch under Archbishop eckham . “ ” Dr. Stubbs, in his Oxford Lectures (p. uses the “ — n same expression These cano s , which might possibly be treated as in themselves wanting the sanction of

N C r at ed the ational hurch, were iﬁ in Councils held by ” 0 8 Peckham and again (p . 3 ) The constitutions of

thobon con r m ed O , which were ﬁ by Peckham at Lambeth ,

of and which , with those Otho, were the ﬁrst codiﬁed

' of and glossed portions the N ational Church law. “ That same Report says, But the Canon Law of f Rome, although always regarded as o great authority

not to n in England, was held be binding o the ” 2 courts . “ N ow here is the question of co ntinuity in a nut

If of shell . the Canon Law the English Church was made

o f independently Rome, there is continuity between modern Anglicanism and the Church in England before

0 11 the sixteenth century ; if it was dependent Rome, continuity is to be found between ourselves and the old N w Church in England . o the answer may be given in

a single sentence . Archbishop Peckham himself has “ said that the Sovereign Lord of all gave authority to

' the decrees of the sovereign Pontiﬁs when He said to ‘ P G . eter in the ospel of St Matthew, Whatsoever thou

1 T he italic s are mine. 2 “ cc c C u C Report of the E lesiasti al o rts ommission ,

1 88 vol . . . 3 , . i p xviii x x IN TRODUCTORY CHAPTER

But whilst these sheets are passing through the press , I have had the satisfaction of reading a very remarkable article in the current number of the E ng li sh E ston i a!

R eview on (July which touches this very point, and altogether conﬁrms my contention as to the constitutions of Otho and Othob on having been considered to be bind

P . ing in virtue of their apal authorisation The writer,

P . . rofessor Maitland , LL D (Professor of the Laws of Eng

at C land the University of ambridge), calls in question the

diei nm c C sC same of the Ecclesiasti al ourt ommission , and the same statements of Dr . Stubbs, and opposes inciden

of A rchbisho P tally the same statement p eckham . But he adds irrefragable evidence to the effect that the relation between provincial constitutions and Papal decretals was

of to . that subject superior In other words , the Church

of England was governed from Rome . He draws atten tion to the fact that provincial constitutions in England did not provide for the essentials of ecclesiastical life these were to be found in the common law (the jus com m une)

of the Universal Church . In this respect the nation and

n ff the Church of E gland di ered essentially . The State “ was producing the most thoroughly national system of

a temporal law that the medi eval world could show . But

whereas the English State was an independent whole, the English Church was in the eyes of its own judges a dependent fragment whose laws had been imposed upon ” 1 “ it from without . As to the theory that prevailed in

’ the Court of Canterbury during Lyndwood s tenure of

f t . o ﬁce, there can be no doub whatever Peckham and

1 i st R ev . u 1 8 6 . . E n H . g . , j ly 9 , p 475 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER x x i

‘ his Councils could not ratify legatine constitutions ; in ‘ such a context the sanction of the N ation al Church o 6 (v. 4 sl “ The English Church was a dependent fragment this is the very kernel of my contention in this book and it is naturally a source of gratiﬁcation to see it maintained by one holding the position that Professor

Maitland does , and approaching the subject from a ’ f f diff erent point of view. This able writer s proo s o his thesis may be summarised thus “ After pointing ou t that the words common law (jns com m u ne) meant in those times not something in “ ” to o f contrast statute law, but the law the Universal 1 of Church , he examines two witnesses supreme import

’ — L ndwood the ance William y , Archbishop of Canterbury s

of f ofﬁcial principal , and the author one o the best known and most highly esteemed works on ecclesiastical law in 2 the whole course of English history and John of Ayton , the famous canonist . John of Ayton wrote in the ﬁrst

of L nd wood half the fourteenth century, y in the first half of the fifteenth ; and we must bear in m ind that there was no such conflict of Opinion on these m atters

of as is to be found now in the Church England . The

’ doctrinal teaching of an Archbishop s principal o fﬁcial did not diff er from that of the Archbishop .

1 So that there is no meaning in such an expression as efforts were made to displace the common law for the canon “ ” ” M d 1 The C u c the d e . law in English h r h in i le Ag s , p 49 Epochs of Ch u rch H istory The same may be sai d of a

0 . passage on p . 2 3 of the same work 2 ’ ' T u o Ly nd wood s P r ov i n cza l e. he q otations that f llow

6. E i f . R v i ew u 1 8 o . e are fr m the , J ly 9 x x ii I N TRODUCTORY CHAPTER

N o w P , in neither of these writers has rofessor Maitland

to r been able discover any denial, dispute, o even debate to f P as the binding force o apal decretals. They are

L ndwood quoted as imperative documents . In y there “ not are plenty of open questions, but what we do see in our English books is the slightest tendency to doubt

’ the Pope s legislative power or to debate the validity o f ” his decretals (p . 4 5 J ohn of Ayton discusses the question whether the

P dom i nus of ope is the all the Churches in the world ,

of and gives the Opinion that he is , so far as the power ” “ — reserving and collating them is concerned exactly

1 — of the position maintained in Chapter IX . (pp . 5 7 9 ) this “ ” “ P s our work . We here see , says rofe sor Maitland , English canonist citing a decretal which in the boldest language claims that a plenary power of disposing of P f ” every Church belongs to the Roman onti f (p . f Our canonist bemoans the use often made o this right ,

n P but of the right itself he has o doubt . And, as rofessor

“ ” Maitland says, a moan is not a legal principle . “ L ndwood no G Again , y holds that eneral Council can be summoned without the authority of the Apostolic f See , and he cites without disapproval the opinion o those doctors who maintain that the Pope is above a P 1 General Council and, as rofessor Maitland points

out f , if there had been any treasured tradition o Angli

L n w d f can independence, y d oo , the head o English “ canonists , lost an unexampled and irrecoverable op ” n of G portunity in ot referring to it . The idea a eneral 1 P rofessor Maitland exaggerates the appeal of Chichele

G C u c . 1 8 . to a eneral o n il , as may be seen below, p 4 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER x x iii

Council being above a Pope is represented by Lynd “ ne who wood as being held only by o doctor, has been

f or of who of dead upwards a century, and is suspected

- C of C self interest . And this after the ouncil onstance “ L nd of (p. y wood speaks the Pope being above ” two the law . A Pontiﬁcal decretal is binding months

to after its publication . Indeed , it was simple heresy

1 S dispute the authority of a decretal . So peaks the great English canonist of the ﬁfteenth century, whose interest it was to magnify his Archiepiscopal Court as “ far to as possible. And it was a principle which

of of archbishop, bishops, and clergy the province ” Canterbury have adhered by solemn words (p. witness the constitutions of Thomas Arundel in Wil

’

li a 1 . Conci . . kins , iii p 3 7 Decretals are deﬁned by the “ Archbishop as the precepts of laws and canons duly issued and canonically promulgated by the key - bearer

on not of of eternal life and death , the vicar earth , a

of o God mere man, but the true G d, and he to whom Himself has committed the rights of the heavenly ” 2 kingdom . And this teaching was not a passing utterance in a

f on moment o excitement, but the established principle

f of which the action o the Court Canterbury was based . The Archbishop might make for his province statutes which are merely declaratory of the jns com m une of

“ 1 D icitur etiam ha reticus qui ex contem ptu Rom ance n m ni ua c stat uit ecclesiae co te t servare ea q e Romana ec lesia , et etiam qui d espicit et neglig it servare dec retales (Lynd

’ de l t r l . ad . c aren n . w P o i n i a l e . 2 2 ood, r v c , p 9 , g v ) 2 ’ onci l i a . . 1 . Wilkins C , iii p 3 4 x x iv I NTRODUCTORY CHAPTER

C — the hurch , the law Of the Universal Church statutes

to which recall it memory , which amplify it and give it a sharper edge. He might supplement the Papal legislation ; but he had no power, according to Lynd

of wood, to derogate from , to say nothing abrogating,

o f the laws his superior. For nothing is clearer in Lyn dwood than t hat the P ope is the superior of the

Archbishop . The relation of the Court of Canterbury to the Roman Court was not as that Of one Church

C o f t to another hurch , but an inferior o a superior 1

C . L n wood court in the same hurch Consequently, y d

’ ’ speaks o f Peckham s acceptance of Othob on s con stit utions e as being ex cutive, not authoritative, in direct contradiction to the statement of the Eccle siastical C u C o f o rts ommission , and Dr. Stubbs, given 2 above . The bishops did not enforce some of the decretals indeed , John of Ayton says that the only constitutions that were enforced with any alacrity were those that

r brought proﬁt to episcopal purses. It is well that ou f English historians , who are so fond o attributing greed to Rome , and to her alone, should remember that the tendency of Papal legislation was Often directed to secure for members of the Church advantages of

“ 1 V erum est quod constituti on es leg ati nas non p ot eri t archie isc0 us u p p tollere, q ia inferior non potest tollere legem

‘ '

n z . 1 d r a i czen d . u P ov i c a l e l . a d . o s perioris ( , p 54, g v j ) 2 P ra ceptum poti ns ex ecu tiv um illi us [con s titution is Othob oni s u d riin o u u u m auctoritativum ] q o p stat t m est q a , videli cet cum istu d praeceptum est a d e x citan d u m neglig entes

ob s ervare c onstituti on em i sam P r ov i n ci a l e . 1 1 l . ad p ( , p , g

obser v a r i . v . ) INTRODU CTORY CHAPTE R X XV which the greed of English bishops was apt to deprive them . Professor Maitland also points out that the acceptance of Papal constitutions meant no more than that they were put in practice and their recommendations not allowed to fall into desuetude . It was not making them authoritative ; it only denoted their actual ex ecu tion . The p rovincial legislation , which it must be

not remembered proceeded from the Archbishop, from the Provincial Council (the Archbishop being Papal

ex o cio of legate ﬁ ), had for its scope the enforcement P to authoritative apal enactments , bringing them the

o f knowledge and to the memory the people, so that such statutes as were binding on the Universal Church might not be disobeyed through ignorance ; or they

not might adapt Papal decrees, but deviate from them w “ in substance . The provincial laws ere, in fact, bye

” of laws in the modern sense the term . w f For instance, if you wanted to kno the law o marriage; you would not ﬁnd it in the ecclesiastical law of England as contained in the provincial constitu

of tions, but in the common law the Universal Church , to which these constitutions were ancillary, a mere

L n appendix. When y dwood discusses the law of “ marriage, whence it derives its name, how it is con

tracted , where it was instituted , what are the causes of

its institution, what good ﬂows from it, and what impedi ” to s “ ments there are it , he at once ays, Of all these ‘ P matters Innocentius [the ope] has treated, and yet ” 1 A r nd eae. more fully Johannes In other words , as

' 1 L n d w d 1 l oo . 2 . ad . nza i r z m oni u m y , p 7 , g v . x x vi I NTRODUCTORY CHAPTER

P ou to rofessor Maitland puts it, he refers y the works of two of n of Italian canonists high repute, o e whom P ” 1 was a layman, the other a ope . It will be obvious that nothing would have more

f A D amaz ed the head o the Court of Canterbury in . .

1 0 to to 4 3 , than hear a religious body which looks Rome

of of a as its source jurisdiction and its court ppeal , “ ” called an Italian Mission in a depreciatory sense . The whole Church of England was so bound to Rome

it on of that literally lived the decrees Rome, and knew of no ecclesiastical law that had not at least in principle emanated from Rome and that had not the hall - mark of Rome on it . SO that if we compare John of Ayton in the four

h L ndwood — t eent , and y in the ﬁfteenth centuries two undeniably competent representatives of the teaching of — Canterbury we ﬁnd no sort of tendency or disposition to see in the position of inferiority and subjection on the part Of the English P rovinces towards Rome anything but the normal condition of things in the Church of

no God. They knew other relationship that did not savour of heresy .

A nt/zoﬂ i zes . 3 .

Besides the authorities actually quoted in this book, there are a few that have been persistently consulted

’ ’ — Feeder a Conci li a such as Rymer s , Wilkins , and the

of Rolls of Parliament . But a main source information

R 1 . H i st . ev . . E n . g , p 47 x x v iii INTRODUCTORY CHAPTE R

of auspices of a newly formed society, which Bishop

Creighton is president . The places in this volume in which I have dealt with the two lectures of that series which concern my subject , will be found in the I ndex .

In conclusion , I have to thank the attendants in the Reading- room of the British Museum for u nfailing

Of courtesy in the last few years , as also the Librarian

‘ the University Library of St . Andrews . R O M E A N D E N G L A N D

C HA PTER I

TH E EARLY EN GLI SH C H U RCH AN D ITS RELATI O N TO ROM E

I ntrod u ctory

“ O n a e 1 1 2 i ne del te to th o e a P e . p g , l 3 , t p

“ “ I I < or Po e I nnocen l e e the Pa a , f p t. g p l ” N ta v o r .

“ ad d s that It Is remarka ble how soon the atmosphere of their island home exercised its inﬂuence o n the N orman ” to intelligence . This atmosphere led them feel that both “ he [Anselm] and the King alike were bound

“ 1 C u c dd N . 1 1 The ational h r h in the M i le Ages , p . A ROME A N D ENGLAND to maintain the customs of the realm and settle their ” disputes by reference to them alone . They said (when refusing to support the A rchbishop in carrying his appeal to Rome) that it was contrary to the customs f ” o the realm which he had sworn to observe . ’

N ow . , this interpretation of St Anselm s conﬂict with “ William Rufus assumes that the atmosphere Of our ” island home was fatal to the idea Of any necessary dependence on Rome in regard to ecclesiastical disci pline the customs of the realm were against it . It assumes , too, that these customs stretched back beyond N Con the orman period, which commenced with the ’ eror s m . qu reign , to who William Rufus had now succeeded “ N ” They exercised their inﬂuence on the orman mind . on It will be my endeavour to show that , the contrary, “ ” the atmosphere of our island home favoured the idea of dependence on Rome in ecclesiastical matters ; that the customs of the realm alluded to here had nothing m u n— ancient about the , but were profoundly English on that, in fact , dependence Rome was a leading char ri i c f A nd acte st o the life of the early English Church . by “ early English ” is here meant the period stretching from the seventh century to the time of the Conquest in the eleventh . Beyond the seventh century we need not go there is no need to occupy ourselves with the British f Church . She was not the progenitor of the Church o

England . It has been lately asserted by a considerable Anglican authority that we may conﬁdently say with the P ‘ late rofessor Freeman , It is contrary to all historical fact to speak of the ancient British Church as something ’ u t of f o which the Church o England grew . It is equally unhistorical, we may add , to speak of the ‘ ’ f ” 1 Welsh Episcopate as the fountain o the English .

” 1 u c H i C . . r Waymarks in h r h istory (p by W B ght,

. H x d P f. cc . . D . D . , ro of E les ist , O for TH E EARLY ENGLISH C HU RCH 3

I shall therefore in this chapter deal only with the English Church as it started on its career in the end o f the sixth century .

l n he r ea l A ostle o E n a d . 1 P o e St . Gr e or t . p g y , p f g

But here we are met with a new theory which has been widely applied to the start of the English Church and to

u the question of conti n ity . The Bishops Of the present

Establishment, in commencing a large central institution , “ ” of C H Ouse or mass buildings, called the hurch , in ’ f o f H er G memory o the Jubilee racious Majesty s reign , adopted on their seal the following symbol of their supposed historical position : Our Blessed Lord stands on in the centre , and beneath Him , either side , are St . f C on . o Aidan the right side, and St Augustine anterbury on on the left . These two saints stand even pedestals H is of ﬂow receiving blessing , and streams water from

His feet to theirs, and from theirs downwards to (we presume) the present generation . This is understood to or symbolise the theory stated, , at any rate, brought into who re prominence, by the late Bishop Lightfoot , is “ for not sponsible the saying, that Augustine, but Aidan , ” 1 is the true Apostle of England . h This absurdly unhistorical theory, whic found favour and with so great a writer, has been adopted by the of C present Archbishop anterbury, has been admirably refuted by the present Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical

History i n the University of Oxford. It would be difﬁ to cult to add anything his conclusive reasoning . Canon to Bright says , If the title [of Apostle] belongs the man who ﬁrst brings home to any part of a given people the

” 1 d N C u c Lea ers in the orthern h r h , by Bishop Light foot , p. 9 . 4 ROME A N D ENGLAN D

of knowledge Of Christ and the ordinances His religion , then it is enough to remark that Augustine came into

Kent when all the Saxon kingdoms were still heathen .

f or He came to confront risks which Aidan , instance, had never to reckon with on appearing in N orthumbria at the express invitation of St . Oswald . He came thirty on f of e years be ore the evangelisation the East Anglians,

- of B irinus thirty seven years before the arrival in Wessex, thirty- eight years before the Scotic mission established of co itself, with assurance beforehand the fullest royal

N orthum b ria. operation , in His long precedency in the mission - ﬁeld is a simple matter of chronology ; it mea ns that he threw Open the pathway, that he set the example, and that a generation had passed away before Scotic ” 1 z eal followed in his steps . Canon Bright shows that Bishop Lightfoot altogether of P underrated the work aulinus , whom Augustine sent P to the N orth . The Bishop says that aulinus made no ” on way i n N orthumbria, grounding his accusation the or statement of Bede that no cross, church , altar had

B er nici a been set up in , which Bishop Lightfoot appa re ntly mistook for the whole o f N orthumbria and he appears also to have forgotten that the centre of Paulinus ’ work was York, in Deira, whence he had hardly had time to organise his work with any fulness in Bernicia, which

of . was under a diff erent branch the royal line Bede, ’ f of P moreover, gives a very dif erent account aulinus ’ own work even in Bernicia (St . Bede s home) from that which Bishop Lightfoot deduces from the absence of

. churches, altars , and crosses The historian speaks of e G “ the work of Paulinus at the riv r len , how the people of Christ ﬂocked thither from all villages and places ” to “ be instructed and baptized . This he did in the pro

1 “ ” D . u H . D . Waymarks in Ch rch istory, by W Bright , ,

0 . p . 3 9 TH E EARLY ENGLISH CH URCH 5

of Dei rans vince of the B ern ician s . But also in that the ” 1 he used to baptiz e in the Swale . His work extended to Lincoln , where he converted the reeve, and built a church . It has been assumed that Paulinus ’ work was super “ ﬁcial of , because Bede speaks directly afterwards the ” of out year apostasy ; but, as Canon Bright points , this to two refers not to the Christianised people , but the

nfrid young kings, Osric and Ea whilst James the Deacon , who was left behind when Paulinus escorted the widowed “ old l queen to her home in Kent, took much spoi from ” C the ancient enemy . And so anon Bright concludes , “ We have , then , good reason for believing that as P N aulinus was first in the orthumbrian field , as the solemn national acceptance of Christianity was due to to in him and Edwin as his proselyte , as he worked to cessantly for six years chiefly in Deira , but also some extent in Bernicia, so the foundations which he laid were not destroyed , but rather built upon and enlarged , when ” 2 - Aidan came and had a prince for his fellow worker . And Paulinus was part Of the mission direct from

Rome .

It is sometimes said that St . Aidan entered upon his work without the sanction of Rome but t his is contrary

. for to fact, for St Gregory blamed the British bishops no t doing what they could to evangelise the people 3 beyond the conﬁnes of their own dioceses . His strie tures were passed on these bishops on the understand f ing that this was the part o a Christian teacher. Aidan out was, therefore, only following a principle everywhere

viz . one understood , , that any who engaged in mis sionary work beyond the limits Of the jurisdiction to hi m of assigned as overseer the baptized, was fulﬁlling

“ 1 d 1 2 ” Be e, ii . 4 . Waymarks, p . 3 ” E . li . b . 8 d p , vi 5 , sacer otes e vicino negligere . 6 ROM E A N D ENGLAN D

n a duty incumbent o the Christian as such , when pos

i . e. sible , and therefore he had all that was needed, , the indirect sanction of Rome . When St . Wilfrid , the

a r ex cellen e f devotee p c O the Petrine prerogatives , went ’ to l of convert the peop e Sussex, he asked no one s leave, for . a none was needed It was, as I have s id, an under G C stood law expressed by regory the Great , that hristians should, as far as possible, endeavour after the conversion

of . those who were outside the fold, and when St Aidan brought them into the fold he brought them into com

- of P . munion with the See eter for those who, like St ff n u Aidan , di ered only o some points of discipline s ch as of P the tonsure and the date the aschal Feast, were not outside that communion ; and St . Oswald, who stood

ne ils . B irinus sponsor to King Cy g at his baptism by St , was obviously in communion with this latter saint, who came direct from Rome, and St . Oswald and St . Aidan were in the closest possible communion Of faith and of work . Besides, the way in which St . Bede speaks the m onks of Iona and of St . Aidan himself forbids the sup position that they were not at that time in full communion with Rome . And so England has through all her history called

Gregory the Great her Apostle . Although it is true that

of our a large portion country was converted by Scots , h . C i . e w o , Irish ( had received their hristianity from the

Continent, that is , from those that were in communion of P with Rome), still it was to the heart the great ope, who saw angels in the Anglo - Saxon children in the

- our market place at Rome , that forefathers (left by the British bishops to their paganism) owed the ﬁrst seeds

‘

G . Of Christian truth . Augustine was sent by regory

8 ROM E A N D ENGLAN D

I t was , then , from Rome that England received the ﬁrst authoritative outline of her ecclesiastical organisa

“ tion , though London was at ﬁrst contemplated as the metropolitica l centre but London was changed for Can t erb ury by another Pope (Boniface who sent the to of pallium Justus Canterbury . The next Archbishop

(Honorius) received the pall , by request from the King, 1 I . from Pope Honorius , and was authorised to ordain C of to York, and York to anterbury, in case the death f 2 o to sa ve til e l on our ne to R om e. either, g j y Thus it was by Papal authority that the outline was drawn in the

f or f ﬁrst instance the organisation o the English Church ,

‘ and by Papal authority that the centre was ﬁxed at

Canterbury .

But it was Theodore wh o, soon after ascending the T 6 f u A D . 68 o C . hrone anterb ry in , broke up the huge , N unwieldy dioceses in the orth , and organised the n Church in general o the more lines to which , ‘deﬁnite f with the addition o certain details, it has adhered ever f since . And Theodore was the gift o Rome to England . Two n sw ki gs , Egbert and O y, had sent a candidate to P a Rome for consecration , who died there and ope Vit lian selected and consecrated in his stead the great of Theodore, who was commissioned by the successor P articu Vitalian , ope St . Agatho, to give a slightly more f late form to the organisation o the Anglican Church . o f It was to have twelve Sees covering the whole B ritain , and their centre was to be Canterbury, which (so h is words ran) “ was to receive the pallium from the Apos ” ou t rece t w for tolic See . In carrying this p p such it was ’ — considered Theodore professed to act with the authority of Rome . We have , indeed, evidence Of the most irre fragable nature that Theodore held that the Apostolicity

" 1 2 d . 1 8 . Wilkins , i . 3 5 . Be e , ii TH E EARLY ENGLISH CH URCH 9 of the Church involved her government by the Apostolic 1 on See . As will be presently shown , his teaching was of all points entirely one with that Rome, and we know ’ to well what St. Agatho s teaching was as the jurisdiction n to and infallibility of his ow See . In his letter the on n of Sixth Council, a little later , he gives the teachi g

of ou r . Rome, as he interprets the words Lord in St of P Luke xxii . 3 2 as applying to the successors eter and 2 for P their infallibility. And the name the ope became “ ” A stolicns in England simply the Apostolic ( po ) , and “ — his See was uniformly called the Apostolic See ah expression which took its permanent place in our eccle ia ical f r s st literature o a thousand years, and which meant on not of tire West English lips the Apostolic See , but the con Apostolic See of the universal Church . And it was sidered to be such n ot as having been the See of the 3 P . imperial city, but as being the See Of eter i m Accordingly, when Archbishop Theodore acted in “ to portant disciplinary matters, he professed act as the

1 2 1 . 2 h u c H i M a nSI x 1 . 2 2. T e C s , 4 Bishop of Stepney h r h ” torical c c u . So iety Le t res, p speaking of the promise of ’ future infallibility considered to be contained in ou r Lord s d P “ d wor s to St . eter, I have praye for thee that thy faith ” : a nd s So fail not strengthen thy brethren , say , far I u d uc P as know, no one s ggeste s h a meaning till ope Agatho pressed the passage into his servi ce about the year

If the Bishop had been acqu ainte d with the writings of St . u d i Leo the Great , he wo l have known that that saint nter re d u p te the passage in the same way as St . Agatho abo t

C N . . P . A . 2 0 ? . . at 5 years before. ] Leon Serm in St etr p , cap 3 3 ’ C Giraldus C am rensis c d c D d f . b , the Ar h ea on of St avi s ,

D e P r i ncz zs I st n 1. . o n r ucti o e . . j , D ist (Rolls Series , vol viii

. H e Is c d P u e p alle ope, as tho gh Fath r of fathers or u d H e d U c u g ar ian of the fathers . is calle niversal , be a se he r i nci a tnr u C H e c d is over (p p ) the niversal hu rch . is also alle ’ A ostolicus c u c P c p , be a se he acts as vi ar of the rin e of the ” Apostles . I O ROM E A N D ENGLAN D

' o f h envoy the Apostolic See . I t was as suc (as we shall see) that he deprived Wilfrid of his See of York ; and as such he described himself in the Council of 6 A . D . Bishops at Hertford, 73 I , Theodore, unworthy of Bishop the See of Canterbury, appointed by the ” 1 Apostolic See . P G . on Another ope, regory I II , bestowed the pall 2 York, and thus the hierarchical constitution of the C hurch in England was complete . And so it remained i n in its main features, with the exception Of a slight terval 8 0 0 , for years . This exception , however, throws such light on the faith of the Church Of England as to the centre of unity and source o f jurisdiction that it a needs speci l mention here . Its history was as follows .

. l e n t om e 3 Li es of j ur isdi ction u nder /ze Car e of R .

f f out In the latter part o the eighth century O fa , of “ ” to n dislike the Archbishop and the Canterbury ation , conceived the idea of getting an archbishop for his ki ng d f om o of . Mercia, independent Canterbury Accordingly he “ long wearied Pope Adrian with his assertions (or 3 P claims), and in the end gained his point . The ope sent the pall for Lichﬁeld to erect it into an archi 4 ff ia episcopal see . But when King O a and Pope Adr n of C were dead, and there was a new Archbishop anter Of i bury, the latter induced the successor Adr an to rescind the decree and to reinstate Canterbury in its

Lichﬁel primatial dignity over d, Worcester, Leicester,

. Kenul h and the rest p , the new king, himself wrote to

1 2 C/zr on . S am A . D . . d . . Be e, iv 5 , 735 3 d . H d u r Ges ta Re a l /z 8 . 1 1 e M almesb y , g , 7, p 9 , ar y

H . . (E ng . ist Series) 4 8 . d d . 1 Roger e Wen over, i 3 (Rolls Series) TH E EARLY ENGLI SH CHURCH I I the Pope a letter remarkable for the Spirit of charity f f with which it speaks both o Adrian and Of a , as also for its simple exposition of the English faith as to the government of the Church . Speaking Of Pope Adrian ’ f son as the pastor o Christ s flock, and of himself as the of “ P of ope Leo, who had succeeded Adrian , and the Apos ’ of tolic dignity Leo s See, he says that he thinks it fit “ that the ear of our obedience should be humbly bowed to to your holy commands , and that what seems your Holiness ought to be followed by us should be fulfilled ” 1 our to with whole endeavour. He appeals the canons , “ ” 2 “ ou r as interpreted by all experts , and the Apostolic ou r statutes , which were decreed to us by most blessed G o f father, regory, by the authority which twelve bishops of to ought, by the order the same father, be subject ” to H e the (Canterbury) jurisdiction . explains that this C applied to London in the first instance, but that anter bury had been made the centre , as the body of Augustine “ of P rested there, in the basilica the blessed eter, Prince ” of how P the Apostles . He then narrates ope Adrian “ ” of 3 had exalted the Bishop the Mercians with the pall, l h’ i . e. Kenu s , as p words clearly mean , invested him with metropolitan jurisdiction . He asks that this may be reversed . N ow Kenul h , p , in this letter, tells us that he is ex pressing the m ind Of all the experts of his kingdom . It is therefore clear that in the judgment o f Anglo - Saxon Christianity the assignment o f metropolitan jurisdiction lay with the Apostolic See .

Kenul h of Moreover, p takes the Opportunity asking the Pope to read through the letter written by Arch “ thelard bishop E , i n concert with all our provincial “ own bishops , concerning his causes and necessities, 1 8 Ges /a Re a i n 8 . 1 2 1 . g , , p 2 ”— 3 u u . ] bi d . i 88 . Peritissim i q iq e M d. 1 2 ROM E A N D ENGLAN D

“ o f of and those the whole Britain , and to open to us in the page Of truth what the form Of faith requires con

' ” 1 cerning the su bjects treated of in the said letter . b e We have, then , in this series Of communications tween Rome and England concerning the Archbishopric o f of P Canterbury, an emphatic expression belief in apal jurisdiction over this realm of England , acknowledged by kings , archbishops , bishops, and canonists . And about seven years later, allusion was made to this arrangement of the Episcopal Sees (so peculiarly an act of jurisdiction) G loveshoe at the reat Council Of English Bishops at C , in “ the following words : The Apostolic Father ( 01 Pope) sent into Britain an authoritative precept of his preroga ’ tive commanding the honour of St . Augustine s See to be restored in all its completeness, with all its parishes

. G [dioceses] , just as St regory, the Apostle and Master i ” 2 f ou r t. o nation , arranged

Tbe E n l i s/z C/znr c/i F ed a nd R ea r ed b R om e. 4 . g y

Thus England received its ecclesiastical organisation h from Rome . And having received it, she cheris ed through those early centuries the closest intercourse with her spiritual mother . From St . Mellitus onwards , bishops went thither to unburden their minds , and to receive direction and authoritative precepts . Bede tells “ us how that ﬁrst Bishop Of London went to Rome to

1 es ta R e zcnz 88 . G g , 2 Sui p riv ileg ii auctoritatis p raeceptum posuit et in B ri n niam e t rze ce it u t o S c u u d ta misit p p , hon r an ti A g stini se is u u arochii s redint e raretu r u cu m omnib s s is p integerrime g , j xta ‘ d c u G u n ostrae a os tolu s et quo San t s regori s , gentis p magister ”— u it . 1 6 A . D . N i c d com pos . Wilkins, i 7 ( ot e the wor “ ” magi ster ; G regory was not held to have laun ched the

c In d and . Chur h Englan , then to have left it to itself TH E EARLY ENGLIS H CH U RCH 1 3 confer with Pope Boniface about the necessary aff airs ” of the English Church , and how, whilst there, he subscribed the decrees of a Council and brought “ back a cow of the sam e to the churches of the English ” 1 to be prescribed and observed . From Rome, also , ” “ t we received , he says, all things in general tha were — necessary f or the service of the Church and what “ were they ? Sacred vessels and vestments for the f or altars , also ornaments the churches, and vestments of for the priests and clerics, as likewise relics the holy ” 2 apostles and martyrs .

Such , then , was the close relationship between England on f or and Rome . She depended Rome her organisa

— i n —i n tion , and she had already the eighth century of Lichﬁeld on the matter the Archbishopric, acted the of a eal to principle s pp Rome in such matters as the

o f . n ot so mutual relations her bishops But only . Her whole tone was Roman ; her method of chanting her of services , the selection the Saints whom she invoked , m her artyrology, her very faith , as well as her discipline, all these were distinctly Roman . There was one man e of in the pr ceding (seventh) century whom Dr. Stubbs writes thus The debt which England owes to Bene B i sco on e dict p is a very great , and has scarcely ever been fairly recogn ised ; for it may be said that the civilisation and learning of the eighth century rested on the monasteries which he founded, which produced of Bede, and through him the school York, Alcuin , Ca on and the rolingian School , which the culture of the ” 3 Middle Ages was based .

1 2 E ccl . i . 9 . 2 In the ninth cent u ry a Continental author speaks of the “ E nglish as those who have always been an d are in closest — the o c . G . onta n familiarity with Ap stoli See esta Abb F .

8 . Pe rtz . . 2 , ii 9 3 ” B iscO . C c . u f Benedi t p, by D r W St bbs, in Smith and I 4 ROME A N D ENGLAND

N ow Benedict B iscop went no less than four times t o Rome in the seventh century , bringing back with him Roman books , Roman privileges , Roman chants, and Roman principles . Once he was accompanied from who of Rome by an abbot, taught the Roman method i “ sing ng and reading aloud , as it was practised at St . ’ ”

. . f Peter s at Rome, says St Bede And the methods o celebrating the festivals of the year thus brought from “ r Rome , says the same autho ity, have been copied by ” many others elsewhere . This same abbot was com missioned by the Pope to inquire into the teaching of C on of the English hurch matters faith , and he found 1 it thoroughly satisfactory from a Roman point of view ; ar j ust as a century later the English bishops, e ls, to abbots, and other dignitaries said in public the of C Archbishop anterbury, Be it known to your pater nity that the faith which we hold is that which was planted at the outset by the holy Roman and Apostolic ee S , under the direction of the most blessed Pope ” 2 Gregory . C Thus, in every way, the hurch of England was N strictly Roman . othing could exceed the close and intimate relations between Rome and England through

- out the early English (Anglo Saxon) period . Kings went to live in the Eternal City to be near the tomb o f the Apostles Peter and Paul ; others to die there in peace ; others, again , to take the monastic habit . The last of these royal pilgrims of whom we have any full account lived in the very century of the Conquest

’ \Yace s D ictionary of Christian Biography al so an article

D ubl i n Rev i ew 1 8 . by Canon M oyes in the , April 9 3 1 ' C aﬂé R e es ta A a t/zon i s A . D . 6 f . J , g g , 79 , where John the “ d o c c Abbot is describe as Ap stoli Legate , sent to ompel Theodore to summon a synod and adj u dge matters of discussion . 2 . 8 nd u 1 11 . . 1 2 A . D . H addan a St bbs , p 5 , 79

I 6 ROME A N D ENGLAN D

N othel m ( 7 Cuthbert Ean berht Wulfred Ceol noth (8 Ethered (8 5 8

received the pall, some from Rome, others at Rome . But at length it became the regular custom to go to

of [ Elf siz e Rome for it, as in the case Dunstan Sigeric Ai lfric f Elf heah Ai thelnoth R odbyrht We have also a list of Archbishops of York who received the pallium tw A . D . to A . D . o from 74 5 9 73 , and again in the eleventh

century . Thus the intercourse between Rome and England in

these early centuries was both habitual and unfettered .

N a o to f or y, if an archbishop did not s on repair Rome of the pall , after the custom going in person prevailed,

the king would urge him to make haste , as in 9 9 St . Anselm (to go for a moment into early N orman times) tells us that in his time an archbishop not going to Rome for the pall within a year of his consecration would (unless the pall had been sent to him) deservedly 1 6 incur the loss of his archbishopric .

1 D un . s ub a n no. Sim . , 2 i orn s a . W . . s a . Chron . Sax . , . . ; Flor g , 3 d . 2 2 . Rog . Wen , i . 7 4 d b rith Chr. . a u o a . L m i rn s . a W o . Flor . g , ; , Sax p Whart n ,

c . s . a . Ang . Sa r , i , 5 d s u b. 80 6 . W i orn . s . a . . . Flor. g , ; Rog Wen , ‘1 W i orn . s . a . s a . Chr. Sax . , . . ; Flor g , 7 i h a u d o . c . . Canon L c f. p Whart n , Angl Sa r , i 8 9 I bi d . Wi o rn . s . a . Flor. g , 1 ° 1 1 Ibi d. s a . Chron . Sax. , . 1 2 1 3 W r . a I bi d . and . i o n s . . I bi d. Flor g , 1 5 I bi d . s a . Chron . Sax . , . ' ’ c n This list diﬂers a little from Kem bl e s . After ollati g ’ au thoritie s I ou d r 1 the vari ous original , f n that that w ite s n u c list needed a few add itions a d some min te hanges . c u c u Of o rse, the list only ontains samples of a niversal custom . “ 1 " cc rece tIOn E . . . 2 . p , lib iii 4 On the o asion of its p h l h h r hb h ] had t o w r b d the of t e pal ] e, [t e a c is op s ea o e ience to 1 TH E EARLY . ENG LIS H CHU RC H 7

Kemble is therefore fully justiﬁed in saying that, as b e a matter Of fact (though naturally regrets the fact), Saxon England was essentially the child of Rome whatever Obligations any of her kingdoms may have been under to the Celtic missionaries— and I cannot persuade myself that these were at all considerabl e— she certainly had entirely lost sight of them at the close of the seventh and the com mencement o f the eighth centuries . Her of K national bishops, as the Kelts and disciples the elts un ustiﬁabl have been j y called , had either retired in dis or n or gust, like Colman, been deposed, like Wi frid, to apostatised , like Cedd . It was Rome that her nobles and prelates wandered as pilgri ms ; it was the interests of Rome that her missionaries preached in Germany and

Friesland it was to her that the archbishops - elect looked — f or their pall t he sign of their dignity to the Pope her ” 1 & c f r or . prelates appealed o redress for authority,

H r o t Wi r id a P r Tbc i sto S . oo a t t 5 5 . y f lf f t/z /ze W/zole of

' the E nglis/z C/zur c/z l ooked to R om e as lzer M str ess r i n Me Sevent/z Centu y .

There was little need of regular appeals in those early of centuries, although the case the Archbishopric of Lichﬁeld in the eighth century shows that the limits Of ecclesiastical jurisdiction could only be changed (in the conviction of the English Church) by the authority f of Rome . But some incidents in the life o Wilfrid prove that the same principle of submitting the lines of ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the authority

Pope In a form whi ch gradually became more stringent in ” u e arly times he undertook a jo rney to Rome for the purpose . ’ - i I i . u H vol . . c . 1 St bbs Const . ist . hap xix . p 3 9 1 ’ ” In d d . d e G Kemble s Saxons Englan , revise by W rey

1 8 6 . 6 . Birch , 7 , vol ii . p . 3 7 B 1 8 ROM E A ND ENGLAND of the Apostolic See obtained in the seventh cen tury also . It m u st be remembered that the Catholic pri nciple as regards the settlement of quarrels has always been that

- i . 1 1 8 . which is laid down by ou r Lord in Matt . xvii 5 Where any disturbance can be settled by the authorities on the spot so m uch the better . This is not ignoring to o of any higher authority, but leaving it do its w rk n deciding o appeal . So that whatever could be settled by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the bishops, would naturally be terminated by their judg ment . As successors of the Apostles they had their of rights and their power rule . But when quarrels could n ot i of thus be settled, the higher author ty the Apostolic

See was invoked, and it was held that in obeying that authority men would “ hear the Church ” in the fullest

. N ow l out sense the history of St . Wi frid brings the fact, that in the ﬁrst century of the life Of the Church in

England, it was the universal beli ef in this country that the Apostolic See was the ﬁnal court of appeal on matters of ecclesiastical jurisdiction . Wilfri d left England with the consent of the kings in whose temporal jurisdiction his immense diocese lay, to be consecrated abroad, since the British bishops at ” r i an d out o f that time were, he said, Qua todec mans , communion with the Apostolic See . Shortly afterwards C had was intruded into his See, and Wilfrid, whose missionary zeal seems never to have been damped, went in the spirit Of the truest humility to work elsewhere . on At length Archbishop Theodore came to the scene , “ and brought with him the decrees of the Apostolic See, ” 1 whose envoy he was, and restored Wilfrid .

1 de m i u s v en er a t d n c . . n e ss Ed i s, xv , U , a phrase that d - d u ecu . u T o freq ently r rs All thro gh , he ore is mentione as having acted in virtue of his relati onship to the H oly See . TH E EARLY ENGLISH CHURCH 1 9

Later on , Archbishop Theodore was induced to pander ’ ’ to Queen J urm enberg s growing dislike of Wilfrid s inﬂu 1 ence ; and b e divided the diocese of his own mere to will , and put three bishops into it , who were foreign those parts , without consultation with Wilfrid, and with 2 out assistant bishops for the consecration . The Arch ’ - P bishop s action was not only hyper apal , but provocative “ of . perpetual discord, as Wilfrid always insisted By ” 3 f - to the advice o his fellow bishops, Wilfrid appealed to Rome, and made his way thither in person , only ﬁnd that Theodore had forestalled him, having sent a monk

e . . . thither with letters from hims lf St Theodore, St Wil

- — frid, and his fellow bishops that is to say, the Church — of England by representation thus all agreed in looking one to Rome for a solution of the question , which was of of strictly ecclesiastical jurisdiction , and all them did “ ” n f 4 so o the ground o its being the Apostolic See . Such was their idea of the Apostolic government of the

Church . ’ Wilfrid s petition to the Holy See was not that the dio diocese should not be divided , but that the separate ceses should be ruled by bishops taken from amongst d the clergy of the present iocese, with whom he could work , and that they should be accepted by the Episcopal P f 5 Synod . The apal sentence was in favour o Wilfrid ; on n wn but, his return , king and obles, nettled at their o arrangement (which seems to have been of pecuniary

1 ’ S t . d The u Eddins Life of Wilfri . q otations are from 1 the edition in the Rolls Series of Citr oni cl es a n d M em or i a l s o Gr ea t B ri ta i n e ed The H the f , ntitl istorians of Church of ”

a nd c . 1. York its Ar hbishops , vol The reason given here E ddius E adm er d by is also given by , in his Life of Wilfri , ca ) 26 . 2 3 4 dd n ca . . [ bi d Eddi us ca . . E i s, p xxiv , p xxix 5 a . It C p . xxxii is important to notice the real nature of ’ d u Wilfri s petition , beca se it is often exaggerated . 1 8 ROME A ND ENGLAND of the Apostolic See obtained in the seventh cen tury also . It must be remembered that the Catholic principle as regards the settlement of quarrels has always been that

- 1 1 8 . which is laid down by our Lord in Matt . xviii . 5 Where any disturbance can be settled by the authorities on n the spot so much the better . This is not ignori g o of any higher authority, but leaving it to do its w rk n deciding o appeal . So that whatever could be settled by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the bishops, would naturally be terminated by their judg ment . As successors of the Apostles they had their of rights and their power rule . But when quarrels could not of thus be settled, the higher authority the Apostolic

See was invoked, and it was held that in obeying that authority men would “ hear the Church ” in the fullest

. N ow out sense the history of St . Wilfrid brings the fact, that in the ﬁrst century of the life of the Church in

England, it was the universal belief in this country that the Apostolic See was the ﬁnal court of appeal on matters o f ecclesiastical jurisdiction . Wilfri d left England with the consent of the kings in whose temporal jurisdiction his immense diocese lay, to be consecrated abroad , since the British bishops at ” out o f that time were, he said , Quartodecimans , and communion with the Apostolic See . Shortly afterwards C had was intruded into his See, and Wilfrid, whose missionary zeal seems never to have been damped, went in the spirit Of the truest humility to work elsewhere . on At length Archbishop Theodore came to the scene, “ and brought with him the decrees of the Apostolic See, ” 1 whose envoy he was , and restored Wilfrid .

1 de om i ssu s v ener a t ddiu s c . . Un E , xv , , a phrase that T d - d u cu . u freq ently re rs All thro gh , heo ore is mentione as having acted in virtue of his relationship to the H oly See . TH E EARLY ENGLISH CH URCH 1 9

Later on , Archbishop Theodore was induced to pander ’ ’ to Queen J urm enberg s growing dislike of Wilfrid s inﬂu 1 ence ; and he divided the diocese of his own mere who to will , and put three bishops into it , were foreign those parts , without consultation with Wilfrid, and with 2 u t o assistant bishops for the consecration . The Arch ’ - P bishop s action was not only hyper apal , but provocative “ of . perpetual discord, as Wilfrid always insisted By ” 3 of - to the advice his fellow bishops, Wilfrid appealed

m to Rome, and ade his way thither in person , only ﬁnd that Theodore had forestalled him, having sent a monk Wil e . . . thither with letters from hims lf St Theodore , St — - C frid, and his fellow bishops that is to say, the hurch — of England by representation thus all agreed in looking to of one Rome for a solution the question , which was of of strictly ecclesiastical jurisdiction , and all them did f “ ” 4 so on the ground o its being the Apostolic See . Such was their idea of the Apostolic government of the

Church . ’ Wilfrid s petition to the Holy See was not that the diocese should not be divided , but that the separate dio ceses should be ruled by bishops taken from amongst the clergy of the present diocese, with whom he could work, and that they should be accepted by the Episcopal P 5 Synod . The apal sentence was in favour of Wilfrid ; on wn but, his return , king and nobles, nettled at their o arrangement (which seems to have been of pecuniary

1 ddius . d The u E Life of St Wilfri . q otations are from the editi on in the Rolls Series o f Citr oni cl es a n d M em or i a l s “ o Gr ea t B r i ta i n d The H f , entitle istorians of the Church of ”

a nd c . . Th York its Ar hbishops , vol i e reason given here E ddius E adm er by is also given by , in his Life of Wilfrid, ca ) 26 . 2 3 4 E ddius ca . . I bi d . E ddi u . s ca . , p xxiv , p xxix 5 I . t C ap . xxxii is important to noti ce the real nature of ’ d u d . Wilfri s petition , beca se it is often exaggerate 2 0 ROME A N D ENGLAN D

to advantage them) having been set aside, declared that P the apal decrees were forged, and Wilfrid was thrown 1 into prison . Wilfrid had brought with him relics from on Rome, which the Queen stole and wore her person , keeping them under her bed at night, and driving about with them by day. She was shortly afterwards possessed of a devil, and in consequence Wilfrid was released, and her Majesty recovered .

‘ There was nothing in all this action of royalty and of n nobles which Anglicans ought to be proud . It co of sisted lying and brutal tyranny, and the Archbishop unfortunately connived at these irregular proceedings . no It is evidence that these people, when in their senses, disbelieved in Papal Supremacy, any more than it proves God their disbelief in , against Whom they were in Open so rebellion , far as their falsehood about the decrees and their brutality against Wilfrid was concerned . Indeed , if they had not believed in Papal Supremacy, they would have had no occasion to resort to falsehood ; P they would have resisted the decrees as apal, not as 2 forged . The Archbishop had played a thoroughly bad part e d on any th ory, and had he die in this mood he would not have been known to posterity as St . Theodore .

B ut he made a good end . He bitterly repented his

1 dd n . . E i s , cap xxxiv 2 d c all M r. Lane goes the length of asserting, in eﬁan e of u d d c c u documental a thority, that they resiste the e rees be a se “

ll N h. H . . I . C they came from Rome ( otes on ist , p H Canon Bright protests against this perversi on of his tory . e “ ” d c . says , This is to ignore evi en e p

N e u d c . H e c u M r . y goes f rther still in ignoring evi en e a t ally d had asserts that after Wilfri been thrown into prison, so ended (si c) what was probably the ﬁrst ecclesiastical appeal a nd d u to Rome, it ten s to prove that p to this time the Church of E ngland was wh olly independent of the Pope of ” ” an d . Rome The Church her Story, p

2 2 ROME A N D ENGLAN D opponents had only too gladly taken advantage of his consent to something short of entire fulﬁlment of the

Apostolic decision .

Wilfrid appealed once more to Rome, and Ethelred, Ki n o f g Mercia, decided to do nothing until the matter had been settled there . Wilfrid went again in person C B erthwald ac to the Holy ity, and the Archbishop ( ) cordingly sent legates thither to place his own side before the Apostolic See . Wilfrid asked particularly for the possession of the monasteries given to him by King P ’ Ethelred, and for the fulﬁlment of ope Agatho s deci Aldfri — f d . o sion by King But , he added and this is — m e . of i . e i portanc that if this last part his petition , , the of entire fulﬁlment the original Apostolic mandate, should seem hard to the King, he might at least have Ripon — and Hexham , with all their lands and possessions this ’ of being a substantial feature Agatho s decree, who had included them under the same privilege . ’ Archbishop B erthwal d s legates only put in the plea that Wilfrid had disobeyed the j udgment Of the Arch f “ ” bishop O Canterbury, the envoy of this Apostolic See — the insistence on which appears to have amused the

Bishops of the Roman Synod . P i The apal decree acquitted Wilfr d, and ordered B r hwal i e t d to hold a synod, in conjunction with Wilfr d, to determine the best course, and to bear in mind the 1 decree of Agatho and his successors . The matter was of P thus, by order the ope, left to some extent to the of — in possibility mutual agreement fact, to an amicable “

ou t f . settlement o court The Archbishop , compelled by Apostolic authority, came to a peaceful arrangement w to with Wilfrid . King Ethelred did the same, s earing ” Observe the writings of this Apostolic See . Moreover,

1 Eddius : . , cap liv THE EARLY ENGLIS H CHU RCH 2 3

as he was about to resign his crown and retire into the “ Coenred to cloister, he bound over his successor, , obey ”

Coenred do . the Apostolic decrees, which promised to

fr There was more difﬁculty with a king like A ld id .

At ﬁrst he seemed amenable to reason , but then he fell ’ on bei n back the absurd plea that Theodore s decision , g i bai o a n envo o tbe A ostolic See a nd o a l m ost all t/ze f y f p , f rel a tes o B ri tai n to to p f , ought be obeyed . He chose ’ of disregard Theodore s repentance , and the real mind

of . for the rest the bishops This, however, lasted but a

while. He repented in an illness with which he was z sei ed, and which he attributed to his disobedience, and “ P ” vowed to God and St. eter that if he should recover “ he would make good the desire of the holy Bishop ” of Wilfrid and all the decisions the Apostolic See, a vow of made in the presence , and attested by, the Abbess f ’ 1 o . Whitby, for some time Wilfrid s opponent SO far the evidence is complete as to the universal recognition of the Sec of Peter as the proper court of f appeal or the Church in England . But there is still more decIStve evidence in the conclusion of the whole matter. “ B erthwald of The Archbishop, , at the command the ” 2 coim cil of Apostolic See, held a all the bishops and “ of N abbots and nobles, with the King the ortherns of himself. Ethelred had satisﬁed the desires his piety, and exchanged his crown for life in a monastery, where he had died and been succeeded by his son . The ’ f Elﬂeda Abbess , of Whitby, once Wilfrid s Opponent, was present . The Archbishop Opened proceedings by stating that he and Wilfrid had letters from the Apostolic See , “ to which they were asked read in English . We should ” “ like to know, said the Synod , what the Apostolic

1 E ddius ca . . , p lix 2 ” r e A os oli d Ed E x aec to t cae d . p p p se is, lx . 2 4 ROME A N D ENGLAN D

authority says . The Archbishop replied that the “ of judgments the Apostolic See were long, but that he would give them a summary . The Apostolic power, P f which was ﬁrst given to eter, the power o binding own and loosing, has decided by its authority concerning

Blessed Wilfrid, that they should be reconciled to him .

To these my fellow- bishops the option of two decisions ” is given by the Apostolic See . They were either to enter upon a thoroughly peaceful understanding with or Wilfrid in accordance with the previous judgment , to go together to the Apostolic See and have matters decided there in a larger council . Bishops would then be deposed and laymen excommunicated if they dis “ f obeyed . These are the judgments o the Apostolic ” See in brief. Some bishops (those who were aff ected by the change) “ of still pleaded that the decisions Theodore, the envoy of of Ec fri d the Apostol ic See, and King g and the bishops ” Of nearly all Britain , must hold good . But the Arch bishop replied that the King i n his last will had made vow to God a and Saint Peter, saying, If I shall live , I will fulﬁl all the judgments of the Apostolic See which ” t I formerly refused to obey . If he died, his heir was o “ be told to fulﬁl the Apostolic decision concerning Bishop ” for of . Wilfrid , the healing my soul A nobleman then bore witness to the fact that the King and his nobles “ had decided that we should obey the mandates of the Apostol ic See and the precepts of King A ldfrid in all ” W things . Accordingly, peace was made with ilfrid, and he received the monasteries of Ripon and Hexham and of all the returns due to him , and a scene general recon — ciliation took place they kissed and embraced one to God to another, gave thanks , and returned their 1 several homes . 1 ddius ca . E . , p lx TH E EARLY ENGLISH CHU RCH 2 5

6 Som e A n lica n Wr i ter s on t/ze E a r E n lis/z . g ly g

N ow a o ne of , it has been said by an Anglic n writer in f the lectures o the Church Historical Society, recently “ t published, that we may admi that the gradually a developing medi eval theory, almost complete by the last quarter of the eleventh century , looked upon the P w C ope as head of the hole Western hurch, and upon all bishops as in some sense deriving their authority from him . We may admit that this view was largely N ” 1 accepted even in England after the orman Conquest .

- But he appears to deny this of the Anglo Saxon Church . We have now seen how such a denial can only be made of how in deﬁance the records . Further, we have seen certain it is that in the Anglo - Saxon period the See of o f P of Rome was regarded as the See eter, the head the and Sec f Apostles , as the o that Apostle, it was regarded not of as the head , simply of the Western , but the Uni f versal Church . But this writer adduces as proof o the independence of the Church of England the title con “ l f iz stant o v . y used her from early times , , the Anglican ” l es a A n l n TO Church (E cc i g ica a ) . this it has been replied that the term, as used in early English history, no w did not mean what Anglicans understand by it . “ C no Professor ollins, however, urges that the point is, t that Gregory or any other individual calls us the English C hurch (or the like), but that nobody has ever called us anything else (p . Professor Collins does not seem to of have grasped the nature the Catholic reply, which is simply that men meant in those early days by the term

1 . E . C M A P . . cc Rev W ollins , . , rofessor of E lesiastical ’ “ H C e nd istory at King s oll ge, Lo on ; Ch urch H istorical ” c c u 1 8 6 So iety Le t res, 9 , p . 43 . 2 6 ROME A N D ENGLAN D

English Church that portion of the Universal Church — which is in England the Universal Church (England i n t/zei r conce ti on included) being, p , under the headship of the Apostolic See . I n other words, their conception , ” o r faith , was the same in this respect as that of Roman

Catholics now . Whoever (whatever their number) Spoke Of the English Church then meant a Church strictly . u dependent on Rome in the matter of j risdiction . To argue from the mere expression is ﬁrst to give it a new meaning, and then to use it in argument with that mean ing . The foregoing considerations prove that the meaning “ of the term was in those days that part of the Church ” wb o entre R m e . ( se c is o ) which exists in England . St a C 1 do Thomas Becket calls it the Anglican hurch , as also the Popes themselves, and we know what they meant . “ But Professor Collins haz ards the statement that the English Church acted in the matter of Bishop Wilfrid ’ without paying the least attention (sic) to the Pope s ” 2 decisions in his behalf. All that has been said above of amply proves the unhistorical character this statement . But we may also appeal from the Professor of Eccle ’ siastical History at King s College to the Professor of . H d 3 “ Ecclesiastical istory at Oxfor , who says that he would be much deceived who should imagine that the temptation to manipulate facts, to misinterpret the pur port of events, or to read unwarrantably between the s lines of document , has never been too strong for ” “ Anglicans . And he gives as an instance that it is often assumed that the N orthumbrian Church and realm in 68 0 rejected the Roman decree in favour of Wilfrid as as being Roman , and constituting an interference . ” 4 C ’ This is to ignore evidence . But even anon Bright s

1 d . G . E . . e pp p 73 , iles 2 ” u H c u N 0 . . . 8 . Ch rch istorical Society Le t res, iii p 4 ” 3 2 1 Waymarks , p . 4 . 4 c c d Professor Collins begins the paragraph in whi h , a cor TH E EARLY ENGLISH CHU RCH 2 7

“ own estimate of the aff air is not quite adequate ; for “ although he admits that great respect was professed for ‘ ’ ” “ b e Apostolic decisions, yet urges that Wilfrid had to ” be content with far less than Rome had at ﬁrst awarded, as though this argued some sOrt of independence o n the

B ut part of the other bishops . we have seen that the whole affair ended in complete submission to Rome on the part of the English Church— to Rome as the Apos — tolic See and that Wilfrid Obtained all that he desired . ’ of . N What, then , are we to say Mr ye s statem ent that ’ the ﬁrst appeal to Rome ended with Wilfrid s imprison ’ ff ? . ment or of Mr Lane s deduction from the whole a air, “ iz P v . , that it proves that apal anathemas were nothing accounted o f in those days These are books that c one have been cir ulated by thousands, the by the

’ Church Defence Institution , the other by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge . And what are we to say of the statements of a writer f f who o a very dif erent order, would have us believe of that the atmosphere our island home was, before the

u of ff Conq est, fatal to the idea settling di erences by any 2 appeal to the Apostolic See ? The ﬁrst two centuries

' of English Ch urch life sawarchbishops u niform ly going

f r rece1 v1 n to Rome o the pallium , or g it thence , English Synods avowing that they held the faith planted here of f or d from Rome, the limits jurisdiction the Arch iocese

“ ” P d c ing to rofessor Bright , he ignores evi en e, by saying “ ” that a very superﬁcial knowledge is s u fﬁcient to prove his thesis . 1 “ u d N C u c H . Ill strate otes on h r h istory , p 9 3

M r . Lane mistranslates a passage f rom Eddi ns c c d m the writings oming , as they alle it, fro Apostolic ” “ ” “ . It u d c ou &c . The See sho l be, oming, as y say, as ” “ ” “ ” ou c c y say refers to the oming, not to the Apostoli See . ’ “ ” C . 2 1 . f . Bright s Waymarks , p 4 2 “ o C N C u c Bish p reighton, ational h r h in the M iddle ” Ages, p . 3 . 2 8 ROME A N D ENGLAND of Canterbury settled at Rome in answer to petitions a o from England, and the great qu rrel as to jurisdicti n in the N orth settled by the judgment of the Apostolic See . N O one supposes that the Church of England grew less Roman in the next two centuries ; but if her principles the now remained the same, only religious body in England that can justify her claim to continuity with the early English Church is that which looks to Rome as of of o f her court appeal, by reason Rome being the See P the Apostle eter.

What , again , are we to say of a writer who can so defy “ all historical evidence as to say Pope Gregory made

C E cclesi a A n l or u m of us a national hurch , g , the Church the English ; nothing Roman in its name or c ons titu tion ; looking with conﬁdence across Europe to Rome for sympathy [as if this were a ll ] ; proud of its connection

- of with the greatest city of the world , the greatest See the West [when it is always called in England the

of or Apostolic See, or the See Peter, the Holy See] ; but proud with a national English pride that knew nothing of the barbarous Imperial Byzantine ceremony ’ o f kissing people s toes [not a very refined way of speak ” w of ing], kne nothing subservience to a foreign power [as if owning the See o f Rome to be her mother was the same as “ subservience to a foreign power 1 It would be hardly possible to pen a sentence in more flagrant contradiction to history than that rather flippant one “ ’ about ktssm g people s toes . The allusion is to a solemn ceremony whi c h has had the sanction o f all nations at all times , and , not least, of the English nation N o one who for 1 0 0 0 years . has read ever so little of f the original documents o English Church life, but is aware that an ordinary way of commencing letters to

1 “ ” i v. the H c c c u N o . Chu rch istori al So iety Le t res, , by

S . 0 . Bishop of tepney , p 9

3 0 ROME A N D ENGLAND T eudul hus &c. of p , ; but he places the Bishop Rome co by himself ﬁrst, That a py be sent to the Lord Apos ” “ . P tolic He then says , Another also to the atriarch ” “ Paulinus ; and then similarly to R ichb onus and Teudul hus p , bishops, doctors, and masters, that each ” r may answer fo themselves . The division is here mani — fest the Lord Apostolic , the Patriarch of Aquileia, and the two Bishops, who were theologians . It does not matter (as the Bishop of Stepney thinks) whether these r are separated by full stops, or commas , o by nothing. The terms in which they are spoken of sufﬁce to sepa rate them . For we know exactly what Alcuin meant by “ ” the Lord Apostolic . He meant one who held the

ex keys, and was supreme over all bishops, and whose ca t/zedr d of teaching was the norm the Christian faith . “ 0 most excellent Father, I acknowledge you to be the ’ Vicar of his [Peter s] most H o ly See and the heir of his w ” wonderful po er. When these words of Alcuin were produced in answer to the Bishop ’ s deduction —that

Alcuin thought all the persons mentioned by him , who were to receive a copy of the book, were on a par in fﬁ not regard to the teaching o ce, because each (he did sa y Of the four, but , as was pointed out, he may have

t/zr ee meant of the ) was to answer for himself, and their agreement was to be considered evidence of the heretical or of — orthodox nature the book, this answer was met by the Bishop saying that the quotation showed not that P b Alcuin believed in apal Infalli ility, but only that he held that the Pope had power to cleanse from sin and w 1 I t open the heavens to those ho believe . might be pointed out in answer that such a power involves f in allibility in teaching . But there is no need Of ’ this ; f or there can be no doubt about Al cui n s teach

1 u c H c c c u 1 8 6 . 1 00 . Ch r h istori al So iety Le t res , 9 , p TH E EARLY ENGLISH CH URCH 3 1

o n ing this subject , since he says in his ninetieth letter “ - c Lest a man be found a schismatic, or a non Catholi , let him follow the most approved authority of the holy

“ Roman Church , that whence we receive the beginning

o f C the atholic faith , there we may have the exemplars f — o the salvation, lest the key bearer of the heavenly king dom exclude such as he shall re c ognise as a li ens f r om ” ll is doctr i ne. These last words are conclusive against the Bishop ’ ’ o f Stepney s deduction from A lcu in s words about the ff book being sent to four di erent persons . It was Obviously sent to the l or d Apostoli c for a different cou ld not t purpose . Alcuin have meant o put the judg “ ” ment Of the Lord Apostolic on a par with that of

not ne essa r i others . The words in question do c ly mean h t is . They must therefore be interpreted in accordance ’ i ’ Al cuin s vi ce ersé . M ne s with known teaching , not v g “ c off pun tuation , therefore, which separates the Lord ” . of Apostolic, seems to be right Anyhow, the Bishop ’ Stepney s interpretation is wrong, for the matter does t on of no depend punctuation , but the meaning words .

It will be seen from what has been said above, that another statement of Professor Collins cannot be main “ f viz . ained , , that it would be easy to show in detail P that other apal encroach ments in England, such as ” o f 1 legations and appeals, were quite late date . He P P gives a quotation from a letter Of ope aschal I I .

H . 1 1 1 H e written to enry I in 5 . concludes the para “ graph wi th saying that the English Church had not yet begun to multiply appeals and refer e nces to Rome as ” she did later . With this latter sentence we have no of quarrel . It proves nothing against the thesis this m ulti l ica ti on of to book . For the p appeals may be due

1 bi I d . . p . 49 3 2 ROME A N D EN GL AN D

. f various circumstances I t is the principle, and su ﬁcient the instances of principle, that is alone in question in regard to continuity . But that legations were in force long before this time is quite certain . Bede mentions the legation of the Abbot John in the seventh century ! “ A . D . 8 two Pa G o And in 7 7 pal legates , eorge and The h l act n t p y , were se t into England by Hadrian the First o reform abuses which had crept into the English Church ca itul a and of the p then drawn up, the legates say in their report to the Pope that the English “ in humble subm ission and undisguised readiness promised to ” o f obey in all particulars . The signatures the bishops 1 o f both ecclesiastical provinces are affi xed . P And the letter from which rofessor Collins quotes, f “ ” as though it proved the late introduction o legations , was only one incident of a long struggle between Hen ry I . and the Popes, in which Henry maintained that, because the Archbishop of Canterbury was entitled to the autho f n rity o Papal legate within the kingdom, there was o n ot need of special legates . It was the repudiation of to Papal authority, for that was held be exercised through the Archbishop by reason of his legatine powers ; nor did Henry venture altogether to refuse entrance to special P legates . A succeeding ope conﬁrmed the Archbishop o f Canterbury in his le gatine authority ; but he did not bind h imself to send no more special legates, although ’

. C he forbore to do so during Henry s reign onsequently, the whole struggle does not in any way establish Professor ’ Collins thesis, that the Church of England was inde f pendent o the Apostolic See, nor even that there were “ no legations until the twelfth century. P Once more , rofessor Collins gives three reasons why

1 u c . d The Alleged Antiq ity of Angli anism , by Rev Sy ney ’ H dd and u 1 . 8 F . Smith , sec. , p 5 , who refers to a an St bbs ” 6 u . 2. Co ncils, p 3 TH E EARLY ENGLIS H CHU RCH 3 3

“ the claims made on behalf of the pallium may be n t of resisted . He is ot quite correct as o the nature “ those claims . It is not true that the Roman Canon Law by inference seems not to allow a metropolitan t o ” “ consecrate a bishop until he had it , if by Roman Canon Law is meant that which obtained in the time Of

G G t P . regory the reat, o whose words rofessor Collins refers

It was enough to have applied for it, and to have had it ’ promised . But let that pass. The Professor s demurrer to our claims is based ( 1 ) on a passage from Fulbert of C “ hartres, of whom the Professor says, no less a canonist ” nlbert r on C than Fulbert, as if F had w itten a book anon 1 Law. If the passage, which , as it stands, is ambiguous, P to really means what rofessor Collins takes it mean , it n of only establishes that o e bishop, high character, in f con the beginning o the eleventh century, said what is tradicted by the great body of canonists throughout the n Church . We must remind Professor Collins that o e of swallow does not make a summer. The opinion a single bishop would not decide the question for a Catho n lic . And certainly Professor Collins h imself would ot abide by the j udgment of Fulbert on the subject of P apal Supremacy, for, in another letter, he gives the approbation of the Roman Pontiff as a necessary condi tion of Episcopal jurisdiction . And in the next letter “ but one he addresses Pope John as Most beloved t Father, o whom the care of the whole Church has been ” 2 P committed . Moreover, the letter from which rofessor Collins quotes can hardly be considered a sufﬁcient indi ’ f ul b rt s P cation o F e judgment, since, if the rofessor had continued the letter, he would have had to tell his

“ ” 1 P C d ut c rofessor ollins om its the wor , whi h makes the d 1fﬁ l P senten ce he quotes cu t to understand . robably it “ ” should be at . 2 8 a d oa nem Ra a m . E . p 4, j n p 3 4 ROME A N D EN GLAND

“ ulbert to be r er enced readers that F says, Some things ev by u s are contained in the privileges of the Roman

C b r eason o our ne li ence hurch , which , y f g g , are not found

our . C in archives learly, therefore, on his own show ’ on ing, Fulbert s judgment this subj ect could not be considered ﬁnal , nor indeed of great weight . ’ ( 2) Professor Collins next reason can be disposed of “ in few words . It is that no less an archbishop than

1 0 0 Lanfranc consecrated Thomas of York in 7 , although he did not receive the pallium till the following year . But it was an express arrangement on the part of the Pope that the Archbishop Of Canterbury should cou se a crate bishop for York, and that York should do the for of same Canterbury, immediately upon the decease 1 either. So that it is not a case in point . (3) The third reason is concerned with the complaint of the Archbishops of Germany in 1 78 6 about the ex f pense o the pallium . This does not prove that the pallium was not the sign of j urisdiction, nor that if they had refused to receive it they would have remained within the Church . In the next paragraph the Professor makes the follow “ ing statement : We know that Augustine and Theo Al he e dore, Dunstan and p g , Lanfranc and Anselm never ” f P i . e. o took this oath , an oath obedience to the ope ” f to on receiving the pallium . It is proverbially di ﬁcult — prove a negative i h this case impossible . The oath became more full an d express as time went on ; but

that , at any rate , Lanfranc and Anselm took an oath t P of obedience o the reigning ope seems beyond doubt. of o f For instance, Lanfranc Canterbury, and Thomas

to . York, went Rome together to receive the pallium Did they take an oath of obedience ? If we turn to

1 u Ges ta Re u m A n l ...... 1 Malmesb ry , g g , vol ii lib iii p 3 5 ,

a 1 0 2 r and d . 1 8 s . . 7 (Rolls Se ies) B e e, ii . TH E EARLY ENGLISH CH U RCH 3 5

’ “ Canon Raine s valuable History of Four Archbishops ” H C . of York, by ugh the hanter, we ﬁnd Urban I I , in “ of a letter to Thomas York, saying incidentally, You , after having received the pall from the Apostolic See , after having sworn fealty , as is the custom for metro ” 1 olitans who p . It cannot be supposed that Lanfranc, received the pallium at the same time as Thomas of 2 no t to . York, did also conform this custom If Augus d not tine and Theo ore did actually take an oath , they certainly understood that the pallium bound them to a of N special connection with the See Peter. either they nor Dunstan can be conceived of as capable of reﬁ ning an oath , when it had become the custom to take it, which is the position of an Angl ican bishop . As William of “ n to Malmesbury expresses it, Dunstan arra ged to go ” 3 Rome to receive the ensign of his primacy .

’ l — D un tan N o a A great deal is made of St . s s refusal to restore a man to the Sacraments , after a mandate from of Rome in favour the same . But we are told that to of f bribery was used corrupt some the o ﬁcials, so that

P not . the ope had the real case before h im St . Dunstan w kne this well , and said, When I shall have seen him for doing penance his fault, I will willingly obey the precepts of the lord There is not a tittle of disrespect for Papal authority in this . The Pope would of have sanctioned such an interpretation his command .

” 1 H C u . 1 1 . 1 0 istorians of the h rch of York, vol . p 3 (Rolls

Series) . 2 Flo rence of Worcester tells us that Lanfran c was con secrat ed by two bishops who were ordained at Rome by P N c for d d d d d ope i holas, they avoi e being or aine by Stigan , be cau se the knew that he had n ot received the pallium ’ c c . u c c anoni ally S h was the tone of the English Epis opate.

- / r . W s . a 1 0 0 o . F ig . 7 . 3 ta M . Cos R e u m su a n o , g , b n . 4 “ ” Vi ta a uct. B ad m . M D , , emorials of unstan (Rolls Series) ,

20 1 . p . 3 6 ROME A N D ENGLAND

There was no breach between Dunstan and Rome .

His life, by the Saxon priest (anonymous), the earliest on m hi m authority the subject, akes a most ﬁlial son ’ of Ead m er s the Holy See . account of him , that the P “ Roman ontiff, having delegated to h im the legatine of t authority the Apostolic See , appoin ed him pastor to ” 1 of the nation the English , expresses a feature of his m inistry which comes to the front again and again . “ John XII I . wrote to King Edgar, saying, We concede by all means from this Apostolic See what your Excel loncy has laid before us through our brother and fellow ” 2 . bishop Dunstan, sanctioning it by Apostolic authority And when the saint desired to expel certain loose - li ving “ of canons, he did it relying upon the authority John , f ” 3 the Prelate o the Apostolic See .

1 “ Vi ta u . 1 . , Memorials of D nstan , p 9 9 1 ff 1 . e Re est P t . Ja , g a on iﬁa , i 9 7 3 Vi t . 2 1 1 . a a uct E adnz. u , . , M emorials of D nstan , p

3 8 ROME A N D ENGLAN D

C of hurch , which he is himself a member and esteemed ffi o cial . We must therefore understand his quotation of the ’ Conqueror s words to suggest some repudiation of Papal or Supremacy, the quotation would be meaningless in the context in which it occurs . It is, anyhow, a matter ’ of importance to show that William s words involved no of sort repudiation of that supremacy , for this is certainly the interpretation commonly put on these words by “ Anglican writers . Mr . Freeman thinks it a truly English on of utterance the part the Conqueror, comparing him to Tosti g ; and Dr. Stubbs, instead of dealing with the d wor s himself in his Constitutional History, refers to 1 this passage in Freeman . Mr. N ye, i n his book , which is at present selling by thousands, and which was for some time circulated by the Church Defence Institute, under f the superintendence o the Archbishop of Canterbury, ’ states plainly that the Conqueror s answer to the Pope “ to about homage helps us to understand that, up the of N P urisdic time the orman invasion , the ope had no j ” tion Over the Church or Crown of England . It would be unfair to suggest that BishopCreighton would sanction such an unhistorical statement as this ; bu t it is never thel ess evident that these words of the Conqueror are i considered by him , as they are by Anglican histor ans

in general , to bear some resemblance to the repudiation of Papal Supremacy in the sixteenth century, and to

for m a note of continuity - with the present Anglican

position . to It. becomes important, therefore , consider what

1 sti d To g , an English nobleman, having been robbe on u d c d how P his return from Rome, o tsi e the ity , aske the ope E n d If could expect his dec rees to be obeyed in ngla he u could not protect a man from robbery near Rome . A tr ly P rotestant kind of logic ' WILLIAM S REF USAL TO D O HOMAGE 3 9

to exactly these words do mean . And the ﬁrst remark not con be made is , that they do occur alone, but in nection with something else in wh ich the Conqueror to C not acquiesced ; that is say, the onqueror did merely refuse homage, but he agreed to collect the ’

f . arrears o Peter s pence What, then , was the homage ’ which he refused , and what were the Peter s pence ? which , in the same letter, he promised to pay

To understand the whole question of homage in c on nectio n P with the apacy, it is necessary to bear in mind the peculiar and commanding position which the Papacy held amongst European states in the Middle Ages . When the barbarian hordes that had overrun the greater part of the Western Empire settled down within its of precincts, Europe found herself in a state general disturbance . Lesser powers, under such circumstances, of naturally gathered themselves under the shelter greater, and sought to maintain their own lesser sovereignty by

f rl ords means of the protection o ove . The lesser power paid a tax to the greater as a symbol of the protection which i t could claim ; for without the protection of of something beyond itself it had no chance existence . Thus the feudal system naturally covered the greater part

Of Europe . one But there was power which , in the general belief

Of Christendom , was invested with an authority beyond — an to the rest authority which extended the other world, ’ and whose decision on certain m atters aff ected men s everlasting future . It was a power which men recognised on on as acting, the whole, principles which lay at the — root of social stability the principles of j ustice and 4 ° ROME A N D ENGLAND

clemency . Consequently, in the midst of a society f governed , like that o Europe , by the feudal system , this — centre of moral and spiritual inﬂuence called univer “ ” “ — sally the Apostolic See, or the Holy See naturally “ ” n of took its place . amo gst the protectors European institutions , and it often became in the temporal order — what it was so suited to become ah over lor d. It was the one stable thing amongst the shifting social clusters or precarious centres of rule which appeared and dis appeared as the passing characters of a play on the stage 1 of human aff airs . the of And when , in end the ninth century , the C n — aroli gian dynasty was found wanting that is to say, when the centre of overlordship and protection had given way those who looked for a means of imparting perma

‘ h ence to the civil or religious institutions which they had or brought into being, those who were endeavouring to

of o secure the continuance such , and f und themselves on without a rock which to stay their feet , naturally turned to the one power which contained within it the

’ n t nc promise a d po e y of permanent existence . It had n of od been there, in the provide ce G , to save and to

' build up afresh the conﬂicti ng elements Of European society in the days of a N icolas and John VI I I . ; and of it was here, towards the m iddle the eleventh and twelfth centuries , to conserve what had been gradually built up with its own assistance . Monasteries naturally led the way in seeking the pro t ection of the Holy See . Their founders felt that in such protection alone lay any hope of permanence for n these institutions . They eeded protection, ﬁrst and

1 ﬁn d ud d We , however, that the fe al terms as applie to the relationship of p owers to the H oly See were u sed in T . h a l ooser sense e analogy cannot always be pressed. ” C ﬁ H e r enrother C and . j g , hurch State, Essay xiii ’ ' WILLIAM S REF USA L TO DO HOMAGE 4 1

foremost, from lay interference but they needed it also h i n of from simoniacal bis ops, the harpies, those days, purely diocesan institutions . The Episcopate was never meant to rule the Church apart from the Apostolic See . f of The overlordship o the Holy See was, course, liable “ to abuse, and it is impossible to deny that exemptions from episcopal jurisdiction led at times to serious evil . But the normal protection given by the Holy See to monasteries and other institutions did not involve their withdrawal from episcopal jurisdiction ; it chieﬂy safe f r guarded the freedom of election to the post o uler.

rote tor . An overlord was a p c In Roman jurisdiction ,

' which m ost frequently governed the relations of these no use institutions to the Holy See, he had right of he had no power of alienation he was the advocate of the not institution , not its immediate lord ; its patron, its direct proprietor. But it was not monasteries alone that sought the f protection and assured advocacy of the See o Rome.

Cities and kingdoms did the same . When they ﬁrst appeared in the midst of conﬂicting states, and had made good their right to take their place amongst exist — ing Societies or when they were in danger of being rudely exterminated by a neighbouring power possessed of with the lust dominion , they would seek to secure their existence by placing themselves under the protection of the Holy See. Thus the Isle of Man maintained i ts P independence by becoming the vassal of the ope . In this way the Papacy found itself gradually invested w with a new po er, over and above its position of supreme arbiter of all that immediately concerned the integrity of — the faith a power only accidentally connected with its Spiritual magistracy ; but it was the universal belief in its supremacy over all Churches which underlay the of centripetal movement the nations to the Holy See . 4 2 ROM E AN D ENGLAN D

ex er It was as the See of . Peter that it acquired and c ised its accessory lordship in the temporal order. The idea which runs through the juridical documents of those “ centuries is, that in placing themselves u nder the pro ” tection of the Holy See they were placing themselves f under the protection o the Apostle Peter . Hence men placed documents on the tomb of the Apostles in the C Eternal ity, commending themselves , in legal phrase and this was often considered a sufﬁciently formal declara tion of the new tie contracted between themselves and the Apostle, whose successor was bound to give in the hour of need that “ protection ” which they desired to secure. And this right to protection was asserted on the one on side, and acknowledged the other, by the payment of a tax, which symbolised the relation of protection, patron n of age, and advocacy o the part the greater power to s m b oli the lesser . The tax migh t be small and merely y or o f cal , it might take the shape an acknowledgment o f the duty of special service in return for the protection of promised . But it might also take the shape an act of bom o homage , whereby the person became the (or man) of the other ; and he who performed the act of homage of was bound, i n most cases, to special forms service, such as supplying a military contingency in case of war. It will thus be seen that a distinction must be drawn b etween the act of homage performed to an overlord , tax and a paid in the way of claim to protection, and as a symbol of the consecration of authority by a special P relationship contracted with the Apostle eter. The act of homage was not by any means an inseparable acc om panim ent of a certain amount of fealty : a looser tie

u P . might exist , but still a real relationship j st as hilip I o f di France d away with the homage of bishops, but exacted an oath of fealty . ’ WILLIAM S REFUSAL TO D O HOMAGE 4 3

We are now in a fair way to settle the meaning o f ’ William s words to Pope Gregory VI I . , in which he to admitted the obligation of the tax, but refused render homage .

t out But, before passing o this, it will be well to point that the rights of the See of Peter either to homage or to pecuniary remittances did not originate in any clutch on ing after power her part . It was not her fault that C hristendom at large believed in her as the See of Peter, or that a general conviction of her sense of j ustice per vaded the nations ; it was not her doing that men “ ” sought her protection . If they called her the Holy own Apostolic See , this was not her creation ; it was o wn their religion that thus expressed itself. Through C not hristendom men recognised that, if she did always act in the most perfect way in dealing with e the temporal interests that clustered round her thron ,

“ n she had o patent of infallibility in such matters . It no of no of was part their faith , as it is part ours, that her Occupant could not err in some regions of ' w action . But that she displayed, on the hole , an amount of j ustice and a power of dealing with distant details, which was peculiar to her, was recognised by all , and will be admitted to this hour by those who consult history rather than prejudice . Had the Holy See been always occupied as in part Of the tenth century, she on must, e would suppose, have gone the way of merely human institutions ; but in . the eleventh century, with n w which we are o concerned , she was destined to have t on N a Leo IX . o carry the traditions of a icolas the

G . reat and of a John VI I I , and at the particular time in that century with whic h we have to do she was pre sided over by a Gregory VI I . This latter Pope, amongst of other gigantic works, reorganised the ﬁnances the Holy

See . He saved the archives from utter destruction , and 4 4 ROME A N D ENGLAND

reduced a ﬁnancial chaos to something like order . And it was with him that William the Conqueror had to f do. He it was who, a ter the Conqueror had been a f ew on years the throne , ordered him to send the arrears ’ of Peter s pence, and whose legate suggested that in his new position he should bind himself by a special tie to th e Holy See . G on It may well be that regory, in proposing to the C qu eror that he should accept the special protection of the

Holy See by doing homage, relied on the statement of

Alexander I I . , who had said that England had been “ always under the hand and guardianship (m a nu et ” tu t a P el ) of the rince of Apostles . He must also have been aware of the declarations of such kings of portions of England as Off a and Ina ; and of the expressions used by Ethel wulf in the name of the western portion of i n England, and again more recent times by King l 1 Knut in the name of the whole of Eng and . C The onqueror, however, disputed the historical fact, and refused to regard his newly acquired kingdom as being of in need entering upon the condition , honourable as it of a was considered in those times, such v ssalage as was a expressed by the act of hom ge . Whether he was wise or not in this refusal is not the question ; but he was with in his rights, regarded merely as a spiritual subject 2 of ff P G . the Ponti , and this ope regory himself admitted William ’ s act had no reference to the spiritual supremacy f P . o of the ope That , indeed, was no matter dispute

1 ’ The Bishop of Stepney s account of this matter Ch.

Soc . . 8 ccu e. H e H ist. p 9 ) is most ina rat thinks that

G V I I. d u d c o C on regory claime , n er over of the D onati n of “ ” s tan tine d . , the ownership of all the islan s of the West Ow ners/zip was not in question it was not in cl uded in pr o tecti on a nd a ct o d id . , the of h mage not involve it 2 i n sem E i sc E . . e . a d H u onenz D e pp , lib ix. p 5 , g p , M igne , 8 0 1 . 6 1 . vol . 4 , p

4 6 ROME A N D ENGLAND of of not overlord to the kingdom England, did raise, not t f and was meant o raise, the question o the supreme of P of power of the See eter over all Churches, that

England included . C William the onqueror did, indeed, introduce the 1 tyrannical custom of admitting or forbidding at his own

a l a ter e royal pleasure, not legates, but legates , from Rome ; but he never dreamt of certain ecclesiastical f matters being settled without the authority o Rome , and that by means of legates and the Archbishop of Canterbury was invested with legatine po wer i n per 2 tu m n t p e u . He did o count his crown to have been on properly placed his head until it had been set there, not merely by the Archbishop of York , whom he rightly of of conﬁrm a selected instead Stigand , but also , by way P 3 tion , by the apal legate ; and he had already, before the question of homage came on , invited the legate to

hold a council at Winchester, in which it was said that “ the Church of Rome has the right of supervision over ” all Churches . He allowed the Papal legate to depose r Stigand from the Archbishopric of Canterbu y, just as even William Rufus looked to a legate to depose Anselm from the same See— Canterbury being considered to have no superior in ecclesiastical matters except the See of

' 1 e c d d z . . Tyranni al as regar e his own people, who were not ’ d d c consulted on the matter. See Wilkins e i ation of his

a n u m o u s I I . ud m i h m g p to George , for his j g ent on the ’ novating character of William s measures In this respect

( Can a l . p . 2 For the appointment of Lanfranc by Pope Alexander II . ’ 6 In d c . Con czl . . 2 . as his plenipotentiary Englan , f Wilkins , i 3 3 ’ 1 0 0 . G d d in A D . 7 regory s letter is generally ate “ 0 . N e 1 0 66 P 1 . 74 M r y , speaking of , says that the ope at on ce (s i c) u rged the Conqu eror t o pay homag e to the Ch u rch ”

s i c . d and was ( ) of Rome Eight years elapse , the homage N e i not what Mr. y imag nes . ’ WILLIAM S REFUSAL To D O HOMAGE 4 7

C Peter . Lanfranc of anterbury and Thomas Of York were permitted to go to Rome to receive the pall . ’ s The sum of the matter o far is this. The Conqueror s refusal t o do homage to the Pope concerned the question of a speci al relation to the Holy See on the part of the ki n dom of w g , hich relation William denied the previous no of existence and present advisability. I t was sort ’ a of P protest gainst the supremacy St . eter s See over all bur es the C clz .

’ P eter s P nc 2 . e e.

’ Having shown that the Conqueror s refusal to do homage to the Pope carried with it no sort of repudiation f P S o apal Supremacy in matters piritual, we will now ask W the question , hat did William admit by the payment ’ of Peter s pence ? That the payment of this tax outside of England indicated, in the second half of the eleventh century , the recognition of a certain consecration of the royal autho — rity to the Prince of the Apostles a kind of overlord to — 1 ship tendered the Apostolic See is beyond doubt . It was the token of a special relation to him and to his

See , such as, for instance, would secure protection in on f case of absence the Crusades . The burden o proof that it was otherwise understood by the English at that time lies with those who deny this .

There can , however, be no question that in England it was also connected from the earliest times with the ' of need maintaining the School , and the other institutions of which gathered round the School, those Saxons who

1 “ ” d ud Li ber Cens u u m See an a mirable st y on the , by

. P u B i bli ot/ze u e des E col es F r a n a M a l Fabre , in the q c i s es ’ d A t/zen es et de R om e c . 62 P 1 8 2 c , Fas , aris , 9 to whi h I am d d in ebte for some of the materials for this chapte r. 4 8 ROME A N D ENGLAND

or went to study reside at Rome . So close was the tie between Rome and England in those early days ; so eager was the Saxon mind to reap the advantages of

- of C study at the mother See hristendom , and of residing at times close to the tomb of the Apostle Peter— whence f came, according to their belief, the jurisdiction o their bishops— that a cluster of Saxon institutions grew up in ff the city of Rome . And Ina, King Of Wessex, and O a, of King Mercia, both taxed their people for the mainte i n nance of this Saxon School the Eternal City . Our f or 1 authority the ﬁrst is Matthew Paris , and for the 2 of . second, Henry Huntingdon , and others who have on copied from him . The tax was at ﬁrst levied each f family, and accordingly dif ered in amount .

But it is equally certain that, as time went on , if not,

indeed, from the ﬁrst, this was not the only object of ’ F r Ethel wulf the Peter s pence . o , in the ninth century, , “ ' oﬂered to God and to Sai nt P eter we are told , an to annual tax of a penny, be paid by each house in

England ; . this tax is known now, says the writer, ’ ” 3 under the name of Peter s pence. And this tax ’ f Eth l wulf s son G was in the time o e , Alfred the reat, a — ﬁxed due part for keeping up the light in the basilicas

f . P o St. Peter and St aul, and part for the privy purse on ﬁrm est of the Pope. We are here the possible ground, 4 A sserius for our authority is , the contemporary of Alfred, 5 of and Florence of Worcester. And in the end the “ o~ ninth century we meet with mentions, in the Angl ” “ of of a nd Saxon Chronicle, the alms the West Saxons ” 6 so of King Alfred being sent to Rome . And , again,

1 Lua rd . V ol 1. . 1 . . p 33 ed (Rolls Series) 2 d . P and B ri t . 0 A . e . n H i st. M o . , p 73 , ; etrie Sharpe 3 u Ges ta Re u m . 2 . William of M almesb ry , g , ii ‘ ” 1 i 2 M n . H st. B ri t . f d o . Li e of Alfre , , p 47 5 M on H i st. B ri t . 2. . , p 5 5

- ed. T . Anglo Saxon p . 68 horpe ’ WILLIAM S REF USAL TO D O H OMAGE 4 9 the Chronicle of Ethel werd draws a distinctio n b e

' tween the alms of the people and the al m s of the “ Phle m u n 0 . A D . 8 King Archbishop g d ( . 9 ) took alms

of R om e ' and on behalf the people to , from Edward ” on i . a. behalf of the King, as being due from him as 1 E helwulf . King and successor of t Obviously , by this

on f r of time , there was a tax the people o the support of the Saxon School at Rome, inaugurated by Ina

ff of ﬁ x ed Wessex and O a Mercia, and also a charge on the Royal Exchequer, dating from the time of E thelwulf l , in regard to a portion of Eng and, and adopted by the whole country when under a single ruler. There is an important entry in the Black Book of the f P ’ Archdeacon o Canterbury , in which eter s pence is 2 traced to this latter origin alone .

And if we look a little further into the matter, we shall see an indication of the idea that underlay this latter tribute in the account given of it by the contem rar po y writer already quoted . Asser says that when Ethelwulf son sent young Alfred, his favourite , to Rome,

Leo IV. in a way adopted him as his spiritual child, and Ethelwulf gave him the royal unction . King then went himself to Rome and engaged to send an annual sum to P of 3 the Apostle eter in the person his successor .

av i seein c One can hardly o d . g in this a certain onsecra of of tion his kingdom to the Prince the Apostles, and “ an instance of what was known as the commendation of person or property to an overlord .

1 1 1 i t 11 07 . H s . B r i t . 1 C. , p 5 7, 2 20 ’ In fol . 5 there is a statement as to the origin of Peter s

c . d u E thelwulf d pen e A elph s ( ), father of King Alfre , granted

00 cu 1 0 0 d u . P to Rome 3 man ses towar s the hono r of St eter, for the lights of the ch urch there 1 0 0 for the like honou r of “ . P u and 1 00 P U St a l ; for the ope niversal, to amplify his ” arms . 3 H t. r M on i s B i t . 0 A . . . ed P and , p 47 , ; etrie Sharpe . D SO ROM E A N D EN GLAN D

These two forms of tax blended in the following cen tury , and were collected all over the kingdom, as appears 1 from the laws of Edward and Edgar ; and the net result was applied to the twofold purpose of the Saxon School f at Rome and the support o the Holy See . But the term P ’ eter s pence soon came to signify in England, as else of where, the special consecration the kingdom to the P o f Apostle eter. The letter King Knut to his people “ ” 2 0 1 w in 1 3 speaks of it as what we o e to Saint Peter. And more than thirty years later a letter of Pope Alex f “ ander I I . speaks o the English as sending an annual o f pension to the Apostolic See, which part was paid

to Pontiﬁ of . over the Roman , part to the Church St ’ Mary, which is called the Angles School .

So that Pope Gregory V I I . had some ground for sup a posing that England had united herself, as kingdom , to P in a special way the See of eter, and for thinking that William of N ormandy might well be recommended f to swear fealty by the act o homage . But William as he looked round about saw himself quite safe by this time from enemies outside his island home, and felt no “ ” need of protection ; but on the other hand he was Christian enough in his belief to recognise the value o f of the consecration authority, which was symbolised by

- the payment of Peter pence . Accordingly , whilst he declined the special relationship implied in the act of homage, he agreed in the same letter to pay up the

- arrears of Peter pence .

1 “ ” w n . E n P u bli c R ea t 8 o . . A nc . a d La s Inst of g , , 4 , p 73 3 i t . . M on . H i s t. B r W or n . F l or . ig ; , p 59 7 C HA PTER III

W T N SE TH E ITN ESS O F S . A L M

’ r B i s/za Cr e /zton s A r um ent . p ig g

I F there is one saint in the calendar who has hitherto

n . m or bee , e than others, looked upon as a typical Eng of lish Churchman, that saint is the great Archbishop

Canterbury who resisted William Rufus . But , as already I n oticed C , Bishop reighton takes the Baronage of Eng land , and not St . Anselm , as the true representatives

o f C of . f the hurch England The barons, in spite o N our their orman origin , had, according to author , quickly learnt their lesson , and , inﬂuenced by the ” of had atmosphere their island home, come to feel that both he [Anselm] and the King alike were bound

’ to maintain the customs of the realm , and settle their dis ” “ ” to . putes by reference them alone They said, when refusing to support the Archbishop in carrying his appeal “ t to Rome, that it was contrary o the customs of the ” realm which he had sworn to observe ? Their action is accordingly adduced as an instance of how the Church on of n admitted Papal jurisdiction grounds utility, but ot as an essential part of the system . The barons supported him in withstanding royal tyranny ; but they refused to ib support him in carrying his appeal to Rome ( zi ) .

1 C s u r a . I . f p , p 2 “ ” N C u M d The ational h rch in the i dle Ages, by Bishop

Creighton, p. 3 5 2 R OME A N D ENGLAND

f We have already seen that the customs o the realm , n to which allusion is here made, were ot ancient , but o n old innovations the English ways , introduced by the o Conquer r. St . Anselm was really making a stand for l “ o d English customs . The atmosphere of our island ” home was favourable to the closest relation of sub ordi nation to Rome until William the Conqueror attempt-ed ’ 1 to restrict the Archbishop s intercourse with Rome . We shall now see that B ishop Creighton has misinterpreted the situation in the rest of his account . The fact is, m that the barons supported St . Ansel when he was opposing the King on the question of obedience to the See of Peter in spiritual matters ; that they refused to for on support him, and that only a while, a side issue ; f and that they afterwards, in the matter o investiture, strongly recommended an appeal to Rome . I may add that neither these barons nor that King, with whom

Bishop Creighton considers himself in continuity, were

“ favourable specimens of humanity ; and if the barons our on have to be placed on side and not his, it is not because we value their support , but because we are t unable o admit that, if we consult history, even their support can be claimed by the B ishop of Peterborough and his co- religionists But if we do not value highly the opinion of the barons, we certainly prize the judgment of the Arch C bishop . And the enthusiastic admiration in the hurch r of England, for so many centu ies, for the names of Anselm and a Becket shows what site thought of the ’ “ ” Conqueror s customs . She invoked their names in

" 1 ’ l i a I . C W Com i D d c G I . . f . ilkins , e i ation to eorge , p iv c c and c d Wilkins was an Angli an anon ar h eacon, to whom we owe an immense debt of gratit ude for having preserved C c and c d t hree i n several Acts of onvo ation, colle te in his , o u u u da ta i cc i i c val u able vol mes, n mero s for Engl sh E les ast al

H istory .

5 4 ROM E A N D E N GLAN D

C 1 s satisfy the anons . If we are to take his word simply as they stand, they breathe no spirit of personal reluctance , but proceed on the assumption that things “ which were not necessary might be laid aside for the ” present distress . He wished for a dispensation from what he took to be the accidents of his relation to the

See of Peter . He had found himself in unexpected f di ficulty, for the King had introduced the innovation that no archbishop should leave the shores of England no to P r without his leave, that claimant the apal th one should be recognised without his consent, and that no Papal brief should enter England without being sub 2 ected to . j his inspection In the latter point St . Anselm “ ” resisted the new custom throughout ; but in the first ’ point he was at the King s mercy . Moreover, he had ’ “ ” the made himself in temporal matters King s man , f he had performed homage, and taken the oath o fealty, and as a baron he was unable to leave England without 3 royal sanction . But there were cases in which the King was clearly bound by canon law to give his leave to an 4 archbishop and it was here that the conflict arose . of old It will be seen , therefore, that the customs the

1 ’ Lanfran c felt that he could himself d o by the Pope s u ec d b u t a thority all that was n essary ; what was a visable, not

V I I . had of c c u d . G ne essity , o l wait for better times regory

c . written to the King, making Lanfran his plenipotentiary 2 “ u Th r d c d Bishop St bbs says, e a rangement is es ribe by ”

u E m r Const . H i st. the faithf l historian ad e as a novelty ( ,

i x . i . 3 u d This is an important point . It was on this gro n that ’ the barons for a while seconded the King s tyrannical appli

c ation of his rule . 4 It must be carefully borne in mind that the word ” G customs has nothing to d o with antiquity . rosseteste speaks of two successive acts creating a cu stom and our d da u d n c t o English wor to this y , se , for insta e, in reference — taxes has nothing to do with antiquity it simply means

d u d . es, however recently create TH TN E N E E WI SS OF ST . A S LM 5 5

English Church were in jeopardy in presence of the i n

novations of the Conqueror. We have already seen that ’ “ Bishop Creighton s expressions as to the atmosphere ” our of island home are altogether misleading. What the barons would derive from that atmosphere would be f dependence on Rome, not the idea o disputes being

necessarily and ﬁnally settled where they arose . It is always better if they can be thus settled but when they “ ” n ur can ot, the idea in o island home was that they ‘ ” C should be told unto f the Church ; and the hurch , in ol of the judgment of d England , sat in her supreme chair d ju gment at Rome . But William Rufus was intent on ’ taking a page ou t of the German Emperor s book ; and N on the orman barons , though the whole they settled of G down to English uses, were, in this matter erman n l ising the English Church, ot who ly proof against the

of . pressure the Red King It would not, however, be si m l correct to say p y , as Bishop Creighton does , that

they supported the King against St . Anselm in the ques t tion of appeals o Rome . They gave a temporary support ‘ ﬁi an - to ru . their master William , but it was only temporary

’ A n um n l m a a t/ze P alli . St. se 3 .

St . Anselm, after having been consecrated, much against

his wish , to the Archiepiscopal See, and having allowed to some months to elapse , announced his desire go to to Rome, according English custom , in order to receive n the pall . The Red King objected . He had ot yet

recognised Urban I I . , to whom the Archbishop proposed

of . P to go, as the legitimate successor St eter ; and he n P 1 seemed in no hurry to acknowledge any o e as ope . The German Emperor had assumed the right to say

1 ’ cu It lay in the King s power, if this new stom were d d c d d P d . a mitte , to elay the a knowle gment of a ope in eﬁnitely d P Urban ha been ope for six years. 5 6 R OM E A N D ENGLAN D which Pope he would recognise in his dominions ; and ’ from one or two expressions in Eadm er s account it is evident that the Red King was proposing to play the

Emperor in England. St . Anselm , however, had given notice to the King, before consecration , that at Bec he had already placed himself under obedience to Urban I I . , and that he should not withdraw that obedience . The ’ quarrel then turned on the King s right to determine P which was legitimate ope, and to keep the Archbishop waiting until he had come to a decision on the matter. of I n the course, however, the friction which ensued, the of tw whole question of the relation the o authorities ,

P . ope and King, came to the front The matter was reduced to the plain issue as to whether loyalty to the King could be reconciled with obedience to the See of P P eter. Was there a region of action in which the ope i n whic h was supreme, and , therefore, the King had no right to hamper the obedience of the Archbishop ? Was i n not the reception of the pallium at Rome a case point, in which no archbishop could be rightly hindered from of or applying for that symbol j urisdiction in person , at least explaining to the Pope why he did not apply ? 1 of Had the new customs the Conqueror and his son , fﬁ William Rufus, any su cient authority to interfere with h l . w o o d English ways ? St Anselm , proved to know of English habits well , became the representative these ; whilst the King and his simoniacal bishops , imported w “ on ne . from abroad, took their stand the customs When Bishop Creighton says that the barons supported the King on the ground that St . Anselm and his royal “ master alike were bound to maintain the customs of ” the realm (p . he appears to suggest that they were

1 ’ A u d St . nselm s letter to the Bishop of Lyons sho l be H e consulted on this subject . therein gives his objec t in

E . going to Rome ( p , lib. iii . T H E N SE WITN ESS OF ST . A LM 5 7

to venerable customs, and ignore the fact that the King “ ’ called them simply his own and his father s customs , and the barons called them the same. They were not of appealing to the older customs the English , but to

f uh - innovations o foreign importation , English , contrary to the immemorial usages of the early English Church . of But even so, they did not go the length laying down the principle that the King could altogether prohibit the ’ c N Ar hbishop s access to the Apostolic See . either King, nor s nor bishops , barons, went o far as to maintain that under all circumstances the King and Archbishop were bound to maintain the customs of the realm , and settle ” their disputes by reference to them alone, as Bishop

Creighton puts the case . Apart from all the past history of the nation (of which probably St . Anselm alone amongst them had any real knowledge,considering the character of C the King and these uneducated barons), the ouncil of of C London , under Lanfranc, had spoken the ouncil 1 Sardica of as an authority, and that Council distinctly provided for appeals from bishops to the Apostolic See few and Lanfranc, within the last years, had taught that he came to England “ c ompelled by King William [the C ” 2 onqueror], and ordered by Pope Alexander, and had asked the Pope to allow him to return to his cenobitic life by the same authority as that by which he accepted f i . e. the archbishopric, by the authority o the Apostolic ” 3 See . And , in obedience to the same authority, he had visited Rome with leave reluctantly wrung from the r Conque or . Anselm therefore insisted upon being confronted with the question as to whether the King could lawfully hinder him as a baron of the realm from going to Rome to

. 1 . Mansi , xx 45 2 ”

c C c d . Win hester hroni le, Appen ix 3 E . 1 ed. G p i . 9 ; iles . 5 8 R OME A N D ENGLAN D

P receive the pallium from the ope, whom he had already recognised ; insisted, in strict accordance with English o n usage, referring the question to the proper tribunal

iz re re v . in the ﬁrst instance, , the nation as a whole , as p sented by bishops and barons and knights in council assembled . The Archbishop brought the question before this tribunal in the following shape : Was it a constitu t ional principle that loyalty to the King and obedience to the See of Peter were incompatible ; the discussion of the point having been forced upon him by the Ki ng’ s t own refusal , in deference o what he called his and his ’ of father s custom (and thus far only a custom the realm), to allow the Archbishop to go for the pallium in person , — or advise the Pope why he had not come the refusal being grounded on the plea that the King had not yet recognised the particular Pope under whose obedience Anselm had placed himself before his consecration ? 1 At the Council which was now convened at Rocking ham , Anselm laid down the following principle in pre ” sence of the bishops after quoting the Tu es P etrus ou (Thou art Peter, and He that heareth y , heareth ” Me, he continued These words, as we have received them as having been spoken principally to Blessed Peter, and in him to the other Apostles, so we hold them to have been spoken principally to the V icar of Blessed P eter, and through him to the other bishops, who act in of to or place the Apostles ; not any emperor, king, or ” or . on C duke, count And later , at the same ouncil, he “ made the challenge , Let him who, because I will not

' renounce obedience to the supreme Pontiﬁ of the holy

1 ’ “ The narratives in E ad m ei s H i s tor i c: and in his Life ” of Anselm should be read together with the letter to the

. d d d E . . an Bishop of Lyons alrea y mentione ( p , lib iii it will appear beyond contradiction that this was the exact state u of the q estion . 7 N E TH E WIT N ESS 0 1 ST. A S LM 5 9

C of Roman hurch , would convict me violating the sworn we to fealty which I o the earthly king, stand forth , and in the name of the Lord he will ﬁnd me ready to answer ” 1 him as and where I ought . The barons were non plussed , knowing, as the contemporary historian says, that an Archbishop of Canterbury could be judged by none but the Pope . The whole multitude was with

Anselm . And a knight came forward and knelt before f “ him , and bade him be o good cheer and remember blessed Job conquering the devil on the dunghill , and — e. avenging Adam who had fallen in Paradise i . reﬂect n that , though he seemed trampled o , he was the real conqueror . The whole assembly murmured applause .

Further, when his great episcopal opponent, William ’ of on Durham , had to face the Red King s fury hear ’ ing of Anselm s courage, he recom mended his royal master to take the crozier and ring from Anselm by mere force ; for on the ground of reason he said there was “ ’ to nothing be done , since all his [Anselm s] reasoning ” on f f rests the words o God and the authority o Peter. — But whilst bishops the meanest of men in the davs of — William Rufus could stoop thus low, the barons could n “ ot. And this is where they supported Anselm in n withstanding royal tyra ny, as Bishop Creighton puts it 2 ; that is to say, they supported him in withstanding ' the King when the King was all but persuaded into

z depriving the Archbishop of his cro ier and ring , b e cause he insisted on recognising the jurisdiction of the of P of C See eter over the See anterbury, whether the King chose to recognise the occupant of the Apostolic r See o no .

1 E adm r H i s t e . N ou s ub a nno 1 . , , 09 5 2 “ The barons supported him [Anselm] in withstanding b ut u d u royal tyranny, they ref se to s pport him in carrying ” a N . it . his appe l to Rome ( C , p 6 o R OM E A N D E N GLAN D

now C urisdic And the question arises, ould such a j ’ our tion , traceable to Lord s own words, exist without o f i t P— i n Can some right appeal to other words, this action of the barons be considered as excluding ’ i m appeals to Rome, as Bishop Creighton s antithesis ? f plies Did they not, by their support o Anselm , give t heir su ffrage in favour of a jurisdiction which neces saril ? y involved appeals to the Apostolic See Indeed,

u we may ask another q estion , Did the King himself, thoroughly bad as he was, feel that he was in a country in which all jurisdiction of the Apostolic See over the See of Canterbury could be dispensed with and treated as null and void ? It is certain that the King had no K such idea, any more than the barons ; for the ing at this very time was secretly negotiating submission to P ope Urban , and asking for the pallium to be sen t to himself, so that he m ight give it to whomever he pleased . He had no idea of dispensing with that in strument of jurisdiction from Rome ; he had no idea of an independent Canterb ury in matters spiritual ; his only idea was to impede the exercise of Papal jurisdic tion so far as it stood in the way of his course of sacri rufﬁanism lege, licentiousness , and . He now, in hopes , it would seem, of injuring Anselm , ordered that Urban should be recognised as the legitimate Ap ostol icus ( pr o 1 A ostoli o a ber o f P N o p e lz i ) or Vicar the Apostle eter. one dreamt of an Apostolic government of the Church being carried on in permanent separation from the Apos toli eus to rob , although William Rufus did his best him of such powers as would interfere with his own sinful life . He now endeavoured to induce the legate , who c ame with the pallium , to exercise the power which the f c o . Pope alone possessed, deposing the Ar hbishop He

1 d . Lu rd . 6 . E ad m er H i s t. N ou s ub a n no 1 0 e a , , 9 5 , p 9

6 2 ROM E A N D EN GLAN D

took it, and thus established his continuity with all pre vious archbishops .

Religious , matters i n England went from worse to of o f worse under the tyranny the Red King . The life the Church was at a standstill no synod had been held n during the reign, and the Church could ot live true to herself without synodical action ; a form of unnatural sensual indulgence had enormously developed in the 1 in country ; simony reigned rampant, and the King of vented every conceivable means despoiling the Church . He was now proposing to sue Anselm for the inadequate of character, as he deemed it , the military contingency i provided by the Archbishop for the war n Wales . St. Anselm felt that the only thing to be done was to take ” of counsel the common Father of the Christian people, P 2 as St . Augustine called ope Melchiades. But n o baron could leave the shores without the K ing’ s to of leave, and, according the new customs the realm , this applied specially to the Archbishop . For the K ’ Baronage was the ing s council, and the Archbishop , ’ who was also baron, was by law the King s spiritual adviser. At the same time there were cases in which it was clearly understood that the King could not , with out some urgent reason , if at all, refuse his leave to the 3 w Archbishop. N o Anselm desired the counsel of the P of ope on the whole state things, and demanded that he should be allowed to have recourse to his spiritual

1 . . 62 A e . . d c nselm , lib iii , p The many e rees in regard r c H ri d cul u n to wea ing the hair, whi h Dean ook i es , thro gh ot u d d had d o eff C u n erstan ing them, to with the orts of the h rch to suppress the unnatu ral vi ces which now come u nder the w cc u c riminal l a . For a short a o nt of these ’ “ H r ca 1 . see Lingard s en y p . 2 62. E . al . 1 p 43, 3 This appears from what William Rufus said as t—o there being no s zgﬁ ci ent reason for Anselm going to Rome s ufﬁ c d the R ed ient , that is , to the min of King N E 6 TH E WITN ESS OF ST . A S LM 3

on superior. The King refused ; but Anselm persisted, the ground that his approach to the Holy See was need

1 of 2 of ful ( ) for the good his own soul , ( ) the cause ’ C “ own hristianity , and (3) he added , of the King s ” honour and advantage, if he would believe it. He consulted the bishops as to this his right, begging them to assist him . Their answer is noteworthy. They said that they were simply afraid of the King. They had their relations and possessions to look after, and could ’ not afford to incur the King s anger. They said they could not soar to the unworldly heights on which St . w Anselm d elt. S All these bishops , as Freeman hows , had bought 1 themselves into their sees , and hence their contemptible ” servility. So low, says the same historian , had the prelacy of England fallen under the administration of N f d Rufus and Flambard . either as priests o Go , nor of nor as Witan the realm , simply as freemen of the

or . land , was there any strength counsel in them Their answer seems almost to imply that they cast aside the f f common decencies, not only o prelates, but o Christian ” 2 men . on Anselm , however, insisted his right (which indeed ﬂowed from the mere fact that he wore the pallium) t of access o the Holy Father. He went and placed ’ himself by the King s side , where he had a right to sit, and expostulated . He told the King that he had only ’ promised to obey him seeu naum D eum (according to the God will of ), and saving the supremacy of conscience r reet tudi nem (pe i ). But the King said there was no

of . not n mention this Anselm , caring to insist o its

’ express mention, said that at the very least this was implied . The King shook his head, and the barons 1 “ ” 8 u . . The Reign of William R fus , i 34 '

l . bi a p . 49 5 . 64 R OME A N D E N GLAN D

“ joined in with their assent . Anselm went on , What ” 1 you assert not to be in accordance with your custom —notice that expression that I should seek (r eou i r am ) Blessed Peter and his Vicar for the sake ’ of of my soul s safety, for the sake of the government C h od — I the hurc of G , which I have undertaken pro n ounce this custom to be contrary to God and upright not not w ness, and therefore only to be kept, but I avo that it ought to be altogether spurned by every servant f ” “ o God. After more in the same strain , he said, The to od fealty which I owe G and His service, compels me to P approach the ope, the head of Christianity , and to C seek counsel from him . Here the King and ount er Rob t interrupted the Archbishop, saying that he was “ ” preaching a sermon , and with this the barons agreed .

But Anselm did not cease until he had said plainly, To

e. n swear this [i . ot to approach Blessed Peter and his u Vicar] is to abj re Blessed Peter . And he who abjures P C who r i ne em eter, abjures hrist , made him head (p ip ) ” 2 over His Church .

After this, neither King nor barons prevented his going. r As he left the chambe , a messenger from the King fol “ ” lowed him , and said , Behold, you will go, but he was to take nothing with him that belo nged to the King . for Then orders were given his departure, difﬁculties were to be placed in his way, but he was not to be ut f . o actually prevented rom going But before setting , the great Archbishop went into the ferocious despot ’ s presence, and claimed to give him his blessing the King bent his head, and he and Anselm never met again in this world .

1 Con s u e/u di n i s true. 2 d . Lu ard i . A n l . s a nno 1 0 e r H s t. N ov ub E adm e , g , , 9 7 ; ,

86. p . T N E 6 TH E WITN ESS OF S . A S LM 5

’ n ned B i s/l o Cr e to s D educti ons E x a m i . 5 . p n

of not The inconsistency, then, these barons was (as

Bishop Creighton interprets it) an intellectual ﬂaw, but a moral fault . It did not (as he asserts) consist in their thinking that Papal j urisdiction was a weapon to be not brandished , but used ; it showed itself in a craven servility to the worst King that ever wore an English — crown i n cringing to his despotism when he chose ’ to repudiate the notion that the Archbishop s oath of fealty implied a saving clause by which matters of obedience were limited to what was right and in accordance with the will of God . If Bishop Creighton

' wishes to claim continuity with men in such a degrad n i but . t ing act, we can say othing ; would imply more Erastianism in the present Establishment than its worst t foes have been accustomed to attribute o it . And certainly the inconsistency cannot be said to ’ to C have come, use Bishop reighton s phrase, from the f ” atmosphere o their island home . We had no such licentious tyrants in England before William Rufus ; and though there was servility in barons , there was no dis position to hinder an Anglo - Saxon archbishop from N r having access to the Apostolic See . o is it correct to say simply , as Bishop Creighton does, that the barons “ refused to support him [Anselm] in carrying his appeal ” F r to Rome . o when not under the mad fury of a licentious despot, like the Red King, the barons behaved ff di erently they joined i n with the next King (Henry I . ) in advising Anselm to go to Romeand get the matter of 1 investitures settled there .

1 “ Since it is y our com m on desi re that I should go [to d “ sai Anselm to the barons in the next reign , I will u d u u n ertake the jo rney, altho gh my strength has left me ” ld . C d o i E adm . H i st N o . a n . n s a 1 1 0 I am growing f , , . 3

i . (Rolls Ser es, p 6 6 R OM E A N D E N GLAN D

N ‘ either, again , was the appeal spoken of by Bishop Creighton an appeal from a matter which had gone through any English courts and needed to be settled

by an ultimate court of appeal . This was no case of

that kind, and therefore cannot fairly be quoted as a precedent for repudiating all appeals to Rome as a ﬁnal

court . It concerned simply the general question as to the right of an Archbishop of Canterbury to approach ex his ecclesiastical superior, that superior having, ’ b ot/zesi ur wn i nstitu yp , been made such by o Lord s o

tion . For against the Divine institution of that supre n r macy neither the King, nor bishops, o barons had a

word to say . The King himself tried to utilise this con victi on d , so deeply rooted in the English min , when the legate came with the pall the bishops admitted it as a matter of doctrine at the Council of Rockingham and the of t barons supported St. Anselm in his maintenance hat

doctrine when a bishop , who had himself appealed to

Rome in past days, suggested to the King a forcible ’ 1 deprivation of the Archbishop s crozier and ring . And the man who was selected for the contest on behalf of Papal in place of royal supremacy in the of government the Church , was, not as Bishop Creighton s P uggests, a mere foreigner he was , as rofessor Freeman “ o f N describes him , the teacher ormandy, the shepherd f o England , the man who dived deeper than any man m of before him into the most awful ysteries the faith , t but whom we have o deal with as one who ranks, by adoption , among the truest worthies of England , the man who stood forth as the champion of right against both political and moral wrong in the days when both ” 2 was political and moral wrong were at their darkest . He ’ “ the man who, to use the same writer s words, became

1 u William of D rham . 2 ’ “ ” 6 . u u . . . Freeman s William R f s , vol i p 3 7 N E 6 TH E WITN ESS OF ST . A S LM 7

of the idol of all the inhabitants England, without dis ” h of f or . w o tinction age or sex , o rank race He it was ﬁrst entered upon the conﬂict between the old political law o f England and the new feudal law set up by the of Conqueror. There was no hope settling things at n home in the absence of all synodical actio , owing to ’ For C the King s feudal notions. whilst the onqueror had done his best to stem the disruptive tendencies of feudalism in the temporal order, he had initiated a policy to d C in regard the Church , which tende , as Dean hurch “ to u of remarked , place the d ty and conscience Christian f ” bishops under the heel o feudal royalty . It was in the attempt to consolidate this anti - catholic policy that William Rufus had to encounter the antagonism of one of o f — the most learned and saintly men the day Anselm , archbishop, saint, and doctor of the Church .

’

t m t . 6 . A nsel s M i . S o ve

One task remains : it is to point out that Bishop ’ Creighton has altogether misrepresented St . Anselm s “ motive . His account is that he turned from the op pression of power founded upon force to power founded ” f of upon an idea o the nature j ustice . This does not F r carry us far. o we all know that Anselm turned P from the Red King to the ope . But the question is, Was the power thus founded upon an idea of the nature f one God o justice, that Himself had placed on earth for the lasting purpose of administering justice in eccle siastical ? matters This is what St. Anselm held , and C of this is what the Established hurch England denies. ’ C o f ’ But Bishop reighton s account St . Anselm s deference “ to the Papacy is as follows : The tendency to material ise rights and duties incident to a legal development of 6 8 R OM E A N D E N GLA N D feudalism was to be counteracted by an ideal extension of - feudalism into an all embracing system , embodied of in the theory the Empire and the Papacy. Christen dom was held to be a great confederation , united under c oe ual heads ff b a l i n two , who regulated a airs pp y q y ﬁ g those great principles of right and wrong which were ” sometimes obscured in a small sphere . This is sup “ posed by Bishop Creighton to be the mediaeval ideal — an was . ideal , however, which never realised The

P w : Empire and the apacy, he tells us, did not ork together the Empire declined and the Papacy increased in esteem . “ a a So far as the medi eval ideal ever became ctual , it ”

P . a was embodied in the apacy But in medi eval times, C “ according to B ishop reighton , their principles were,

u after all, legal and technical , to be perpetually disc ssed — h of c not ideas , w ich had an inherent power convi tion and led to immediate action . They must have a good ” “ case, and they were ready to maintain their cause by h N at . the means which were most easily available . C , p 4) This is the explanation offered of the recourse which

. St. Anselm had to the Apostolic See It was the only f o . thing available in the way upholding justice It was, in fact, not because it was a Divine institution , but because of there were practical advantages in making use its power. “ 1 ;Bishop Creighton , however, has misstated the medi C to aeval ideal . hristendom was never held be a great w ” t o i . e. confederation united under coequal heads , the of Empire and the Papacy . From the days Leo I I I ., 1 who inaugurated the new Western Empire, to those

” 1 It was not a restoration of the Roman Empire. M r . ’ ” . h . 8t ed . 1 88 Bryce s theory H oly Roman Empire, ch vii , , 9 ) is irreconcilable with the language of the Papal Diploma 800 an d the u and of A D . , general lang age action of the

Popes and Emperors alike .

70 R OM E A N D E N GLAN D

soul, a simile used of the relation of the State to the i C . of N az anz us hurch by St Gregory and St. Chrysostom , expressing a sense of the true proportion between Church and State with which the mediaeval conception was pro f dl oun . G V II . y penetrated regory . and Innocent I I I used the simile of the sun ’ s relation to the moon for the r same pu pose and even from the ninth century onwards , perpetual appeal was made to the princi ples enunciated by St . Augustine in his D e Civi ta te D ei as to the supe riorit y of the spiritual over the temporal order . Whilst f the civil power had its proper o ﬁce, and was supreme in ffi t o f ust ice that o ce so long as it kept wi hin the bounds j , the Church was held to be the judge as to whether these bounds had been passed or not . This was the special I I c P er vene note struck by Innocent I . in his de retal r a bilem 1 2 0 2 of , in , and it was but an echo the teaching

G . of regory VI I in the eleventh century , whose doctrine G y was maintained by St . Anselm . regor , in his letter to C the Emperor Maurice , quotes the saying of onstantine, that bishops were h is proper judges and his successor,

Urban I I . , in the year before Anselm insisted on going to Rome, had said in a sermon that the lowest priest

- had a pre eminence over every king . But a priest had this pre - eminence only by virtue of his sharing in the P power of those keys which were given to St . eter and — so handed on to his successors long, and only so long, as he was in communion with , and subordinate to, the

C . a i Vicar of hrist Such was the medi eval concept on, P and a most tremendous reality it assuredly was . apal legates were being perpetually sent to the scenes of dis C of order, after the example of lement, Bishop Rome ,

h f . re in t e days o the Apostle St John , sending his four 1 presentatives to Corinth to heal the divisions there .

1 the m dim val u On e theory , the King is a spirit al son ’ of the Pope ; and the Pope may be the King s s uperior in N E 1 T I I E WIT N E SS OF ST. A S LM 7

’

n . Here, the , we have the real motive of St Anselm s one to action, as described by himself in two letters, the P to of : con ope, and the other the Bishop Lyons he sid ered it impossible to stem the ﬂood of unnatural crime that had set in under the reign of an unmarried

King of irregular life , without further synodical action ; in this he was hindered by this ferocious and licentious who despot, soon died without a tear falling at his sudden decease simony was rampant in the Church ; “ ” the customs of the Conqueror and his despotic son ” o f had become for the while the customs the realm, old and these customs were a breach of English ways, and would have hindered free intercourse between the Archbishop and the head of the universal Church ; but such freedom of intercourse was involved in the rela tion which St . Anselm , in common with every archbishop before him , believed the See of Canterbury to occupy with P of regard to the See of eter, that , namely, subordination ’ in consequence of our Lord s gift of the keys to Peter .

In the next reign , King and barons agreed that Anselm would most properly lay the matter of investi — ture before the su c cessor of Peter showing that the obstacles raised against such recourse to Rome by the Red King did not represent the convictions of the of Church in England , nor even these barons them N ot of selves . that Henry was a model exponent the — C conce mediaeval that is, the more deﬁned atholic p tion as to the government of the Church and world ; rufﬁan s but he was not the that his brother was, nor o

. had C ignorant He , h owever, the blood of the onqueror in him ; and he had to be reminded by Bishop Ivo of “ C n hartres, that he was runni g against the mediaeval ” “ conception of kinghood . The Bishop wrote, We

u and u things spirit al only, or in things temporal spirit al ” ’

u on . alike (St bbs C s tit iii . xix . R OM E A N D E N GLA N D

to ff admonish your Highness, with urgent entreaties , su er the Word o f God to be preached without hindrance in ou the kingdom entrusted to y , and to be ever mindful that the earthly kingdom must be always subord inate to ” 1 the heavenly kingdom , entrusted to the Church . ’ f ’ I n short, the Bishop s estimate o Anselm s motives and conduct cannot be extracted from the record as we have it ; and perhaps in no respect is it more thoroughly unjust than in the suggestion that his insistence on having access to the Holy Father was due to his being — ” 2 new un - a comer, as though it were something English . On this point we have a very competent witness in the f o . t late Professor Freeman , who says St Anselm , hat “ from the moment when he ﬁrst set foot on our land he won the rank of an adopted Englishman by standing forth as the champion of the saints of England . Stranger w n as he was, he has o his place among the noblest f r to worthies o ou island . It was something be the model of all ecclesiastical perfection ; it was something to be th e creator of the theology of Christendom but it was something higher still to be the very embodiment of to righteousness and mercy, and be handed down in the an nals of humanity as the man who saved the hunted ” 2 of ZElfheah. hare, and stood up for the holiness Ead mer lays special stress on Anselm being more English 4 of than Lanfranc . In point fact, he knew England well for fourteen years before he was made Archbishop .

As regards his life as a whole , it has been said by an

1 “ . E . 1 06 ed . u H er enrother C u Ivo Carnot , p , D ret ; g , h rch ” nd E . . a State, ssay xiii 4, note 5 2 N C u c dd . . ational h r h in M i le Ages, p 3 3 ’ ” N . . C u . . . . Freeman s orman onq est, vol iv chap xix p 444 f Elf heah c C u c was an Ar hbishop of anterb ry, whose san tity c d c d b ut m d f d d d d Lanfran epre iate , who Anselm e en e in efen ing English saints in general . 4 ta A nsel m i . 2. Vi , i 5 , 4

CH APTER IV

A N RC E C N A N D P R FE SS R OR WH Y T EY A H D A O A O O ; , H B ELI EV ED IN PAPA L SUP RE MACY

I Tb ue ti n e s o . . Q

H E d w “ T Bishop proceeds to lay o n (p . 5 ) that in Eng land certainly the theory [of Papal Supremacy] was strictly limited by a consideration o f practical ady ah tages . And in proof of this , his lordship quotes from of Giraldus two writers , whom one, (Archdeacon of St . ’ “ P — so David s), mocks at apal pretensions , at least, the

Bishop says whereas, the other , Adam Marsh (the cele “ b rated P Oxford rofessor), teaches that the successors P of of eter had the government, not only one ship, but ” of i . e. C the whole ocean, of all hurches in the world . And his lordship accounts for the assumed difference in the teaching of these two writers by the fact that in the interval between their respective utterances the Papacy had rendered great service to England in the troubled of times King john , and had helped to restore order during the minority of Henry I I I . The theory of a

- off z far su erain (and this , according to the Bishop, was “ the real attraction of the Papal Supremacy) had been ” 1 put into practice , and had been found advantageous . Hence Adam Marsh taught the jurisdiction of the P C Gi raldus ope over all hurches , whereas mocked at

Papal pretensions. In either case their belief in Papal

1 “ ” The N C u c dd A eS ational h r h in the M i le g , P 5 74 A N AR CH DEACO N A N D A P R OF ESSOR 75

Supremacy rested (according to the Bishop) o n utili tarian principles , and therefore varied according to circumsta nces .

w . N o , several questions present themselves What is ’ the value of Giraldus saying quoted by the Bishop ? For we cannot suppose that his lordship intended to ’ quote a worthless testimony . Does it express any one s ’ opinion but his own ? or does it intimate even Girald us “ conviction as to the grounds of his belief in Papal Supremacy an Then as to Adam Marsh . C his words be inter preted as expressing a theory derived simply from the experienced advantages of Papal Supremacy ? Is it even true that he had only seen the utility of that supremac y “ ” “ in the troubled times of King John and during the “ minority of Henry or had he also seen the m iddle “ o f of the reign that monarch , which saw it [the Papal power] harmful and detested For if the latter is the ’ case, we must seek some other grounds for Adam Marsh s on teaching the subject, since he would have seen both sides .

2. Tbe Tea lzi n ralda c g of Gi s .

of Girald us What, then, is the value this statement of , ’ n o f the Archdeaco St . David s (if it be his statement) , that “ the man who at Rome could not make good his rights, even over a garden, is assuming to dictate to ” h N at. . . kingdoms ? C , p

Professor Brewer, the editor of the second volume of ’ “ Giraldus wri ti ngs in the Chronicles o f Great Britain ” of f and Ireland, published by order the Master o the “ a of Rolls, s ys that the reader must beware interpreting ’ ” o ur too . author s accusations literally (p Mr . o f ir l — Dimock, the editor another work by G a dus his ' — “ l ti ner a ri um Cam br i ca speaks of that as being com 76 R OM E A N D E N GLAN D

arati vel - p y free from all the bitter, evil speaking, lying, and slandering that not unfrequently make others of ”

v . P1 0 his works absolutely repulsi e (Pref. p fe ssor of Brewer again , when editing a third work

' Giral u iz l d s v . S ecul um E cc eszce , , his p , warns us that that “ composition is not an adequate representation of the of n r state the Church in general, o of the Church of ”

P . England in particular ( ref p. And the late P conti nuator rofessor Freeman , the historian , the of ’ ’ “ ” to iraldus of . Dimock s Preface G Life St Hugh, says “ (p . In estimating the historical value of any work Giraldus Cam brensis of , we must remember the twofold character of the man with whom we are dealing . We on are dealing with e who was vain , garrulous, careless to as to minute accuracy, even so far careless as truth to to as be, say the least, ready to accept statements which told against an enemy without carefully weighing one who the evidence for them . We are dealing with n was ot very scrupulous as to consistency, and who felt ” no special shame at contradicting himself. It may be added that he was known also as Giraldus the Savage

(Sylvester) . one on Girald us But there was point, at any rate, which was consistent throughout his life , and that is, his belief in Papal Supremacy . wn of Here is his o confession faith , made a few years after the time when Bishop Creighton thinks he wavered 1 “ as to his belief in that doctrine The Pope is spoken

f of or of f . o as the Father fathers , the guardian the athers

He is also called universal , because he presides over the A ostolicus universal Church . He is also called p (the of P of Apostolic), because he acts in place the rince

1 This statement of Papal S uprem acy is adopted by Giraldus d H u de . V c a n d u d from go S i tor, sho l have been printe in the

d d c . Rolls Series e ition, within inverte ommas

78 ROM E A N D E N GLAN D ever unscrupulous he could be when writing of his enemies , those who are well acquainted with his writings P will agree with rofessor Freeman , that he was, never “ ” theless one of , the most learned men of a learned age. His teaching may be summed up in the following words

u l u E l esi ce S ec m cc . which occur in his p (Dist iv . cap. written some years after the quotation given by the “ Bishop of Peterborough : As the whole world was subject to the temporal empire of Rome whilst its monarchy stood firm , so also all Churches throughout the world are bound to supply what is necessary to the spiritual Roman Empire, that is, to the principal Church , ’ of C that Peter, which , being under hrist s government , su fler can never shipwreck, and [they are bound] to ” minister to her in all things as to their head . It would be diffi cult to select an author less suited ’ to the Bishop s argument than Giraldus ; for if any one article of his faith comes ou t more clearly than another of of P in the whole course his life, it is that apal or of Supremacy, the divinely instituted headship the

Church of Rome over all the Churches in the world . of Giraldus What, then , of these words , quoted by Bishop ff ? Creighton , as showing that he di ered from Adam Marsh of Girald us As a matter fact , does not use a crucial ’ word in Dr . Creighton s quotation . He does not say “ ” a sum i n that the Pope is s g to dictate to kingdoms . “ He says that the P ope is endea vouri ng to bend king “ doms to his will ( N ititur ad nutu m ﬂectere regna ” suum . The words were probably written, not when “

i . e. Bishop Creighton supposes , late in the twelfth ” A n li a Sa cra century, but, as Wharton , in his g , sup n poses, i Innocent was then endeavouring to

1 a S a cra . 1 1 . . . A ng l i , vol p 434 The lines are i subla t us a ced eret hort u s Cu male Rom e non , ﬂectere uu N ititur a d nutum regna s m . A N ARCH DE ACON A N D A PROFESSOR 79

b w induce Philip of France to o to his decision , King H is H e John having just appealed to Holiness . had just published his famous decretal about the duty i n on one cumbent kings, whenever side in a quarrel

to to . appealed the Apostolic See , to bow its decision P w f The ope had , as we kno , his di ﬁculties as to property ’ iral dus in the city of Rome at the same time . Hence G

remark . It was not a new situation and this is important ’ iraldus in weighing the meaning of Giraldus remark . G knew well that history was repeating itself ; and as the history of the Papacy had not hindered him from

believing in its divine appointment up to this time,

so neither need we, nor indeed can we, suppose that the strange spectacle which he describes in the verses t to alluded to by Bishop Creighton , was o be understood t have led o a change in his faith at this time . Some years

1 0 8 0 of G earlier, in October , the King ermany (Henry IV of . ) was actually installing an antipope in the city

Rome . Gregory , in all appearance, was weaker than

. . H efele ever Innocent I II was in that city But, as “ remarks, truly astonishing is the courage with which G regory, whilst engaged in a struggle for his own exist of C ence, keeps his attention upon the needs the hurch own in all parts of the world . His dire need never prevented him for an instant from entering into every

thing with Apostolic dignity and power, encountering even the great and mighty ones of the earth with ad

monitions and chastisements, when sacred things or . the f ” duty attaching to his o ﬁce appeared to require it . Had H efel e Bishop desired to put these remarks into verse, he might have done it in the terms used by Giraldus to “ of P . N ititur which the Bishop eterborough refers, viz , ” ad nutum ﬂec tere regna suum ; yet Bishop H efele could not be convicted thereby of disbelieving in Papal

Supremacy . 8 0 R OM E A N D E N GLAN D

At the same time, I should be quite willing to concede that there may be some sarcasm in the words , especially if they were written at the date (wrongly, as I have said , but conﬁdently) assigned to them by Bishop Creighton . For just then Gi raldus had lost his case at Rome ; and a looking to his character of sav gery , and unscrupulous remarks against any enemy , he may have indulged in ’ a P some sarc sm at the ope s expense . But what he could not have meant was to mock at Papal pretensions in the sense of disbelieving in the spiritu al supremacy of P For the ope over the Church in England . if Bishop ’ C Giraldus s reighton s date be correct, was just then pres n P f ing o the ope that he should place the See o St. n David , where he was himself Archdeaco , under the of immediate j urisdiction the Holy See, withdrawing it from any relation of subordination to Canterbury . The Pope referred the matter by his Apostolical authority to of Giraldus the Province Canterbury , and with this was f mightily displeased . It is there ore clear that if we were to concede to Bishop Creighton the correctness of ’ Gi raldu s the date assigned by him to utterances, it out of would be the question , for it would argue an of t iral u entire oblivion the situation , o suppose that G d s was so much as hinting at any weakness in the claim o f t the See of Peter o jurisdiction here in England . In

of on Giraldus for point fact, later went to Rome all f sorts o Indulgences, having resigned his preferment in 1 order to receive it back straight from the See of Peter . ﬁ I repeat, then , that it would be dif cult for Bishop Creighton to have selected a witness more completely a s against his theory th n thi very learned, eccentric, and is n iral us am brens . o h savage Archdeacon, G d C In e t ing

1 H n c . This was in 1 207. e also speaks of I no ent III “ ” u rm f uit constitutus c l nu ecti onu m as qui t nc p egregie ( f ,

. . and Lib . v . cap xiii

8 2 ROM E A N D E N GLAN D supreme Pontiff presides over all the nations of the ” 1 b D i vi ne i nsti tution . C world y learly, therefore, it was hi m with not a matter merely of practical advantage, but

C . a part of the hristian faith And Adam Marsh was, in “ ” a doctor the langu ge of the day, the illustrious doctor ( ll u r i st i s) . He entered the Franciscan order some years of before, and as a Franciscan , in the ﬁrst fervour that wonderful order, he necessarily held the doctrine of Papal Supremacy as a part o f the faith ; he held it all along his religious life, as we have seen he certainly did when he wrote the letter from which the Bishop quotes. And Adam Marsh enjoyed a high reputation both for learning and piety ; he was, according to Roger Bacon “ of (the best witnesses) perfect in all wisdom , Divine ’ n i i d u T r t. . x a c O s e . human (f . Bacon s p , chap xii and xx i , P P 0 quoted by rofessor Brewer in his reface, page , to the t a n Al onum en a F r ci scana) . Such was the man whom Bishop Creighton opposes to Girald us of , and whose belief he traces to a sense the P practical utility of apal Supremacy . He taught , as we have seen , its Divine institution in the very letter from which Dr. Creighton quotes .

f . It might be su ﬁcient to stop here But, as Bishop Creighton occupies a considerable position amongst ac English historians, I shall examine further into the c uracy of his statement from another point of view . “ His lordship maintains th at the difference between “ the views of Giraldus and Adam Marsh as to the Papal Supremacy (a diff erence which we have seen does “ not exist) is to be found in the fact that the Papacy had rendered great service to England in the troub led times of King John , and had helped to restore order I I ” o f H I . during the minority enry Adam Marsh , he

1 r a nc s a n a d M onu m en ta F i c (Rolls Series) , A am M arsh ,

1 . p . 4 5 A N ARCH DEACO N A N D A PR OFESSO R 8 3

says , wrote the letter from which he quotes early in ” so the thirteenth century . Naturally, therefore, the ’ o f P u Bishop s argument runs , he spoke apal S premacy “ o f - off z in the way he did, because the theory a far su e rain had been put into practice, and had been found ” “ H is advantageous (p . lordsh ip adds that if the f P beginning of the reign o Henry I I I . saw the apal w po er both useful and popular in England, the m iddle of the reign saw it harmful and detested (p . But “ ” Adam wrote early in the thirteenth century . It will — “ i iz . be seen t hat this date v , early in the th rteenth — ’ cent ury is necessary to his lordship s thesis . ’ But, unfortunately for the Bishop s argument, Adam “ Marsh wrote his letter no t early in the thirteenth ” er m iddle of century , but in the v y that century, and “ ” “ beyond the middle of the reign which saw it [the P Papal power] harmful and detested . rofessor Brewer, Al on um enta F r a ncisca na in his edition of the , in the of Rolls Series , assigns as the date this letter the year 1 0 he 2 . O 5 n what grounds , ﬁxes on this date he does n c s f r ot say ; but he is clearly corre t in o doing, o the internal evidence in its favour is quite conclusive . Before P ’ l having seen rofessor Brewer s conc usion as to the date,

I had ﬁxed upon that same year myself, on the ground

n that the letter speaks of the Pope (Innocent IV . ) havi g al rea d y presided at a general council , which could only

f 1 2 . be Pope Innocent IV. at the Council o Lyons in 4 5 to on Moreover, it is said also have been written the ’ of occasion Henry s proposing to take the Cross,

1 2 which , since it must be after 4 5 , could only be in Thus Adam Marsh actually wrote six years after ’ of ! — the middle Henry s reign that is to say, six years after

1 The same date is assigned to this letter in the volume of ” the Oxford H istori cal Soc iety on The Greyfriars in Oxford 8 1 1 6 . 1 . ed . A . G . (vol xx . 9 , p 3 . Little) 8 4 R OM E A N D EN GLA N D

P the apal power had, according to Bishop Creighton, “ d ” f P become harmful and etested . Yet he spoke o apal Supremacy as having been not only preﬁgu red in the ’ of o ur b u inspired account Lord s risen life, t as having our d been instituted by Lord H imself in His wor s to St.

P . 1 f eter in St John xxi . 7. He had seen the events o 1 2 2 o f 9 ; he knew the rage, rising to white heat, against P 1 2 1 apal pecuniary exactions in 3 , so graphically de “ Mr G scribed by . reen i n his H istory of the English ” P . 2 68 se . eople (i , q ) as having spread over the whole kingdom ; he was the sworn friend o f Grosseteste ; he C had been with him to the ouncil of Lyons, when the English people laid their case of distress before the “ Pope ; he knew of the complaint o f the Archbishops and Bishops of the Province of Canterbury about Papal ” ’

Concili a . 6 a . oppressions (Wilkins , i 9 4 Matt . Paris , s .

1 2 6 4 ) in the following year, and of a similar document from the clergy, a third from the barons, and a fourth , all — but simultaneously, from the King all this , and much of more, he knew, and yet , in spite all, he speaks of Papal Supremacy over all the Churches in the world as derived from the words of our Lord Himself. The

of . middle the long reign of Henry I I I had passed , ’ C u and, if Bishop reighton s acco nt be true , the dis of advantages, the harm , the Papal power had been “ ” u to manifest to s ch an extent as make it detested, and yet Adam Marsh speaks of Papal Supremacy as of

Divine institution . What is this but saying that h is belief in it did not depend on its practical advantages, but that, in spite of all appearance to the contrary, in spite o f manifest disadvantages in the shape of exactions and oppressions, the faith of a Catholic Christian for bade him to rebel against it, though it did not prevent his protesting against its exercise in certain directions and under certain circumstances ? He agreed with

8 6 R OM E A N D EN GLAN D

of f . restoration order during the minority o Henry I I I , which lasted only eleven years , could have undone the supposed laxity of belief i n Papal Supremacy indicated ’ (as the Bishop th inks) by Giraldus mocking at it . And ’ the Bishop s further explanation is still more mysterious, “ t f - off for he con inues, The theory o a far suzerain had advanta been put into practice, and had been found h geons . One would have supposed that t e residence of the Papal legate in England was not exac tly a specimen “ - ff n of the far o ess of the su z erain . CH A PTER V

B ELI EF IN PAPAL SUP R E MACY I N T H E R EIGN OF

R Y I I I — 2 2 H EN . ( 1 2 1 6 1 7 )

Tlze uest on . I . Q i

I T has been the fashion of late to ﬁnd in the reign of of Henry I I I . the germ the ecclesiastical revolution which took place in the reign of Henry VI II . Mr. ” G of reen, in his History the English People , sees in some incidents of that reign the little rift that widened n into a gulf, and parted E gland from Rome in the 1 sixteenth century . Mr. Lane heads his chapter which “ deals with Henry I II . , The Reaction against Roman z “ u rem a P C S p n Canon erry, in his English hurch ” History, with more caution , heads the chapter contain “ ing his account of the same reign with the words The ” Reaction against Rome ; but throughout he includes 3 Papal Supremacy as the object of attack . And Bishop “ Creighton says, The reign of Henry I I I . was the to period in which , largely owing resentment at Papal ‘ interference, the cry was raised, England for the Eng lish a cry which his lordship proceeds to put on a line P w ith the repudiation of apal Supremacy by Henry VI II . of 4 in the preamble the Act forbidding appeals to Rome . N ational independence of Rome would thus have a very

1 2 N ” 268 . u . c . . i . Ill st otes, hap xiv 3 ’ ” ud C u c H P od . St ent s English h r h istory, First eri 1‘ “ ” Th N C u c &c . . 8 . e ational h r h , , p 87 8 8 R OM E A N D E N GLAN D

respectable antiquity. The cry began i h the reign of “ Henry I I I . in the thirteenth century, and found its

ﬁnal expression , according to Bishop Creighton , in the of reign Henry VI I I . It is my purpose to show that the attitude of Eng land towards the Holy See all t/zr oug/z the reign of

. V Henry I II was such that the Act of Henry I I I . for — bidding appeals to Rome on a ny m a tter w/zo tsoever that to f is say, in regard to matters o faith and ecclesiastical — discipline of all kinds constitutes a vital diff erence be tween the religion of the two periods . Continuity with of the Church England in the thirteenth century can , it will be seen , be preserved only by a religious body which holds that the Apostolic government of the Church in c ludes its government by the Apostolic See . ” h t . Professor Collins protests C . Hist . Soc . Lec , pp 0 1 f 5 , 5 ) against the reign o Henry I II . being selected as a witness to Papal claims on the ground that King and clergy united in “ encouraging the fullest intercourse f with the Papacy . But this is one point o my argu ment . It is an admission of the fact on which it rests . Only the chief point of the argument is concerned with the fact that they encouraged intercourse with the on of m er el Papacy the ground doctrine, not y on the P u ground of utility . rofessor Collins also derives an arg ment against the Papacy from the fact that the acme of its power coincided with a period of unusual weakness, ” violence, and oppression . But would he not resent the application of this argument to the sixteenth century ? And is it not quite clear that the violence and oppres sion was concerned with the civil order , and in no way P ? sprung from the apacy Grosseteste, to whom he

u of all des, most distinctly shows that the greatest all dangers lay in the absence of that ecclesiastical liberty which was safeguarded , as he taught , by Papal Supre

9 0 ROM E A N D E N GLAN D misfortune of this controversy that Anglican writers have been tempted to accumulate cases of resistance to the Pope in one relationship and transfer them to resistance in the other. They have constantly argued from expres of or sions irritation , instances of opposition raised against of o f the temporal accidents that supremacy, to a denial o n the doctrine which its essential features rest . If any one complained of a tax, he is credited with denying in principle the supremacy of the Apostolic See ; and if any particular exercise of that supremacy was objected to, it is argued that the principle of supremacy itself was repudiated . But to proceed .

2 d m a or di n to M r n n r t r s F r ee o cc ode A li can i e . . g g W

Few words have been more often repeated in this ” continuity controversy , and , I must add, more often

M a na C/za r ta m isinterpreted , than those with which the g “ ” opens , Let the Church of England be free . These words are constantly supposed to proclaim the deter mination of the English people to be free from Papal 1 . N e interference. The late Lord Selborne, whom Mr y 2 “ C of and others follow, says , It was the hurch , not ‘ ’ E cclesi a A n li ca na Rome , but of England ( g ), of which the ‘rights and liberties ’ were declared to be inviolable ’ ” by King John s great charter, conﬁrmed by Henry II I . These writers seem to imagine that the use of the ex pression “ Church of England somehow suggests that it was not dependent on Rome whereas the real question “ ” C of is, whether this hurch England as she called her f self and as Rome herself called her, held the Church o

1 “ 8 u c d th d . 1 8 c C e 8 . . A Defen e of the h r h of Englan , 4 , , p 9 “ ” 2 T n Th u c and o . . o d e Ch r h her St ry , p 74 here is ate ” to this new and revised edition . BELI EF I N PAPAL S U PREMACY 9 I

of C Rome to be the mother and mistress all hurches , herself included . I n this case, as has been already stated , the expression proves nothing. Similarly, Bishop Creighton quotes the same words with this signiﬁcant “ com m en f G C t, When the framers o the reat harter enacted ’ Libera sit Ecclesia Anglicana, they had a notion that their own ecclesiastical institutions were the obj ect o f ” 1 c. their special care, & The Bishop introduces these words into a paragraph which deals with what he con siders the gradual formation of a national Church in of England, independent Papal Supremacy, free, that is, of u Rome . It is clear, therefore, what this writer nder stands by ecclesiastical freedom . But what did the Church of England in the reign of “ 1 2 1 6- 1 2 Henry I II . ( 2 7 ) understand by the term free ” dom as applied to herself ? In order to answer this question it will be necessary to describe brieﬂy what actually took place in connection with th is subject in the of earlier part that thirteenth century .

E cclesia sti a l F r eedom as secured b 3 . c y

a M ag net C/za r t .

Amongst other tyrannical proceedings, King John had personally interfered with the election of bishops and abbots . It was part of the struggle between the eccle siastical and civil powers which had been going o n throughout Europe, and in wh ich Rome had been throughout the consistent champion of the freedom of “ such elections . So much was this the case, that Roman liberty ” had become a technical term in reference to

a monastic institutions . It meant in p rticular that free

1 “ N ” C c . . ational hur h, p 9 9 2 ROME A N D EN GLAN D dom which dependence on Rome secured in the choice of or abbot prior, with which lay patrons and bishops were specially tempted to interfere . It meant freedom from taxes arbitrarily imposed by baron or bishop . It meant also freedom from other modes of episcopal inter of ference with the temporalities a monastery, as, for instance, from any right of lodging in it which a bishop might otherwise claim to the serious ﬁnancial embarrass of ment the institution . It did not, however, mean in those early times freedom from all episcopal jurisdic 1 of tion . And as the election the abbot was the prin c i al f p point in the freedom o a monastery , and was secured to it very frequently by its being under the “ ” of s protection the Holy See, o with the Episcopate i tself. Wherever the civil power sought to make good its tyranny over the Church , it aimed at drawing the o elections f bishops into its unrestricted dominion. But the Holy See was in those times the barrier. The Epis copate without the Holy See has never yet for any length

Of time resisted the invasions of royal supremacy . It “ ” ’ 2 has needed the strengthening of St . Peter s See . Thus “ Roman liberty ” had long been acknowledged as synonymous with freedom from tyranny secured by

of . of the protection St Peter. The Archbishop Canter i n 1 1 f r bury 74 , in a struggle o what he considered his

1 d d Gregory V I I . or aine that when the bishop was simo niacal out u c c , or of comm nion with the Apostoli See, epis opal u c u d u d u f n tions sho l be s pplie by a neighbo ring bishop , or straight from the H oly See ; b ut otherwise any privileges “ accorded t o a monastery were said to b e saving the re ” vere nce and j usti ce d ue to the bishop of the d iocese . S i ’ r a ti s a c si ne r a vi ta te d d g p , are his wor s as regar s the bishop s ten u re of his see. 2 The twenty - ﬁfth canon of the third Lateran Cou n cil “ d d u d c c A D . 1 2 1 ( . 5) con emne all who sho l onsent to an ele tion as to themselves made by the abu se of the secular power against canonical liberty .

9 4 ROME A N D E N GLAN D

N invasion . She had already lost ormandy ; she might now have to submit to a new conquest from the Conti ff nent . At this j uncture John decided to ward o the imminent danger by doing what for various reasons “ ” f viz . o other states had done, seek the protection the Holy See by making it the overlord of the kingdom f o . England An overlord, as we have already seen (p . would not be entitled to the usufruct of the king “ ” — he l “ dom would be simp y its advocate, or patron , although he would acquire some rights . Already a special relationship had been admitted by the payment of Peter- pence ; but not the overlordship which required or homage, and rendered a man, or city, kingdom, a ” vassal . King John decided to do homage and acquire th f H e was not alone n lzi s e full rights o protection . i de s on H e did i t wi t/z t/ze consent o t/ze ba r ons and ci i . f

/z Tke a nd Me A rc/zbi s/zo a nd r e r esenta ti ve t e bishops. y p p bis/zaps signed t/ze deed of r esigna ti on as wi tnesses. It “ ” 1 was done (as the words run) by their common advice . And the terms in which the overlordship of the Holy See was asked and agr eed to were those of the most solemn promise a man could make . Protestant writers have often dwelt on the thrill of f horror wh ich ran through the land at this deed o shame.

But this is pure ﬁction . England did not shudder, but

.T rather approved . here was no disgrace in what John

a e. had done , according to the sentiments of the g This, “ P ” as Mr. Green, in his History of the English eople, has pointed out, is an idea read into the history from the sentiment of a later period . Those who do not believe in the Apostolic Sce necessarily consider the act of King John a disgraceful measure . But at that time people did believe in the Apostolic See ; and they did

1 ’ t s wde r a ed . Rym e F ( . i . 57 BELIE F I N PAPAL SU PRE MACY 9 5 not recoil from the notion of a kingdom being placed under the special protection of the Apostle Peter as its “ overlord . As I have said, it was done by the common ” of counsel the barons, as is expressly stated in the deed of “ resignation . And as Mr . Green observes ( History ” of P “ the English eople, vol . i . p . as a political ” measure its success was immediate and complete . The 1 French King was checkmated .

But when , after this, the Archbishop and barons t he 1 2 1 forced King to sign the Magna Charta in 3 , in which the person and the property of the subject were — protected from royal injustice for this was the real o f C — point that harter they placed themselves, at least t technically, in the wrong . They could no fairly act thus without consultation with their overlord . Innocent “ . . G was and I I I , as Mr reen says again, indignant ( , we “ may add , j ustly indignant) that a matter which might have been brought before his court of appeal as over ” lord, should have been dealt with by armed revolt “ ” of . ( History the English People , p There was P also an obnoxious clause in this Charter. Mr . earson , “ f ” o . . . in his History England, observes (vol ii p 9 3 , “ 1 8 6 : 7) of the Charter Its gravest , perhaps its only real defect, was the provision which allowed a council ” of barons to wage war upon the crown The Pope doubtless objected to this ; but most of all he repro d 2 bated the way in which the Charter was introduce , and accordingly annulled it, and excommunicated the barons . His action had nothing to do with the clause about the freedom of the Church ; for, in arguing with

1 The Bishop of Stepney qu ite misrepresents the whole ’ matter in his lect ure in the Ch u rc h H istorical Society s

8 . Se ries p . 9 2 H e says the barons made the mselves j udges in their

m . . own case (Ry er, 9 Kal Sept 9 6 R OM E A N D E N GLAN D

the barons two years later, he pleaded this very freedom as having been previously promised by the King, and as 1 N ob ec being a satisfactory measure . either was any j tion raised by the Pope against the other clauses con f r o . cerning taxation and personal liberty, , as Mr Green “ ’ - i . e. P has said, its [ the apacy s] after action shows that ” Innocent was moved by no hostility to English freedom . son As soon as John died, his Henry being only nine “ old years , the position of Gualo as representative of the P f ” G apal overlord o the realm was (to quote Mr . reen of hi s once more) the highest importance, and action showed the real attitude of Rome towards English free

b - G dom . The oy king was hardly crowned at loucester, when legate and earl issued in his name the very Charter against which his father had died ﬁghting ” “ ” o f P . ( History the English eople, p And the i N w legate took the initiative in proposing its issue . o as no one supposes that the Pope would command to off England cut herself from Rome , we can be sure re that Pope Honorius, at any rate, did not see any “ udiati n o f P p o apal Supremacy in the words, Let the

of . Church England be free and, indeed , I nnocent I II

1 2 1 had, as we have seen , already (in 5 ) pointed to this very clause as leaving the barons and bishops with less excuse for continuing their animosity against the King .

1 d Kal . . C . D . 1 2 1 . an f Rymer, A 5 , 3 Kal April , 9 Sept 2 The d c c Bishop of Stepney , in eﬁan e of this fa t, says , The P u d u opes, as we have seen , freely se their a thority ” “ to curse our g l e at charter of freedom ( Ch H ist . S oc .

1 8 6 . Lect . 9 , p

9 8 R OM E A N D E N GLA N D

proper sphere of power, but that, however they m ight c o f omplain Papal exactions, they would set it down as schism to issue an excommunication in regard to e cclesiastical freedom without ﬁrst securing Papal con ﬁrm ati ou of their proceeding ? The idea of a national C hurch independent of the See of Peter had not only not entered into their m inds, but was thus censured by

. of ex c om m u nication anticipation This sentence , with its of P promulgation the apal bull conﬁrming it, occurred i n 1 2 2— 5 that is to say , some years after the m iddle f o . of the reign Henry I I I , the date assigned by Bishop “ f ‘ Creighton, in which the cry was raised o England “ f or the English a cry which , he says , found its ﬁnal expression in the preamble of the Act forbidding appeal s o f t o Rome in the reign Henry VI II . All this is completely negatived by such an act as I have P of just quoted, in which the rovince Canterbury placed — i ts freedom under the shelter of Papal authority show i n g that whatever ecclesiastical freedom meant, it did n t of o mean , in the mind the English Episcopate, inde 1 p endence of Rome .

l e B a r ons o E n l a nd on P a al Su r em a c . 5 . f g p p y

t on Six years af er this emphatic declaration , the part of o f the ecclesiastical authorities in England, belief in

Papal Supremacy as of Divine institution , we have the clearest evidence as to the belief which reigned in the m ind of the baronage . They could be rebellious against their own belief on occasion , but their belief is clear, as the following facts will show .

1 Instances of this might be mu ltiplied ; e.g . in the Lam “ ” b eth Council of 1 26 1 the liberty of the Ch urch was used all throu gh for freedom from royal an d other lay i nterfer 6— e n ce (Wilkins, i . 74 7 BELI EF I N PAPAL SU PR EMACY 9 9

In 1 25 8 those English barons who acted under Simon de Montfort against the King had drawn up a scheme of for the government the kingdom , including a council to advise his Majesty . The ﬁrst proviso was that the foreigners in possession of royal castles should vacate f o . them . So far it was a cry England for the English

Simon de Montfort himself, as Hubert de Burgh before him, gave up Odiham and Kenilworth ; but the proviso was resisted by the aliens . They took refuge in the ’ i B i ho . N ow th s s Bishop s castle at Winchester , , p was considered by Simon and his allies to be their greatest to foe ; it was he , they said, who had advised the King adopt his faithless and unconstitutional action . He was

- at present only Bishop elect . Simon de Montfort and 1 the barons accordingly communicated with the P ope . of of They entreated him , out his love for the kingdom “ to England, wh ich has always been , and is , devoted ” “ ou of y , to remove the Bishop from the administration c of the hurch Winchester, which was granted to him by ” m uhiﬁcenc the e of the Apostolic See . I n a second “ letter they address the Pope as Head of the Church ’ of to and Shepherd the sheep of the Lord s ﬂock , whom , P ‘ ’ in the Blessed eter, it has been said, Feed My sheep . “ P ” And they devoutly ask his aternity as suppliants, out of the care of the Apostolic See to provide accord ing to promise for the peace of ourselves and the king f ” 2 d om o England. ow N here is distinct doctrine . It is the same teach n i g as that of St . Anselm , and indeed, as we have seen , o f all the divines of the Church of England up to this

d . of ate The See Rome, they say , derives her power

1 Their letters are to be found in the A ddita m enta to ’ P . d . . e Matthew aris Works , vol vi , in the Rolls Series,

Luard 1 8 8 2 . 0 8 et se . , , p 4 q 2 ' P n . . . 08 . M atthew a s , vol vi p 4 1 0 0 ROME A N D E N GLAN D

’ P “ and authority from our Lord s words to eter, Feed ” My sheep . ’ “ But they write a third time and say, As it behoves a thirsty man to have recourse to the living fountain when the rivulets are dried up through the heat , so the oppressed ﬂy to the clemency of your See when justice ” is overborne by might . So far we might suppose that ’ it was only o n the ground of past experience of Rome s justice that they thus speak . This would be remarkable 1 2 8 enough in 5 , the time when , if we are to believe “ Bishop Creighton , the cry of England for the English

wi tlt t/ze m ea ni n o f i n had gone up, g desiring national

lzur /z as a C c . dependence of Rome But this is not all , for they go on to emphasise their belief that they are “ r having recourse to a Divine institution . For therefo e has God set your Blessedness over the world in His own ” place . Here again is deﬁnite doctrine of the same kind. They then ask the Holy Father to intervene in regard to B isho elect the diocese of Winchester, so that he [the p ] h w o respects no one , being punished, may learn that he is subject to the Apostolic See, to whose special injury ” he has done these th ings . to I know not how one is produce proof of anything, if this is not deemed sufﬁcient proof of a doctrine u nder ff lying the recourse had to Rome , to the e ect that the Apostolic See was divinely instituted for the government of the Church in such ecclesiastical matters as did not s the belong imply to the civil order, in this case deposi — tion of a bishop elect . The utility, therefore, was the practical advantage to be derived from appealing to a C court which , in certain matters , all hristian men , accord of C of ing to the teaching the hurch England , acknow o ledged as set over the Church by Alm ighty G d Himself .

But there is something more . The Bishop of Peter

of . borough , speaking the times previous to Henry I I I ,

1 0 2 R OM E A N D E N GLAN D viction that in some matters it was the divinely instituted

t m er bi s . centre of rule . This Simon had stated to ide v _

After the battle of Evesham , in which Simon was slain , C Othob on ardinal was sent as legate, and at the Legatine Council of N orthampton he excommunicated three or 1 four bishops who had sided with the unhappy Earl .

Rome had written to say that , before condemning

m ust ' e on the Bishop of Winchester, some one b heard his side, and had entreated Simon and his associates to

‘ “ r r Techni prese ve thei fealty to their royal master . ” “ cally, says Bishop Stubbs , the fault must lie with Simon - which is the same as saying that Rome was technically right in her decision . But the point to be noticed is that each side deferred to the Holy See . The n f r o e asked o a legate to be sent , the other received him when he came— though both were prepared to act against authority if it su ited their purpose . But acting against authority is not disowning the legitimacy of the authority in itself. W ? A n hat, then, must be our conclusion y theory , to account for all the facts so far, must admit occasional irritation , vehement Opposition , and strong expressions f on the part o England towards Rome . But was this the beginning of a discovery that Papal j urisdiction “ C ” was dangerous to hurch and nation alike, as Bishop Creighton puts the matter ? This would be to ignore Of another set of facts, a mass evidence, which goes to show that it was the settled belief of England that the of P See Rome was the See of eter, and , as such , divinely appointed to rule the Church . The truth , therefore,

a cted appears to be this . Men often on their belief through a sense of its practical advantages ; but the

1 d Stubb s Y ork u an d C Accor ing to Bishop , , D rham, arlisle . B u Wilkins gives a d iff erent list (i . t the former is pro ’ bably right , as Wilkins is an impossible one. BELI EF I N PAPAL S U PRE MACY 1 0 3

of belief was always there, and any denial it would have been deemed heresy, any departure from its essential

f . requirements, the sin o schism What the Rectors of the churches in Berkshire said in 1 24 0 exactly expresses the truth as held by the

f . Church o England in the reign of Henry II I , and the to to C extent which , and which alone, a atholic could “ ‘ carry his irritation . They said, When the truth says,

Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My C ’ hurch , He reserved to H imself the ownership i n of C handing over the care [ the hurch], as is evident from ‘ W of he u the following ords t Go spel , Whatsoever tho ’ on shalt bind earth, shall be bound in Heaven ; not, on Whatsoever thou shalt exact earth , shall be exacted H ” 1 in eaven . That is to say, they could protest against certain pecuniary exactions but they could not deny the

S . as piritual supremacy to be of Divine institution Or,

Edward I I I . afterwards put it more bluntly, The Pope ” to n t was set feed , o to shear the sheep . Two things — ( I ) he was set to feed set by Almighty G od ; it was a Divine institution ; ( 2) the shearing was no part of the Divine commission . To protest against the latter was within their competency ; the former was ﬁxed by of G od the ordinance , and could not be denied by

Christian men . Such , right or wrong , was the actual of f teaching the Church o England .

6 Tbe P rotest o tbc /zur o E n . f C c/z f gl a nd agai nst S i r itual I nde enden e o R m p p c f o e. That this was the position maintained by the Church of England at that t ime is placed beyond question by th e following episode in her history

1 ’ onci li a . 80 Wilkins C , i 6 . 1 0 4 R OM E A N D E N GLAN D

1 P . When the Archbishops and Bishops of the rovince ’ o f Canterbury complained in 1 2 4 6 o f the Pope s o ppres v of si e exactions, as they considered them , they speak “ ” “ ” of the known benignity, and recognised sublimity “ ” “ A ostol i own the p c See. They call that See their ” “ holy mother, and speak of themselves as its spiritual ” “ to children , as we who are disposed with glad mind for z labour for her and her dignities, and to be ealous for as we a re i n according to our power her tranquillity , ” “ d u n ty bou d. They speak of desiring to be found “ fervent in devotion to her ; as being bound to keep o ur of people in the unity the Church , our mother. “ They speak of themselves as prostrate at the feet of ” your Holiness in prayers with tears ; and they ask his “ of Holiness to remember the fervour Anglican faith , and that the same kingdom has been sp eci ally devoted to til e R om a n “ of 2 . The abbots and priors write speaking the ” “ of God of Anglican Church as the city , whom ” to glorious things are spoken , even the latest times, “ and as being a special member of the Holy Roman ” 2 Church .

3 . The counts , barons, and magnates , and the whole o f England, in the following year, address themselves to “ on as what they call the Apostolic See , calling her t o wn their mother o cherish her children , and saying that they have “ recourse with conﬁdence to the asylum ff ” 3 of your pious a ection .

4 . And the King, at the same time , writes to the cardinals speaking of his love for the Roman Church , and his desire for its advantage and honour ; whilst to the “ Pope he writes, He who knows all, knows that we

1 6 . Wilkins, i . 9 4 2 6 . . . 1 i . P s . a . 1 2 M att . aris, 4, vol iv p 53 (Rolls Ser es) 3 [ bi d p . 533.

1 0 6 R OME A N D E N GLA N D

To her we are morally bound (op or tet) to have recourse at seasonable times, that the ﬁlial grief which weighs ’ upon us may be relieved by a mother s care . They then call to mind the close ties that had ever existed between Rome and themselves . They plead the fact of P ’ their continual payment of eter s pence . This was in 3 1 24 5

“ T a r - o u r . a n 7 b e F f S z e i .

“ Bishop Creighton traces the attrac tion of Papal ” “ ” Supremacy as a theory to that of a far- off su z erain a remote su z erain with indeﬁnite claims and little ” f “ power of enforcing them , as a fording an escape from ” 2 local authority . We have already seen that the English Church was penetrated with a profound convic tion of the Divine f z institution o the Papacy . Whether its su erainty was

- r f far off o not would not have af ected that conviction, except as a subsidiary advantage or drawback ; but it is at any rate certain , from what has gone before , that owing to the f aith of England the power of enforcing its claims possessed by the Papacy was such that the whole machinery of the kingdom could be disarranged by an ” interdict. It is , however, worth while asking whether “ ” the Pope can be called a far- off suzerain in regard to the daily life of ecclesiastical England . We will endeavour to see to what extent she leant on the Papacy for authori ta tive guidance and rule at the time when, according to “ C to Bishop reighton , she had begun to prescribe limits P ” 3 apal activity .

We have the power of doing this, owing to the recently

1 . 6 . M ansi , xxiii 39

T he N C u c dd . . ational h r h in the M i le Ages , p 9 3 ’ i . t o . I b a p . BELIE F I N PAPA L SU PR E MACY 1 0 7 published Calendar of Papal Registers relating to

England, published in the great Rolls Series by Mr . W.

. ; 1 2 2 6 H Bliss I shall therefore select the year , a date which ought to be favourable to Bishop Creighton , being that which his Lordship selects as the time when “ the ” theory of a far- off suz erain had been put into practice for some time (i . e. during the minority of Henry I II . , m i r abile di ctu when , , a legate resided in England and f f conducted many of the a fairs o State as well as Church), and when the limits to Papal activity had begun to be prescribed . We will see what kind of matters, according

P . to English ideas, came under the jurisdiction of the ope And we must remember that we have to do with no new r e i m e g and no exceptional circumstances . The applica t of tions made o Rome are made as a matter course, and are a witness to what had been going on at the time “ ” - ff ness f ao when the far o o the suzerainty had been , to to cording Bishop Creighton , an irresistible attraction the English mind . We will take, especially, six months from the reign of the very Pope selected by Bishop

Creighton, when England is supposed to have been on the road to its present attitude towards Rome , and from ’ of that middle portion Henry s reign in which , according “ t of o the same writer, the cry was raised England for ’ the English , as a prelude to the attitude of Henry VI I I . c towards the Papa y . The instances given are from the

B e esta of P C . g ope Honorius I I I . ( alendar, vol In the second half of 1 2 2 5 the P ope had sent a mandate to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Papal Sub on tbc peti ti on of the Abbot and Convent

f of bod . B iri nus o Dorchester, for the removal the y of St to a more ﬁtting place in the Church . We have here ( I ) the Pope regarded by the English Church as the guardian of the bodies of the saints ( 2) the Pope acting through the provincial authority, the Archbishop ; and 1 0 8 R OM E A N D E N GLAN D

( 3 ) all this at request from England herself. Then came the canonisation of a saint named Lawrence, the Archbishop having made satisfactory investigation as to c f the occurrence of mira les, through the Bishop o Derry . Presently a Papal mandate authorised four bishops to receive evidence for and against the Bishop of Durham t concerning the alienation of some ecclesiastical proper y , and another settled that the excommunication should be relaxed . These are but selections from the latter part of the year 1 2 2 5 ; yet how much these few instances reveal of the intricate relations of subordination and authority between England and Rome ‘ The yea r 1 2 2 6 opens with a Papal injunction and

e com l a i nt mandate to a count , s nt on the p of the King of

England against h im . The mandate orders him to return h to his fealty, notwithstanding any oath e may have taken to the contrary . Again , at the request of the King, the P ’ ope sends an indult permitting the King s clerk , named b eneﬁce Stephen , to hold an additional with cure of souls, and then another exactly similar concerning a second clerk . This is followed by a mandate to the Dean and p ri m a r i us of York to investigate the case of one wishing to be pro moted to holy orders in spite of certain impediments , and n to act according to their investigation . Soo afterwards i n a nswer there is a permission to the Bishop of Salisbury, to iris r e uest q , to take proceedings against pluralists and ff other o enders, such as vicars who receive stipends with to out providing for their cures . Then a licence the Archbishop of York to summon to his assistance four principal persons when there is need of advice in the aff airs of his province for a particular purpose . Then follow various mandates to priors and convents , to the

C . an d Bishop , Archdeacon , and anon of St Andrews ; C presently a mandate to the hancellor, Precentor, and

Subdeacon of Lincoln, to compel a prior and convent

1 1 0 R OM E A N D EN GLAN D

- ln Apostolic See was an ever present reality . For the stances given are but samples of the way in which Rome and England were knit together . I have taken only those (and not all of those) that occur i n the register of a few months at the very time when the English bishops are supposed by Bishop Creighton to have been treating

Papal j urisdiction with ridicule . f to It is , indeed , di ﬁcult understand what the B ishop of Southwell and others can mean by saying that England on or n never was dependent Rome, how Bishop Creighto can consider that the relation between England and Rome can be accounted for by the natural attraction for “ ” “ - off z z a far su erain , a remote su erain with indeﬁnite f ” 1 claims and little power o enforcing them . The inter ven ti on of the H ol v See in the aff airs of England was on more decided, and came quicker to the scene, than that of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the present day reaches one o f his suffragans . It took much longer to bring the present Bishop of Lincoln to trial, and to settle the matter of how the service of the Sacrament ought to

n be co ducted in a most important point, than it did to bring Papal action into exercise at the time when B ishop “ ” - Creighton calls the Pope a far off suz erain . And the acts of the Pope were seldom p r op ri o m otu they were called for by the King, archbishops, bishops, abbots, and clerks having recourse to what they called “ the Apos ” of P tolic See . It has been well said the apal action in the thirteenth century that “ the mandates are answers to appeals, and the indults and faculties are answers to petitions, in wh ich the English bishops, abbots, and chapters themselves took the initiative . They are in nearly every case the ﬁrst to invoke the exercise of the ’ Pope s authority ; and it is childish to suppose that they would have invoked and obeyed an authority in which

1 dd C u . The N ational h rch in the Mi le Ages , p BE LI EF I N PAPAL SU P RE MACY 1 1 1

c onsci en they did not believe , and which they did not a tiously recognise . We might well apply to the medi eval English Church the unanswerable remark of the P ro k of P urisdic testant writer Kemble, when spea ing apal j tion as shown by the gift and acceptance of the pallium ‘ - in the Anglo Saxon Church . He says : The question is not whether the Roman See had the right to make the — not— it ao demand, but whether usurpation or was

- C quiesced in and admitted by the Anglo Saxon hurch , ’ 1 and on that point there can be no dispute . N not ow, this recourse to Rome could have been sud denly arrested without some trace o f such a stoppage n being left on the history o f the period. But there is o

such trace . During the struggle between the King and too t he barons, English people were much occupied to be perpetually recurring to Rome ; but we have seen

that, nevertheless, the same principle, the same doctrine,

“ as to the supremacy of the Holy See pervaded English

life .

’ B i s/to r t 8 . e t r p G oss tes e s Let e .

The ecclesiastical situation cannot be better summa ’ r ised than by pointing to Bishop Grosseteste s attitude

a towards the Holy See . We have in his conduct an c cen tuated instance of the distinction between a repudiation of Papal Supremacy and resistance to some form of its i s e xercise . And a summary of his doctrine to be found P N in his famous letter to the apal otary, Innocent, and 2 to the Archdeacon of Canterbury . If ever there was a

prelate who had the courage of his convictions, it was this

1 ’ C u li i K m l . D b n R ev ew c 1 8 . . and e b e s f , O tober 9 4, Art x “ ” . 1 note. Saxons , ii p . 37 2 ’ C : u A . 1 1 S ee ] B rton s nnals , p 3 (Rolls Series) . Robert

G . . C . rosseteste, by M gr W roke Robinson 1 1 2 R OM E A N D E N GLA N D

sturdy Bishop of Lincoln ; and if ever there was a letter

which breathed strong conviction in every line, it was that which he wrote to that Pope concerning the proposal to

give a certain b eneﬁce in his diocese to a minor. Canon ’ ”

u I . . Perry (“St dent s English Church History , Period , p 34 6) calls it a letter which must be ever memorable in C English hurch history, and which laid the foundation for f a the bold protests of Wycli fe, and for the nation l recoil ” from Rome of the sixteenth century . N ow as , in this letter, vehement it is against the P actual working of apal provisions , the Bishop appeals ’ to Innocent s knowledge of himself as an obedient sub “ ect of — I w j the Apostolic See obey as a son , ith all

c c devotion and reveren e, Apostoli mandates and he Says that “ Apostolic mandates are not and cannot be other than consonant and in conform ity with the teach H l ing of the Apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ imse f, whose typus and person the Lord Pope especially bears c c in the e lesiastical hierarchy . For our Lord Jesus C a t hrist H imself says, He th t is not wi h Me is against Me but t/ze m ost di vi ne sa ncti ty of tire Apostoli c S ee i s ”

not a nd a nnot e n Hi m . c b ag a i st . The Bishop calls the ' “ ower of P m p the ope the greater and ore divine power, ” iﬁ ati n divinely com mitted to him for ed c o . Here is G clear doctrine, which severs the teaching of rosseteste by an impassable chasm from that of the Church of

V z . England since the days of Henry I II . and Eli abeth Canon Perry recognises this in one part of his criticism ’ “ on N o i Grosseteste s letter ; for he says, reco l is here made from the Pope ’ s mandate upon Church principles i C P [i . e. those Church pr nciples which anon erry and

Anglicans generally hold], and the plenary authority of ” the Apostolic See is fully recognised . In fact, the “ to w/zic/z Bishop says, The most holy Apostolic See, every ki nd of p ower b as been deli ver ed by ﬁre H oly of

1 1 4 R OM E A N D EN GLAN D

C i and not the Father of our Lord Jesus hr st, who is ” i n Heaven . This is a dexterous application of the to P promise eter, whose is the Apostolic See . ’ GrosseteSte s In fact, B ishop language is i n perfect accord with the Vatican decree . According to that decree, there is a region within which the Holy See of is secure infallible guidance, and within which her

m an decrees are binding on every Christian . But there is a large region of action where this necessity of obedi of ence under pain sin ceases, and Grosseteste explains

c that he is acting in su h a matter, and that in the subject - matter of his resistance he is dealing not with

ué the Apostolic See, q Apostolic, but with things in which f ’ the rights o conscience are supreme . Canon Perry s “ criticism , that by the declaration that the minister of

C hrist might become Antichrist, and by the strong of condemnation the iniquity of the act in question , the B ishop takes up ground which is suggestive of, and re ec introductory to, a more complete and systematic j f ” tion o Papal authority, must have been indignantly repudiated by Bishop Grosseteste himself. The Bishop could reply that he had expressly said that the Apostolic not n See could become Antichrist, and that it was o this very ground that he contested the decree as n ot f that o the Apostolic See in the true sense . He could have pointed to his emphatic declaration of the d u ty of —~ obedience in general to that See of the power it possesses — ' by the gift of Heaven of his definition of sc hi sm as r separation from the Apostolic See, and of his very ea nest f and reiterated assertions o his filial relationship to it. Indeed it is difficult to imagine how Canon Perry recon ciles the idea of this letter of Grosseteste being an antici patio u of the teaching of Wycliff e and the catastrophe of h own the sixteenth century, wit his admission that no ’ recoil is here [in this letter] made from the Pope s m an B ELI EF I N PAPAL SU PR E MACY 1 1 5

n i o . e date Church principles [ . Anglican principles], and the plenary authority of the Apostolic See is fully re ” ff ’ cognised . The di erence between Grosseteste s prin “ ” c iples and the Church principles alluded to must be ff considered vital , unless there is no vital di erence

“ between Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism ; and f one if there is a vital di ference, the cannot be the f o . parent the other It is, therefore, not historically a ccurate to head the chapter, in which the letter from f of Honorius I II . and this letter o the Bishop Lincoln “ figure so largely, with the words simply, The reaction ” against Rome . It is only by confusing the issue that this can be maintained as a proper description of the e vents of the reign of Henry I II . Opposition to Rome or in matters that concern her temporal overlordship, f the exercise o supremacy in its accidental features, and opposition to Papal Supremacy in its essence as f two o Divine institution, are vitally different things ; and the two should not be shuflfled about to do duty to ff o ne for the other . Canon Perry endeavours e ect a climax by asserting that Bishop Grosseteste “ followed up ne this letter by o addressed to the nobles of England , z of the citi ens London , and the commons of the whole ” the kingdom . But this latter was written a year before letter to Pope Innocent.

There is, indeed, nothing in this letter that goes beyond what Grosseteste said at the (E cumenical of C ouncil Lyons, where, nevertheless, he stood with lighted taper in hand side by side with the Continental bishops, as the tremendous Papal sentence against

. G Frederick I I of ermany was fulminated, and, in token of agreement, every taper was suddenly extinguished 1 and dropped to the ground .

1 . 6 . Mansi , xxiii 43 1 1 6 R OM E A N D EN GLAN D

“ Certainly it could be no idea of a far - off suz erain G c nvi c that attracted Bishop rosseteste . He bases his o of of P tion the utility apal Supremacy (for, in spite of h is protest in this particular matter of an appointment of a f minor by provision , he does again and again speak o its ’ utility) on the gro und of the Church s interpretation of — i h institu Holy Scripture a word, he believed it to be an ur tion due to o Lord Himself . It does seem high time that this constant reference to Grosseteste as a precursor of the Reformation should be given up . It was more excusable when his writings were less easy of access ; n w but o that every one can read them , it is no longer common fairness to quote a passage or two, and ignore the lifelong witness which the great Bishop of Lincoln bore to the Divine institution of the See of Peter as the source of jurisdiction to the whole Church . Bishop Stubbs long ago admitted this fact in his “ Constitutional ” 1 History , but his example has not been widely followed .

The sum and substance of the matter is this . It would need an act of pure creation to introduce the attitude of Cranmer and Eliz abeth towards Rome into that thirteenth century ; no amount of natural evolution would transform the belief of England in the reign of

Henry II I . into the system inaugurated by the preamble of the Act of Henry VI II . (to which Bishop Creighton “ refers) , and expressed in the Article of Religion of the “ Church of England , which says that the Bishop of Rome hath no j urisdiction in this realm of England ”

(Art .

1 Bishop Grosseteste is claimed on behalf of Anglicanism “ more than once in the recently pu blished Le ctures of the ” P o C . oc e. . Ch urch H istorical S iety , g by rofess r ollins, p p 49 G C/zr oni cl es o a nd 5 1 . For rosseteste s letters , see the f

Gr ea t B r i ta i n (Rolls Series).

1 1 8 ROM E A N D E N GLA N D accompanying form was that two prebends in each cathedral and conventual ch u rch should be granted to P th the ope . It is not surprising that, when e letter was P ‘ read in arliament , each man made merry with his ’ neighbour over the greed of the Romans ; and the ‘ King answered : This concerns the whole of Christen dom . When we , who live in the ends of the earth , see ho w a other nations behave towards such ex ctions, we ’ 1 will discuss the matter.

u of According to this acco nt the matter, it would seem ( 1 ) that the English took the initiative in exam ining the Papal legate as to the corruptions of the Roman Curia ; and ( 2 ) that the Pope pleaded guilty to the m is carriage of just ice o n his part by reason of his poverty “ if ” (such is Bishop Creighton ’ s explanation of the Papal “ to e letter), if he were decently rich he could afford b

Upright . I hope to show that the Bishop ’ s interpretation is absolutely unfounded . But in view of the radical and general misconceptions P t of as to the apal claims in this ma ter taxation , it will be well to describe the situation ﬁrst, and we shall then see better what is the value of the incident described by

Bishop Creighton .

l r a n 2 . Tbe Gener a Ci cu m st ces .

The Popes of the Middle Ages had to carry on a tremendous struggle for the independence of the Church , of P C not merely the apacy, but of the hurch at large .

The weapon by which , of all others, they withstood em ror or o of pe , duke , c unt, was the power excommunication

1 “ M The N C u c dd . 6 . ational h r h in the i le Ages , pp , 7 ’ ' ‘ BISH OP CR EI GH T ON S A CCUSA I ION 1 1 9

which they held in their hands . Men bel ieved in the “ ” Apostolic See ; and the Popes could rely on a sufﬁ

o f God - cient amount the fear of in their fellow men , and of belief in their own jurisdiction as the successors of th e on Apostle Peter, for that weapon to be of some avail . C sequently, at the time of which I am now speaking, the P “ thirteenth century , the opes had become the centre, not ff of only of religious and moral e ort , but political and civil order . From Rome issued all over the world streams of b ene ﬁc ence and instruction the universities were closely f connected with the Apostolic See the ransom o slaves, the equipment of missionaries, the struggle against the to Turks , the attempts keep the Greeks within the unity — of the Church of all this Rome was the centre and mainspring . At this time two great religious orders were carrying their m issions of merc y and edi ﬁcation far and too c wide, and they , , had their lose relations with Rome as her obedient children , for they were the sons of St .

Dominic and St . Francis . “ P Pro In the preceding period the apacy , says a one testant historian , had united in common bond the ff di erent European nations, furthered their mutual inter course, and become a channel for the communication of the sciences and arts and without it the ﬁne arts, doubt so less , would not have attained to high a degree of per f ti n ec o . The Papal power restrained political despotism , and warded off from the rude multitude many of the vices ” of . of barbarism And at the time which I am speaking, the Holy See was in active relations with the whole ur civilised world , and not least with o N orthern com ni i 1 2 1 m u t es . I n 9 the Isle of Man asked this same Pope Honorius to extend to it “ that privilege and pro

“ tec tion which you concede to other kings who pay the tax ” and are vassals to the Roman Church . In the follow ing year, Honorius threatened with excommunication all 1 2 0 R OME A N D EN GLAN D

on who should attack Denmark, the ground that that c ountry had placed itself under the special protection “ of the Holy See ( ad Roman ee Ecclesiae juri sdi ctionem ' noscitur pertinere I may remark in passing that it is hardly less than absurd to talk of ambition as the key to a ll this. It has been well said that the sovereign power wielded by Rome at this period was due to her position,

c not to her will (Mi haud) . N ow all this religious and political activity neces s itated — a vast administrative mechanism indeed, a f p erfect network o offices and departments. In other words , the enormous work thrust upon the Papacy by “ a Christendom which never ceased to call it the ” Cu ri o Apostolic See, involved a , with all the expenses t hat belonged to a court . And not only the expenses ; f or C u of since the ria has to consist men, and the various departments of the administration have to be fi ffi lled with gradations of o ce, and, moreover, gradations of pay , the consequences are obvious . N either the sub p ordinates nor the heads of de artments , though they be concerned in a saintly work , are necessarily saints . N either can the work of the Church be allowed to stand s till for the want of saints to work its administrative machinery . What we might expect , therefore, would n be corruption , ever and ano , finding its way into this

y centre of religious and political activit , and reflecting a mongst its officials the vices o f the day . But at the o ne w same time ould expect to find , ever and anon , ff serious, and indeed to some extent successful , e orts to stay the corrupt influences always at work . And the true reformer would be intent not on altering the strue who ture of the Church , but on recalling those had to do with its activities to greater purity of life . This was the method of a Grosseteste of Lincoln . He could d eclaim against and Oppose the selection of an unfit

1 2 2 ROM E A N D EN GLAN D of prelates of the highest character had proposed that the various Christian states should c o- operate in provid ing the Holy See with a settled income for the immense f i body of o ﬁc als, whose maintenance was necessary for P her work . But the ope (Innocent I II . ) had himself d i t decided that the matter should be deferre , lest should seem as if the Co uncil had been convoked for that purpose . Honorius , however, considered that the time had come for reverting to the question of thus support y ing the Holy See, in accordance with the weight Opinions

on f 1 given the subject in the Council o 1 2 5 . N ow , whilst there were good general reasons, as Giraldus pointed out, why the children should support 1 their mother, there were also special reasons why

“ England should be foremost in this matter. I n a very remarkable history of English law before the f o I . time Edward , recently published by Sir Frederick P P u the ollock, rofessor of Jurispr dence in University f of . P o Oxford , and Dr Maitland, rofessor of the Laws f England in the University o Cambridge, the learned “ authors remark (p . that in the Middle Ages the whole of Western Europe was subject to the jurisdiction

of o f C . one tribunal last resort , the Roman uria The P ope was far more than the president of a court of appeal . Very frequently the courts Christian which did j ustice in England, were courts which were acting under his supervision and carrying out written instructions .

Each separate Church might have its customs, but there

us om m une l aw of was a j c , a common the Universal f Church . In the view o the canonists , any special rules of the Church of England have hardly a wider

1 Gi raldus suggested the very plan proposed by H onorius . H e insists strongly on the d u ty of daughters to support their — u - c u c u mother i . e. the da ghter h r hes to s pport the mother of

c . S ecu l u m E ccl es i ae . . ca . all , viz. , Rome ( f p , D ist iv p ’ BI SH OP CREIG H TO N S ACC U SATI O N 1 2 3

scope, hardly a less dependent place , than have the customs of Kent or the bye - laws of London in the eyes of the English lawyer . During the time with which we are now dealing, the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, no English canonist attempts to write down the law of the

‘ English Church , for the English Church has very little law save the law of the Church Catholic and Roman . When in the next century John de A t hona wrote a commentary on the constit utions made by certain Papal legates in England — those which Cardinal Otho de

i h 1 2 ttobon creed 3 7, those which Cardinal O decreed — in 1 2 68 he treated them as part and parcel of a system which was only English because it was universal , and brought to bear upon them the expositions of the great foreign doctors . On the other hand , a large portion of this universal system was in one sense speciﬁcally

English . England seems to have supplied the Roman Curia with an amount of litigation far larger than that which the mere size or wealth of the country would have led us to exp ect . Open the Gregorian collection where ” we P we will, see the ope declaring law for English cases “ n (p . From the middle of the thirteenth century 0 n wards a mass of litigation , of litigatio , too, which in no h sense can be called ecclesiastical, was anded over to P tribunals which were often constituted by apal rescript, ” and from which there lay an appeal to the Roman Curia

(p.

’ 4 . H onor i us l etter . Such was the position of things when Honorius as cended the Apostolic throne. There was a special reason why he, in particular, should attempt a reform . In the high ﬁnancial ofﬁce which he held for some s twenty years under his predeces or, he had reason to 1 24 R OM E A N D E N GLA N D be specially cognisant of any evil reports concerning the expenses connected with the administration of justice in the Curia. Accordingly , in his letter from which Bishop C reighton professes to quote , he speaks of these evil reports . He says that they had their origin in the evil tongues of people who came to Rome and spent on t/zei r pl easur es what had been assigned to them for the neces sary expenses of their work as proctors from the various ri provinces . He accordingly sent his legates to the va ous countries to urge them to agree to a certain proposal, which I shall show was n ot what Bishop Creighton states i “ ” it to have been , and which nvolved no greed what

f . ever, and certainly no admission o miscarriage of justice H e f w z . N o speaks of these o ficials as followers of Geha i , Gehazi induced N aaman to give him a gratuity contrary t of o the wish the prophet Eliseus , and his act by no means involved the prophet in a miscarriage of justice ; neither did it involve the consequence that the office of t he prophet should be done away with . C Bishop reighton , however, gives us as historical fact “ an acc ount in which all turns on the greed of the ” 1 Romans , amongst whom Honorius himself is included . But where did the Bishop find this account ? It is to be P seen in Matthew aris , the chronicler, that most untrust f P worthy monk o St . Albans . But Matthew aris copied i t word for word from Roger de Wendover. And who

1 ’ “ E C o cc u c ec ven if Bishop reight n s a o nt were orr t , the ” greed of the Romans would not necessarily involve the

In 1 262 IV . A P ope. U rban wrote to the rchbishop of “ C u and o e d d anterb ry , sp ke of hims lf as aily wearie with o u c ou of c e d o a n d es eci a l l o tlze the imp rt nate lam rs r it rs , p y f R om a ns t o o C u c e e ow t o , wh m the h r h h rs lf is kn n be in ” d e s um V c N o . 2 c . ebt for a v ry large ( ati an Ar hives , Reg 7, ’ u 2 A n d H o o u d ucc Jan ary 3 , n ri s imme iate s essor, ha d e IX . c d t o c c u G r gory , been ompelle leave the ity in o se T ’ qu en ce of the opposition of the Romans . he Bishop s inferen ce is therefore qu ite fallacious .

1 2 6 R OM E A N D E N GLAN D

P of arliament about the corruption the Roman Curia, and [that] the Pope confessed that much scandal and ” infamy was deser ved . This is i n direct contradiction

r . to ou authorities It was , according to Wendover and P P m Matthew aris, the ope who initiated the atter. But in every other particular which the Bishop has retailed, Roger de Wendover himself stands convicted of complete misrepresentation . He could not have seen ’ Honorius letter, as neither can Bishop Creighton have seen

- it . Roger has simply given us a little ill natured gossip with the usual result, namely, false statement . Honorius d id not write anyth ing like the words quoted by Bishop “ Creighton . He did not urge the plea, that if he were ff t ” decently rich , he could a ord o be upright . This is not in h is letter. He insisted very emphatically on the want of truthfulness in attributing to the Holy See what was due to the ill behaviour of foreign proctors and “ ” of . some his ofﬁcials He called it detraction , and “ “ ” u 1 attributed it to prurient ears and evil tong es . N either did he even allude to any miscarriage of justice . “ When Bishop Creighton says , Let me quote the letter of Honorius he is simply reproducing the detraction of Roger . de Wendover, repeated, as such a heap of ill w P natured fabrications were repeated, by Matthe aris . The letter of Pope Honorius to England is to be found in the history of the Church of Salisbury in ’ ’ ’ 8 Cona l za . of . Wilkins , i 5 5 ; in the Register St Osmund 66 ( Rolls Series), vol . i . p . 3 ; and the corresponding ’ to G Marten s T/ze a letter the Bishops of aul, in e s urus ‘ s A necdozum . 2 N ew , i 9 9 (Paris, The main

“ A d miserabile m endacu s ubsidi um recu rrentes ‘ ’ d etractorib u s ob rep eb at occas io latra dolosa ” lingua m al iloqua . 2 T u d d d his sho l be collate with the one sent to Englan , in order to see the meaning of one or two phrases . ’ B I SH OP CR E I GH TON S ACCU SATI O N 1 2 7

f . point o the letter consists in this, viz , that proctors c from foreign cou ntries , su h as England, used to come to Ro m e ; spend money given to . them for necessary expenses on their own pleasures ; tempt the ofﬁcials of

C . the uria , and then complained of their grievous charges 1 He says he had seen this himself. One can easily c imagine the results . In onsequence, as the Pope says, the matter had been mooted at the last General Council 2 and many prelates of worth had proposed that the various provinces of the Church should raise a settled income in support of their mother, the Holy See .

As Honorius says, and it was the strict truth , the Holy ” 3 See was occupied with the necessities of the children . n It was but fair, therefore , that the burde of this enor mous administration should be borne in part by those of C who children the hurch caused it, and that it should f or not depend on the gratuities o proctors, the charges ,

or fﬁ . arbitrary, even authorised , made by o cials The ff to f Pope therefore, by way of giving e ect this wish o G the prelates, expressed in a eneral Council, asks for the of b eneﬁces patronage or proceeds certain . Roger de ex a er ates toe a m ou nt Wendover gg asked for, and Bishop 4 Creighton follows suit . It is not, however, only in this f o . that the account Roger de Wendover halts Mansi,

1 l o i m u d u Mu t t es e t audivi s et vi im s . 2 “ uam l urim os ecclesiarum ree lati m a ni u Q p p , g q e testi ” m oni i viri . 3 Occupationib us multis et m agn is invol vitur pro ” u ﬁ i P necess it atib s l a rum . The ope likens some of his z u d C cu ofﬁcials to Geha i . Wo l Bishop reighton ac se the prophet E liseus of lack of integrity because he had to own that his servant had asked for money from N aaman behind ’ his master s back 4 It tw o d c d u was not preben s from every athe ral ch rch , b ut d c an d one reben from ea h , the bishops were to g ive, p ” “ d c d cu du fa ul instea , ac or ing to their means ( se n m c tates ” suas ) . 1 2 8 ROME A N D EN GLA N D

’ “ ” R a nald s in his notes to y Annals, shows how he, or, which is the same thing, Matthew Paris, has completely misrepresented the transaction of the same matter in 1 France, jumbling up dates , and adding impossibilities . We may therefore take leave to doubt the tr uth of the story reproduced by Bishop Creighton about the giggling prelates, since it would show a levity which certainly 2 the young King himself did not evince . He quite rightly guarded his own domain , and took care that no secular property of his own should be devoted to the purpose of ’ the Pope s proposal . And he decided that the matter was worthy of discussion . He did not say, even accord ing to Roger de Wendover, what Bishop Creighton ’ makes him say ; for his lordship s quotation substitutes “ ” the words we will discuss the matter, for a much l more important declaration in the origina , viz . , that “ P the Lord ope, when we shall have had the example

[of what to do] set by other kingdoms , will ﬁnd us

' ' m or e r ea dy in obedience to him [i n oosegu zzs suis] t/zan ” ot/zer s . These words would not have sounded so well in the ears of the N orwich Church Congress ; but they are the words of the original , which the Bishop professes to give . They are, moreover, words which take the whole sting out of the incident . For the proposal of the Pope could not have been treated merely as an “ ” n instance of the greed of the Romans, if in E gland

1 “ ” d . 1 d A D . 1 2 1 e . . Raynal , Annals , 5 M ansi , note , p 5 5 5 2 c u m a ud d o nd Of o rse , one bishop y have n ge an ther a “ ” spoken of the greed of the Romans ofﬁ cials and m H c d use an d others who the oly See was ompelle to , whose

d c d H o f . B ut gree in no way ompromise the ly See itsel , ’ considering the untru stworthy chara cter of Wendover s e c not o n c u accou nt in other resp ts, we are histori al gro nd ’ d . u C in the etails of his report F rther, Bishop reighton s d c o o o c c es ripti n bel ngs in part to what t ok pla e in Fran e, H e c u ed and not in England at all . has onf s the two accounts .

C HA PTER V II

TH E QUARR E L ABOUT PATR ONAGE

TH E C Church , says Bishop reighton , so far as it was of the organ the nation , passed through the same process

e. . [i . as that by which the nation was formed] It was f C part o Western hristendom , just as England was part of Europe . So far as its institutions were part of a universal order, they were unalterable so far as they of concerned the relations England to foreign countries, they were determined by national needs . About these matters Churchmen were not allowed to have their own way . The strongest instance of this is given by the 1 2 8 events of the year 4 , when Archbishop Chichele was so pestered by Pope Martin V . to abolish the statutes wh ich prevented the P ope from disposing of beneﬁces i n England, that he and the Archbishop of York pleaded ’ the Pope s cause before the Commons . With tears in his eyes the Archbishop urged the danger of withstand C ing the Pope. The ommons were not moved by his

pathetic eloquence . They only sent a petition to the

Council, representing that the Pope had acted to the ‘ prejudice of the Archbishop and of our aller mother, ’ the Church of Canterbury. They had their mother not Church at home, and even its Archbishop should to induce them diminish its independence, which was w ” N likewise their o n . ational Church in the Middle ”

I O. Ages , pp . 9 , ) The key to the position taken up by Bishop Creighton 1 30 TH E QUA RR E L ABOU T PATR O N AG E 1 3 1 in regard to Continuity seems to lie in those words “ About these matters Churchmen were not allowed to ” ”

n . have their ow way These matters were, as the

Bishop has just explained, not such institutions as were f ” part o a universal order, for these, he says, were “ unalterable ; but they were matters which concerned the relations of England to foreign countries to P Rome . The point of his argument is that the apal Supremacy is to be numbered amongst these alterable foreign relations . He is endeavouring to prove that “ o wn the Church in England , while retaining its

urisdic continuity in all essentials, admitted the Papal j n f tion o grounds o utility , and then passed through a long period in which it discovered that that jurisdiction ” was dangerous to Church and nation alike (p .

’ And as his strongest instance that in this matter of her relation to Rome she proceeded upon the principle that of there was no question faith involved, but only a of question utility, the Bishop here adduces the quarrel of between Chichele and Martin V . about the Statutes

' ’ r P r a m um r e H o w P r om so s and . far the Bishop is correct

' of aﬁair in his account this particular , I shall examine presently ; but the whole question of the meaning o f so now those statutes is important, and, indeed, is just s of o much the Achilles the Anglican argument, that

r of ’ I shall ﬁrst give a short histo y them , and then proceed to deal with Bishop Creighton ’ s presentment of the matter .

' of P r o sors 1 1 The ﬁrst Statute w was passed in 3 5 . It

f . concerned the question o patronage . It was a protest against the unrestricted appointment of foreigners to beneﬁce P n s. bishoprics and other The ope, i present r ovide ing in advance, was said to p them and when he en ﬁce intimated his intent to provide to a b e , it was said

r eser ved. or to be The person thus provided, appointed, 1 3 2 R OME A N D E N GLAN D

' r was called the p owsor . The ground on which the

u stat te went was the danger to the kingdom , if those who, from their high position , were the natural counsel of lors the King, belonged to other countries ; and also the ﬁnancial difﬁculties involved in the withdrawal of money from the realm by the foreigners whom the P ope “ or . appointed, provided Besides these grounds o f complaint , there was also the disadvantage of having foreigners to m inister to the people . Foreigners, said 1 i the Commons in 3 4 7, cannot help their spir tual sub “ ” 1 c je ts in preachings and confessions . But there can be no doubt to any one who carefully reads the Parlia m of 1 0 —1 entary records the half century, from 3 7 3 5 3 , that it was the money question that lay at the root of the quarrel . Indeed, the note had been struck at the ’

. G end of Edward I . s reign , when, as Mr reen remarks , “ N eed [of money] drove him on his return from Scot i h 1 2 u o f land 9 7 to meas res tyrannical extortion, which ” 2 seemed to recall the times of John . not And possibly, if Edward II I . had wasted such on a profusion of money his foreign wars, we should

' f P r z never have heard o f the Statute o oo sors . The two ' ' — Statutes of P r oozsor s and P razm z m zre the latter ﬁrst passed two years after the former declaring the forfeiture and outlawry of those who sued in foreign ’ — courts for matters cognisable in the King s courts were

on . For r not , any theory, creditable acts ( ) they were promoted by men who persistently avowed their belief in P apal Supremacy, and passed in the teeth of Episcopal N ow protest . , although the statutes were not a denial f o that supremacy, they were inconsistent with that perfect loyalty which becomes children towards their

to . parent, as the framers professed themselves be And

1 “ Pa t . 1 . Rot . ll 73 2 ” 8 . H E n . P . . . . . 1 ist . of g eople , vol i bk iii p 3

1 3 4 R OM E A N D EN GLA N D that they hold that the Christian faith and those things which have respect to the spread of the observance of the faith itself and to the duty of Divine worship are ” gover ned by y our m i nistry . This is a declaration of f faith which must not be lost sight o in all that follows . Their faith was at this time in diametrical opposition to that which is now held by Anglicans : th e P ope was in matters of faith and worship the ruler of the Universal “ C . hurch But, further, they proceed to say that the

e. said Church [t. of Rome] is the mother and mistress l l of a . the faithful Here, then , is a consideration which is to condition and interpret all that they may ' ‘ not y say . It is to be supposed (so they virtuall tell us) that they are trenching upon the doctrine of Papal of of Supremacy. That was no matter mere utility , but not faith . Theythen say that they feel sure that it is the Pope ’ s intention that they should in any way be crippled by “ undue oppressions ” but that they are sure he has the will to guard them from such evils . n t r They feel that he has o taken in their condition , o he would be the ﬁrst to relieve them . They plead the f P ’ — i mmemorial payment o eter s pence paid, however, under a certain form , which the commissaries of the Pope were then (they complain) endeavouring to exact of u in a new way . They speak the diversion of f nds r a meant f o the Holy L nd ; and , ﬁnally a point which became of supreme importance— they protest against certain contracts being added by which “ many causes belonging purely to the King’ s Court are brought t o u before the said comm issaries, the prej dice of the ’ ” C King s dignity. Again , whereas hitherto the hurch o f Rome had one clerical agent for the despatch of its 1 business in England , now (they say) there are four .

“ 1 Th P c m 20 20 8 . e o Rot . i . 7, expense of apal missioners billeted on the people was considerable. TH E QUARREL ABOU T PATR ON AG E 1 3 5

i n o f Again , a petition against the commissary

C . lement V (William de Testa) and his commissioners , h they state their grievances in language w ich , as Bishop “ Stubbs has said, subsequently became classical , and ” was adopted in the great Statute of Provisors . They “ ” speak of the Holy Church as having been founded “ i n all these estates of prelacy in this kingdom by the King and his ancestors for them and the people ” 1 r wo ds which have been Often m isunderstood , but which simply mean that the beneﬁees of the vari ous r anks of the hierarchy were founded for the advantage of the English , not f or o and foreigners . As the previous qu tation shows, their words were in n o way meant to favour the idea o f an independent national Church : they merely avowed the principle of the nation beneﬁting by the endow 2 m ents of thepas t. They again complain of cases being ’ drawn from the King s Court to that of the P apal com — to missary cases , that is , which properly belonged the — ’ former and of Peter s pence being collected according o of not t the will the commissary, in the form h itherto not usual . In all this there is a vestige of intentional rebellion against the supremacy of the Pope in matters ‘ So of faith or recognised ecclesiastical disciplin e. far P it is beyond dispute that , as a rotestant writer has said , “ it would be a mistake to suppose that the King and English people desired at this time to put a complete ’ stop to the Pope s power of appointing by provisions ; it was felt to be reasonable that the spiritual

1 “ 2 1 . Rot . i . 9 2 u C . . u Bishop St bbs onst iii . p 3 54) is not q ite fair in his s um mary of this passage : the Parliament d id not “ simply state (as he puts it) that the Ch u rch in this realm ” i t f u d d and c &c . b ut was o n e by the King his an estors , ; was — established in variou s ranks alluding not to the orders of b ut u d the ministry, the vario s egrees of rank which were accompanied with endowments. 1 3 6 R OM E A N D E N GLAN D head of the Church should share in the disposal of its ” 1 ﬁ s dignities and b ene ce .

The matter now slept until the reign of Edward I II . of ut It was in the nature things that, in carrying b his ’ grandfather s programme further and reducing customs to f ﬁxed law, and in the endeavour to settle the relations o of the various estates his realm, he should enter upon the of question ecclesiastical patronage . His famous saying to n t the Pope, that his Holiness was set to feed , o shear, the sheep , expresses at once his belief in the Divine institution Of the Papacy, and the matters on which he of was prepared to oppose its action . In point fact,

Edward I I I . wished to keep the shearing to himself. His monstrously lavish expenditure o n foreign wars made him keenly alive to the withdrawal Of the sinews of war from the country, which certainly resulted from the way in which the Papal provisions were often made . The “ Rome—runners as they were called— men who went off to Rome to get appointments for themselves — to and others increased the confusion . And it was the interest of the baronage to keep the patronage of bene ’ fices as much as possible in their own and the King s hands so that , whilst no one dreamt of supposing that certain ecclesiastical arrangements could be effected — without the action or confirmation of the Pope su c h — as the transference of a bishop to a new diocese the f of di ficult question how far the Pope, as spiritual head

f u r o the Church , was j stiﬁed in inte vening in matters into s which endowment entered , not unnaturally occupied the f thoughts o King and Parliament . The action Of Edward in another matter complicated of the whole question . Until his reign the position the Pope as temporal overlord had been recognised by the

1 “ ” LL. D . d and . D . Englan Rome , by T Ingram, , Bar

- - at 1 8 2 . 1 0 1 0 . rister law, 9 , pp 4, 5

1 3 8 R OM E A N D E N GLAN D

1 not enrolled as a statute . But in 1 3 44 the Commons prayed the King that no suits about presentation to “ beneﬁc s . e should be made in the Court of Rome or ” f other Christian Court . This was the natural sequel o their previous action ; for if the grantees o f a Papal — t. e. s of provision the provisors, as the recipient a — beneﬁce were called drew their case away from Eng

‘ land, the statute against such provisions would have been rendered nugatory . It will be evident that Edward was securing two things b his — of y , action the retention money (his great want) in th e country , so that by means of taxation it might flow into his exhausted coffers ; and the exclusion of French or influence, , indeed , of any but English influence, from the high places of his kingdom . It must be remembered f that the Pope was living at Avignon , and the action o P his Curia was Often deplorable ; and, moreover, the ope was himself a Frenchman . of no But, in spite this , it is quite clear that there was idea of denying the Divine institution of the Papacy for N or the governm ent of the Church in matters spiritual . was there any avowed or admitted reflection on the Holy i Father himself. Three years later, the previous leg sla tion having proved ineffectual to arrest the appointment of foreigners, the Commons prayed the King to take

and recom further steps ; , on being asked what they mended to be done, they desired that a bill should be introduced and executed to complain to the Holy of Father himself, telling him of the loss to the work the Church through the appointment of aliens, who n d 1 0 . i u H . . of co rse ( emingfor , ii p 4 , Rolls Series) Also, 1 2 P u d d c Con 4 9 , apal b lls were elivere to the Ar hbishop in

c and d d ou t . T did vo ation , imme iately rea by him hey not ’ uc c b u t had do u to h the King s rown, to with spirit al matters

( Wilkins , iii . p . 1 ’ “ Stubbs Const . iii . p . 3 5 5 . TH E QUARR EL ABOU T PATR O N AG E 1 3 9

could do nothing in the way of preaching or hearing “ confessions ; and they asserted that these were mis ” “ ' an wlzo s chiefs d defects which the Holy Father, z

S overez n o er nor o H ol Cho r e/z on ear t/z g G v f y , should look ” to. So they urge the King to write to the Holy Father, 1 m and inform him . Throughout the controversy the Co P wh mons assume that it is not the ope o is to blame, but

his advisers and informants . They even profess to be to acting in his interests. The King promised write but no of a f we have copy the letter, nor deﬁnite ccount o the result:

“ It is to be noticed that when they touched o n the subject of doctrine and the administratio n of Sacra o f ments, their expression belief is clear and emphatic “ the Holy Father is the Sovereign Governor of Holy ” Church on earth . At length came the actual Statute of P r ovisors in 1 1 f n 3 5 . England was at the lowest point o depressio , N through the ravages of the Black Death . ever was 1 ro she more in need of m oney. The year 349 had p uced s d one uniform desolation . Among t other laws which could only be considered temporary (such as one forbidding labourers to ﬁnd employment outside their

' lzaotat f r r accustomed z ) came this Statute o P oviso s . The f i point o the grievance is described as consist ng, not in P s o f apal provision simply, but in the actual provision f or eig ners to posts from which the King had been wont to take his counsellors for the safety of his realm ; so that the appointment of foreigners to the position of “ prelates and clergy would lead to the subversion o f ” or of the State ; whilst absentee provisors , recipients “ beneﬁces a f t he , would l ead to the nnihilation o Holy ” C of of hurch England (through lack endowments), and

1 “ 1 1 . 1 . Rot . 73 1 4 0 R OM E A N D E N GLAN D

1 to f prejudice would be done the Crown . It is di ﬁcult for us not to deplore the policy which led to the con tinued appointment o f aliens at a time of such ﬁnancial depression in England , whilst it is impossible not to recognise that the Court of Rome had technical rights n in the matter . But o e thing is quite certain , and that of or is, that there was no intention in the mind King Parliament of trenching upon what they held to be the

- f o . d ivinely given rights the Holy See And , indeed , in spite of the bluster which appears in these statutes, the English people were not thoroughly in earnest in the “ ” matter. They were evaded , says Bishop Stubbs , “ P from the ﬁrst . They were disregarded by the ope on the whole, and King, and Parliament, and bishops t not conspired o evade them . They were a success in any way. Th e University of Oxford had eventually to complain that the temporary lull in the appointment of aliens actually led to the degradation of the clergy. At length the Commons echoed the University complaint , and admitted that the net result was a loss of learning

‘ a d an er of 2 and g heresy . There were, in fact, more

Papal provisions after the statute than before .

’ 1 eem un r e s I n 3 5 3 the famous Statute of P r z was pa sed , which outlawed all who sued in foreign courts for matters ’ cognisable in the King s courts . This was with special no reference to the provision o f b eneﬁces. It had reference whatsoever to appeals to Rome on matters of c n r f do trine, o indeed o discipline . It would be the veriest perversion of history to introduce the question of appeals in general into the subject - matter of these

' ’ r Statutes of P r oozsor s and P ra m u nz e. It is perpetually recited in the Acts of Parliament and emphasised in the of arguments King and Commons, that their contention

1 “ 2 1 2 . 1 5 54 . iv~ 1 6 5; 1 . 3 Rot . 3 3 ,

1 4 2 R OME A N D E N GLAN D

to He is, however, correct in saying that, in regard the

’ of P r om sor s P r a m u nzr e n Statutes and , Churchme were ”

to . T not allowed have their own way o begin with , the whole spirituality of England protested against anything “ in these statutes which might be turned against ecclesi ” astical freedom , in which th ey included the rights and f authority of the Holy See. The di ﬁculty about these

Acts lay in their vagueness . If, for instance, the things ’ the e cognisable in King s courts were rightly interpr ted , Churchmen could have no objection to vote for the Statute o f P ra' m uni r e 1 2 B ut , which they did later on in 3 9 . it was clearly not within the competency of the King and Parliament by themselves to decide on every occasion f P r o what was thus cognisable . So with the Statutes o

’ sor s P w . There were cases in which the ope had a clear to P right provide , and in which apal provisions were a B ut so boon . far as such provisions were held to inter r of fe e with the safety the realm , through the Crown f losing sa e counsellors from the appointment of foreigners ,

- a there was someth ing to he said for the statute . As “ of of matter fact, however, the assent the lords spiritual not was given, as Bishop Stubbs admits, to the Statute of P r om sors in But in 1 4 2 7 a formal protest from “ of the Archbishop Canterbury, legate of the Apostolic of on of t See, and the Archbishop York , behalf hem ff of selves and their su ragans, and the whole clergy our ” “ of provinces Canterbury and York, was read openly f P by command o the King in full arliament , and, at the prayer of the said Archbishops and other prelates there

1 “ ” ’ h . C . H . u c un ist iii p . 3 5 5 . Bishop St bbs ac o t of the “ 1 2 u u H e : The protest in 4 7 is not q ite acc rate. says two Arc hbishops entered a formal protest against it [the statute] as ” d c c &c. . . ten ing to the restri tion of Apostoli power, (iii p It was more than the two Archbishops ; and it was s o f a r as it tended to restrict Apostolic power that they protested i i aga nst t . TH E QUAR RE L ABOU T PATRON AGE 1 4 3

of of present, was enrolled here in the Roll Parliament ” 1 ' the do our sire the King . I n their protest they say y “ ’ n ot intend to consent in any way whatsoever (ouom oao lioet consenti re) to any statute now newly issued in the nor to old one present Parliament, any promulgated of afresh , so far as statutes of this kind, or any them , are to i ne r estri cti on o the A ostolic ower or seen to tend f p p , to or of the subversion , weakening, derogation ecclesias — to tical freedom but dissent from the same, protest against and contradict them ; and we dissent, protest against, and contradict in these writings as we have

&c . . always dissented, , in past times And we pray that our this dissent, protest, and contradiction by the clergy of the Parliament may be enrolled for a testimony of ” the same . It is impossi ble after this to quote these statutes as evidence of a desire on the part of the Church in Eng off to land to throw its allegiance the Apostolic See . The Church distinctly disavowed them so far as they 2 tended in that direction . And, as we shall see, kings f or n and Parliaments did the same, in the followi g cen tury these Statutes o f P r ovisors and Praem uni r e became the subject- matter of a quarrel between Archbishop P Chichele and ope Martin V . It is from this quarrel that Bishop Creighton derives his “ strongest instance ” “ of the way in which about these matters Churchmen ” not o wn were allowed to have their way . But his lord ’ ship has so mixed up two separate events in Chichele s life, that the result is an appearance the very opposite of that which is warranted by the facts . I shall therefore

1 u d P 26 . Q ote from the Rolls of arliament, iii . p . 4 2 . N Ch. 1 8 22 M r Lane otes on 9 3 , p. 9 ) actually “

c du d d . and P speaks of the on ct of E war his arliament, with and c e a nd the assent ons nt of the prelates clergy, in this ” repud iation of an alien jurisdiction 1 4 4 R OM E A N D E N GLAN D

’ give a short account of the two incidents in Chichel e s life which Bishop Creighton has confused together.

They have never, so far as I am aware, been presented to the English reader with sufﬁcient detail for him to deduce the conclusi on which we shall see is properly drawn from them .

1 2 . In October 4 7, Martin V wrote to Archbishop ” C b neﬁces re hichele, complaining that reserved e ( P served , that is, for apal appointment) had been appro ” riated or p , and condemning all statutes customs under the shelter of which such appropriation had taken place . “ He condemned them as contrary to ecclesiastical ” 1 liberty . At the same time the Pope wrote also to

. ro Henry VI , reminding him that he had solemnly p m i sed and passed his royal word that he would abolish “ n the statutes o this matter. The King had protested that he in no way intended to detract or derogate from the rights and privileges of the Holy Roman Church ” And P and the Apostolic See. the ope reminds the King also that he had m ade an off er which would pre “ vent any prejudice accruing to yourself or the said ” 2 kingdom . The Pope also wrote to the English Parliament and reminded them that the King had promised that he would act in accordance with the Papal demand as soon P ’ as arliament could be convened, repeating the King s assurance that no invasion of Papal rights and privileges was intended ; and he reiterated his own promise that, in case any one should fear temporal loss through the

1 ’ Con . . 1 d d Wilkins a , iii p 47 . Wilkins has isregarde the order of time in his collection of documents con cerned with ’ r B ut d e d cu this aﬂai . the at s are given in most of the o ﬁn u d d ments themselves . I d that Bishop St bbs has a opte the same order as that whi ch has been (independently) observed here . 2 i . . . l ad. iii p 479

1 4 6 ROM E A N D ENGLAN D

through the whole of Christendom , and as the lord Pope ” himself has now in other kingdoms . He then said that he was speaking in the name of all the clergy of the

kingdom not there present, and entreated the members of P the arliament to deliberate carefully on the matter, that the Holy Father might have cause for commending the z eal and devotion of the King and the whole king

dom towards the Apostolic See . He enforced h is

argument with tears, declaring that he would rather have no patronage at all than bring upon the kingdom ’ of ff f England the e ects o the Pope s displeasure . He concluded with emphasising the fact that the Pope had promised to apply all reasonable remedy to the causes and occasions on account of which this statu te had 1 been passed . The prelates then retired, leaving certain clerics who had been present to witness the deliberations

that were to take place . Unfortunately we have no account of the deliberations 2 of Parliament after the Bishops had withdrawn . But P the statute was not abolished, and the ope appears to have thought that Archbishop Chichele had not done

all that he might have done. He was accused to his Holiness of being Open to the charge of seeking his n own advantage through his patronage, and of bei g 3 generally disloyal to the Holy See . Accordingly the Pope decided to suspend him from his legatine com

mission, upon which the Archbishop lodged his cele

brated appeal before a public notary . The whole history

’ 1 c u c M r . Ingram s ac o nt of this transa tion is in several H e u c n respects inac curate . ass mes that the Ar hbishops, a d

an d . E n ﬁve Bishops, Abbots spoke only for themselves g ” d and . lan Rome, p ’ 2 C cc u t d u Bishop reighton s a o n is ma e p, as will be seen,

of two different in cidents . 3 Bishop St ubbs ls probably right i n su specting that some — hostile inﬂuenc e was at work aga i nst the Archbishop pos~ s ibly connected with Beaufort . TH E QUARR EL A BOU T PATRON AG E 1 4 7

l f out of this incident is ful o instruction. I t brings the tremendous power with which the idea of communion with , and obedience to , the Apostolic See in certain matters had rooted itself in the English mind , and the on our tenacity with which , the other hand , lay people

t r stuck o their possessions, o imagined possessions, in u the way of patronage . It m st be remembered that at this time the House of Commons was by no means the independent body that it has since become . It was much more under the inﬂuence of the nobles and d i monied class . Accor ingly we have the S ngular spec of on n tacle the Episcopate and clergy o e side, and

‘ the wealthy patrons of livings on the other ; whilst the King had passed h is word that no derogation to Papal authority was meant, and would gladly have seen a ff on compromise e ected . But here was a move the part of the Pope which would entail serious results to of no the kingdom . The idea the Archbishop longer representing the Holy See in his ofﬁcial acts as legate to was enough set the whole kingdom in motion . The whole ecclesiastical machinery would at once be out o f gear . Henry therefore simply refused to allow the Arch to P bishop read the apal bulls . He sent his messenger to n demand them , o the ground that he was bound by “ his coronation oath to prevent all and everybull and letter of t/zi s ki nd from bei ng promulgated before he u had seen it, and they were delivered p unopened . P of Meanwhile arliament, the Archbishop York , of Bishops, and the University Oxford set to work to defend the Archbishop of Canterbury from the charge of being disloyal to the Holy Father. Their various defences afford such a unique glimpse of the state of feel ing in England as to the relation of all Churchmen to the w Holy See, that it will be orth while giving some details! to G The Archbishop appealed a eneral Council , if 1 4 8 ROM E A N D E N GLA N D the Pope should do anything without summoning h im or or legitimately forewarning him , if the cognisance ’ o f his case and the legal order (f u r is or a i ne) should be ” 1 su osi tion pretermitted . He appealed on the pp that he was to be condemned as having been disloyal to the “ : Apostolic See . He protested in these words I have Obtained and hold canonically the holy Church of

Canterbury with its rights, liberties, and all things per taining thereto ; and having thus obtained it, I have for

u some time possessed it peacefully , quietly, and witho t disturbance , as I possess it at this present time ; and I have been and I am an obedient Catholic son of the the Roman Church and Apostolic See, and so far as in me lies an assiduous defender and promoter o f the rights ” 2 of and liberties the said Church and See . This was before the Papal bulls were presented to z of him and sei ed by the King, probably on receipt information as to their contents . The Archbishop also wrote to the Cardinal who acted as his patron at Rome, saying that he had no opportunity of answering the accusation brought against him, and speaking of the Anglican Church as having been “ always most devoted ” 3 to the Apostolic See . But a still more important letter was now sent to

Rome, signed by the Archbishop of York, the Bishops ’ of London , Durham , Lincoln , Ely, St . David s, Exeter, Lic hﬁeld C Bath , , Worcester, Hereford, arlisle, Roches ﬁ C . ter, Bangor, and hichester It would be dif cult to overrate the value of this letter as evidence to the belief of the Church in England in regard to Papal

of . Supremacy being a matter of faith, not utility merely

1 8 2 1 M Wilkins, iii . p . 4 5 . 3 This is sometimes represented as an appeal simply from the Pope to a General Coun c il b u t it was really an appeal u a from the Pope acting witho t legal preliminaries, or in leg l

P c a id C u c . form , to the ope a ting with the of a o n il

1 5 0 R OM E A N D EN GLAN D

rovisi ons son some p ], but as a faithful of your Holiness ” of and the most Holy Roman Church . They address “ to their letter Martin , by Divine providence supreme ” f of Ponti f the most Holy Roman and Universal Church , “ of as from the most devoted sons your Holiness, the Chancellor and the unanimous body of Masters of your ” 1 University Of Oxford .

Is it possible to deny, in the face of these letters from the entire Episcopate of England and the University of C of Oxford , that the hurch England was at that moment Papal to the core ? Is it not plain what answer would have been given by the Episcopate and University to a suggestion that they should sign an article of religion “ which says that the Bishop of Rome has no ju risdic N o ? tion in this realm jurisdiction Why, the Church of Rome (they must have replied) is our mother and mistress : you touch the apple of our eye when you assail her jurisdiction . Have we not made it plain by the most precise and emphatic assertions that we are not questioning her spiritual jurisdiction as of Divine origin ? Have we not shown that it is with us a matter of faith that she is supreme over all Churches ? If we think that in some mixed matters, where the rights of earthly property are inseparably connected with certain appoint our ments, we have rights, and are prepared to maintain them ; if we claim to have a right of nominating to cer s of P tain beneyi ee , whilst we leave to the See eter the to our o i t e authority conﬁrm nominees in their j , why are we to be thought rebellious against her whom all through our the conﬂict we have called mother, styling ourselves

obedient children, and placing ourselves before her throne, of kissing the feet its occupant, as we have again and again described ourselves ?

1 6 . Wilkins, iii . pp . 47 , 477 TH E QUARR EL ABOU T PATRO N AG E 1 5 1

If language means anything, this must have been the answer of the Episcopate of England and the University of Oxford to any such suggestion as that they should declare that the Bishop of Rome has no j urisdiction in this realm . And what is this but saying that there is no ecclesiastical continuity between the present Establish ment and the Church of England of that time ? Their ff of faith di ers, and that on the vital point where the source of jurisdiction lies by the ordinance of Christ . “ But, says Bishop Creighton , about these matters ” n t own Churchmen were o allowed to have their way . “ ” f of And by way o giving the strongest instance this, he adduces certain words which the laity are supposed ’ to have used in answer to Archbishop Chichele s plea to the Commons that they should abolish the Statute of ' “ P r s rs not om o . The Commons were moved by his to pathetic eloquence . They only sent a petition the Council representing that the Pope had acted to the ‘ of of our prejudice the Archbishop and aller mother, ’ the Church of Canterbury . They had their mother C not hurch at home, and even its Archbishop should to induce them diminish its independence, which was ” 1 likewise their own . It will be seen at a glance that the Bishop is mixing of up two events . There is nothing in the records the Session of Parliament to the effect that the Commons ’ said this in answer to Archbishop Chichel e s appeal to t them o revoke the obnoxious statute . The words C quoted by Bishop reighton do, however, occur in a petition of the Council to the King in reference to the ’ ’ Pope s threatened suspension of Chichele s legatine commission— quite a different matter—and which led to the very declaration of the Episcopate and the Uni

1 “ N C u c idd . t o The ational h r h in the M le Ages, p . 1 5 2 ROM E A N D EN GLAN D

versity of Oxford which have just been considered . And the remainder of the letter is in direct contradiction to ’ f Bishop Creighton s version o the matter. The fact is that the Commons were as much terriﬁed ’ at the idea of Chic hel e s legation being suspended as were the Bishops and the University . Accordingly they petitioned the King in favoi1 r of the Archbishop . Their “ of Pur le petition is headed in the Rolls Parliament, ’ ” 1 l n irs reverent Pere en Dieu Erchevequ e de Ca terb . They say that the Archbishop has been falsely accused to “ oure holy Fader the Pope as though he had acted “ against the Lib ertees of ye Courte of Rome in this ” - d land . Here is a point blank contradiction of the stan o n point of the present Establishment , which is built the “ theory that the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction ” of in this realm . They say that in consequence these false accusations ou r holy Father was moved to make certain process against him , in prejudice of him and oure ” aller Moder ye Cherche of Canterbury (the words quoted h t by Bishop Creighton), wh ich t ey are all bound o worship b es eche H i hness and sustain . Wherefore we e youre e g e hum blel as y as we can , for to have the said oure aller good Fader They ask the King for this to or purpose either send ambassadors to Rome, else “ to P write to oure saide holy Fader ye ope , to have ye saide A rchebisshop and our Moder his Cherche o f s Canterbury pali rec om m issed. And they conclude with asking the King to annul any such process as they “ u ndewe have mentioned, as proceeding from an and ” h n t k w trout e o no en. unskilful suggestion , and ye In other words , they wish the King to induce the Holy Father to restore the legatine commission to Chichele and C the See of anterbury, on th e ground that he had been

1 “ Old . . . 22 V I 2 6 H . 1 Rot iv 3 , , enry 4 7 ( Style)

1 5 4 R OM E A N D EN GLAN D

f cases . Some o fences can only be dealt with by the

Holy See itself. In giving faculties to bishops the Holy “ ” See reserves the m to itself. We are one body and our intercommunication with Rome is both necessary of and frequent. Many us hold special faculties straight from Rome lasting for ﬁve years . In certain matters we can only get dispensation through our bishop from

Rome itself. I t was exactly the same in the Church of England in the fourteenth and ﬁfteenth centuries . And all this inter communication went ou precisely the same in spite of

Statutes of P r ovisors and P reem uni re. This is seen by a of ad letter, great importance to the subject in hand , dressed to the King by the Convocation of Clergy in 1 4 4 7. “ The Archbishop, and all his brethren the bishops of 1 P r o: England, had in 4 3 9 complained that the Statute ” m un re aei as . n i f (Richard I I , sixtee th year) was obscure, and was being misapplied by the lawyers . They set forth that it only applied to suits carried to the Court of Rome and elsewhere outside the kingdom of England, against “ to the King, his crown and regalia, and not courts ” 1 “ : within the kingdom . Bishop Stubbs says It is fair to say that these clerical remonstrances were called forth rather by the chicanery of the lawyers than by any ad' ee tion for Papal jurisdiction ; the lawyers now and then chose to treat the ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction as to C a foreign , and so bring all the courts hristi n under the ” 2 f r eem u ni r operation of the Statute o P e. i n It would be fairer still , and closer relation to the to of r facts, say that it was from the chicanery the lawye s, i n P a al ur isdicti on t a nd beli ef p j , that they were led o re of monstrate . This is clear from the end their complaint

1 to in 44 7, which Bishop Stubbs refers, which shows that

1 ’ Con n . . . Wilkins , iii p 5 33 2 . h. . . o nstit . . c 2 C vol iii xix 39 3, note TH E Q UA RR EL ABOU T PATR O N AG E 1 5 5 the lawyers not merely extended the statute to courts

to - within the realm, but subject matters with which it “ F r of had no concern . o the complaint the Arch f r bishops o Canterbury and Yo k, the bishops and other ” al of of En lande prelates, and the clergie your reame g , was that certain evil - minded persons misinterpret the “ of words the statute, the which words, by their wilful to t to interpretation , they pretend ex end those that pur

- o chase licence for non residence of the Pope, be it to g r f r or school o o any other reasonable intent, that get any quinquennial or other confessional [a technical term for faculties in cases in which absolution was reserved to or the Pope] any other like dispensation of the Pope , pretending it an exemption from the ordinary, whereas ” 1 law so. no written calleth it In other words, the Statutes of P rovisors and P raem unir e were not meant to o f in touch the ordinary discipline the Church , which cluded dispensations from the Pope and faculties for reserved cases . The Papal jurisdiction in these essen t tial matters was untouched , and meant o be untouched , by any such statutes . This was the judgment of the entire Episcopate and clergy of the Church of England of and this is exactly the contention this chapter. The complaint reveals exactly the same system of Church government as is in vogue at this moment i C . e. C amongst atholics ( Roman atholics) in England , and also shows that the Episcopate of England at that time held the same doctrine as to j urisdiction as has

our Leo . been lately expounded by Holy Father, XII I The clergy of that time never consented to any statute so far as it interfered with the ordinary j urisdiction of o f the See Peter over the rest o f the Church .

1 6 . Wilkins, iii . p . 5 5 C H A PTER V III

TH E R E LAT I ON O F T H E P OPE TO ECC LESI ASTICAL B EN EFICES

WE 1 2 8 C s have seen that, in 4 , Archbishop hichele, peak for ing the entire clergy of England, maintained in Par “ liam ent the r ig/zt of the Pope to provide for benefices b in England . This was undou tedly the teaching not only of C of of the hurch England , but the Church throughout “ ” the world . But as the matter of provisions (or of filling up benefices) is one that figures so largely in the ” l continuity controversy at the present time, it wil be

' well to give a pr éa s of the Canon Law on the whole subject of the relation of the Holy See to ecclesiastical 1 beneﬁces .

“ b en eﬁces It must be borne in mind that , in the sense in which we now use the word, did not exist before 2 the eleventh century . In early times the clergy were dependent on the funds immediately supplied by the or on of bishop, a share common funds, or the use of land which reverted to the common funds. There were “ ” no beneﬁces that could be vacant in the modern P n f sense of the term . When arliame t spoke o the Church of England having been founded in the estate of of prelacy by the kings England, the allusion (if it is to

1 C : u Tr a cta tus de P r i na ii s u r i s Ca noni ci P ] Bo ix, p j , ars

se c . . ca . 2 . ii . iii p 2 ’ n e s Th ec d Thom ass inus D e B e a i . . . . e , ﬁ , pt i lib ii s on volu me of the 1 72 8 edition contains the material from whi ch ’ ’ r u c d Bou ix p eci s is mainly taken . Fle ry noti es that the wor ”

M l hi A D . 1 0 u c e s . 8 . prebend occurs ﬁrst in the Co n il of p , 7 1 5 6

1 5 8 R OME A N D EN GLAN D to 1 deny or h inder this same right . And just before the events connected with Archbishop Chichele and

Martin V . which have been described above, the Uni versity of Paris had applied to that Pope for some bene “ ” “ ﬁces or provisions to be reserved for some of its not of members. Indeed, although a matter faith, it was yet a matter of unanimous consent amongst the doctors of beneﬁces the Church , that all the ecclesiastical were 2 subject to the Pope assupreme governor .

It was not a principle due to the forged decretals . n G To go o further back than regory the Great, whose action has a special interest for us in England, the principle was in full operation then, that is, two centuries before the dissemination of those spurious documents . Although , as has been said, there were no n ﬁces of be e at that time, in the modern sense the term , “ G which could be reserved, regory conferred the posi f o n own tion o abbot a nominee of his , without con l tin of su g the Bishop Messina, in whose diocese the 3 abbacy was situated, but merely sending him word .

1 . 1 decret. de col/at . . C . H efele Sess 3 ( at Ferrara f , 0 48 . § 8 7. 2 This was certainly the teaching Of the Church in England

de A thon . in the fourteenth century . Cf . Joh . (John of c d E an d C c Ayton , the elebrate nglish lawyer anon of Lin oln), '

6 l . ad . s u m m or u m onti zcu m : u d u p . 7 , g v p / tenet r, omini m e ccles ia rum tam per reservationem quam per coll ationem a d ’ H is or. u C . E n . t 1 8 6 . papam pertinere . f g J ly 9 , p 45 4. ” c u d When the Council of Constan e s spen ed John XXIII . ofli ce d u from the exercise of his , a ep ty of the U niver sity of Paris protested against the Papal power of pre sent ation to b enefices being tem porarily devolved on the u d did u u episcopate, on the gro n that bishops not s ally pro P i ’ d d . C un m n mote as learned men as the ope f . J g a n s ’ The C u c d . 1 1 . P D iss . vi . 34 o n il hel that the ope s c of right did not lapse to the Bishop , as it was a ase (what d d u a nd d c they consi ere ) s spension , not a efinitive senten e

C H efele . against him . f . , 753 3 E . . . 8 . Greg , p , lib i 3 R ELATION OF TH E POPE TO B EN EFICES l 5 9

He acted in a similar way in regard to a priest under 1 I m ortunus to Bishop p , and again in regard a deacon 2 of . in the diocese Syracuse And , again, he arranged that certain bishops sho uld support with their funds 3 other bishops who had been exiled from their sees ; “ ” 4 and he reserved the bishoprics of Dalmatia . Bede tells us how Pope Vitalian bade our Archbishop Theo n 5 dore confer an abbacy o a certain Hadrian Africanus. But the application of the principle to bene ﬁces such as arose in the eleventh century, naturally led occasion

to . N ally complications owhere, however, do we dis cover any denial of the right o f the Pope to the supreme ” of beneﬁces . o f care such The things the Church , “ P says St . Thomas, belong to the ope as their principal d ispenser, but they do not belong to him as their lord ” 6 (dom i nus) and possessor An instance of the general recognition of this truth is to be seen in the issue of the quarrel between Edward I . and Archbishop Win l che sey . i n Edward was need of money, and amongst other unjust expedients for raising it, which disﬁgured his f rule, he resorted to that of taxing the clergy o his own P mere will . But just before this the ope (Boniface VI II . ) had issued a solemn decree on this head in defence o f the clergy throughout the world . It was occasioned by the representations made by French prelates as to the arbitrary taxation to which the Church was exposed by n Philip the Fair in order to carry o h is wars . The f P same was unfortunately tru e o Edward I . The ope accordingly forbade the taxation of the clergy without to his consent , and the clergy were forbidden submit to such diversion of Church property under pain of

1 2 E . . . 1 0 . I bi d. 1 Greg . , p , lib ii iii . 4 . 3 1‘ 1 . Vi ta Gre . c 1 . E . . 1 . g , iii . 5 p , iii 5 5 6 — 1. w . c . 1 . 2a 2a 0 . 1 0 . 1 , , 9 7. 1 6 0 R OME A N D E N GLAN D

de position . It was not a simple refusal to allo w the clergy to pay subsidies to the King, but they were forbidden to submit to his commands on the subject wit/tout t/ze ex r ess er m issi on o tire P o l p p f p e. The decree was based on the th ird and fourth Lateran Councils , and the second Council of Lyons

cl er iei s L a i cos In consequence of this bull ( ), Arch bishop Wi nchelsey and the clergy refused to give the

King the aid he sought . The Archbishop, after con ’ su ltation 3 with the clergy, told the King s messengers “ God that we have two masters under , a spiritual and our S P and temporal ; piritual lord is the ope , our tem poral lord IS the King and although we owe obedience to we each , we o greater to the spiritual than to the ” temporal . The clergy accordingly promised to send P nuncios to the ope at their own expense , for leave

‘ to aid the King with a subsidy, and so to avoid, both

of x com for the King and themselves , the penalty e m u i i n i 4 d d. n cat o . This they But the King was furious at on c e he outlawed the Archbishop and the whole

<7 Anglican clerg y . A few of the northern bishops ’ managed to get money into the King s hands without i directly giving it, and so sought to avoid the royal d s P 5 pleasure and the apal excommunication .

1 c u c d o M any rrent histories omit this important on iti n . 2 The bul l was event ual ly explained by the P ope to mean c a nd E d ha d d less than the Kings of Fran e nglan imagine . d id d c o c o c c Th It not forbi ex epti nal a ti n in ase of ne essity . e

c w d . prin iple, ho ever, was not with rawn 3 ' f/ V l tt r z de H em i n bu r /z v ol Cit r on zcon a . . 1 1 6 Cf g , ii . p . H e in u r h H (Rolls Series . ) Walter de m gb g (or emingford) 1 s the best au thority on this whole matter ; be sides being

c d d cc u . C almost a ontemporary, he is a mitte ly a rate ( f .

H E d . Preface by M r . amilton in the Rolls ition See also ’ Knyghton s accou nt of the affair . ) ‘ ’ 1 d n ci l i a 2 T t o ou Co . . 2 heir letter is be f n in Wilkins , ii p 3 . 5 8 . H m in b u r h . . 1 1 e g g , ii p

1 6 2 R OM E A N D EN GLAN D In this instance the Pope’ s care over the property of the Church prevented its being diverted from its ’ proper purpose to that of assisting in Edward s u njusti ﬁa l m b e wars . But it was in the atter of the bestowal “ of b eneﬁces for next vacancies, or the reservation of expectant candidates , that the lay people of England most resented the Papal government . Yet it was against

a use of a the b patronage that they beg n their opposition , and it is impossible to deny the existence of great t he abuses . At time when the Popes were at Avignon , Spaniards as well as English protested against Papal provisions when they saw their beneﬁces bestowed on

Frenchmen . But as the Spaniards did not mean any prejudice to arise against Papal Supremacy itself, so the Church of

England, as we have seen , made it quite plain that she admitted the principle of the Papal power to confer beneﬁces throughout the Church . And if at times P C arliament, as distinguished from the hurch, spoke as though ignoring this right, neither King nor nobles acted upon the supposition that Papal appointments

law were in themselves contrary to canon .

The fact is, that the principle that the Apostolic See

h or has the supreme rig t , whether exercised not, of b e neﬁces ﬂ conferring , ows directly from any belief in h Papal Supremacy such as our forefathers eld . The

Church , in their eyes, was a society complete in itself, and a distinct kingdom , one throughout the world . And the form of its government was monarchical . This we have seen running through all the declarations of the

Episcopate and the Universities . But although the ’ of Church s sphere action is in the spiritual order, it

affair can hard ly be called seri ous history Ill . N otes on ” E o H . . . Ch u rch istory, vol i p ven that great hist rian

G c u . M r . reen gives an in omplete acco nt of the matter RELATI ON OF TH E POPE TO B EN E FICES 1 63

touches the temporal , and has a right to possessions in f the latter order. She is concerned with the bodies o of the faithful, and has rights over the matter the Sacra ments, over material goods justly acquired , and those dedicated to the expenses of Divine worship and the of one sustentation her ministry . Being throughout the al l world, these material possessions, since they are under some administration , necessarily come, whether r directly o indirectly, under the supreme government

. C of the spiritual kingdom onsequently, although bishops and others may, in accordance with laws con P ff firmed in councils and by the supreme onti , confer enefices certain b , still the power always rests with the Vicar of Christ to suspend such laws in special circum to benefices 1 stances and reserve himself of a certain kind . al l u In a word , ecclesiastical goods, whilst they pass o t f of o the dominion man , yet need to be administered and applied to their proper use ; and the power o f C administering the hurch belongs to the Roman Pontiff. “ Even Gerson said that all b enefices are subject to the Pope as to their supreme governor tanquam ordinatori supremo And it must be remembered that the terms “ ” “ ” “ ” of C f Vicar hrist, Apostolic See, supreme Ponti f, were of everyday occurrence in England up to the year 1 5 3 4 b eneficent of But, further, the results patronage being of i n under Papal regulation as a matter right , however

' directly exercised, are too obvious to have escaped the n minds o f thinking men . There is o chance of excluding or heresy schism , nature being what it is, unless the

1 de P r i n T a cta tu s c. ur . Ca n . ec u r . s . . c Bo ix, f , pt iv iii ap . the C 2 2 . u c , John of Ayton, giving law of the h r h in d e u ce u Englan , as lsewhere , in the fo rteenth nt ry , says , The d C u c cc plenary isposition of h r hes , e lesiastical personages d and b ene ﬁce s a n dignities, other , is known to belong to the ” ff . 2 . Roman Ponti (c in Sexto, 3 1 64 R OM E A N D E N GLAN D

Papal government extends to this matter of patronage . Kings will necessarily become supreme ; and bishops never do acquit themselves well of the charge committed to their care, except when in such connection with the

Holy See .

Then , again , since the Church needs servants for her special ministries connected with the Universal Church , she needs b eneﬁces at her disposal for their maintenance and remuneration . She needs also learned and well P educated men for her ministry . A St. aul has his func

- tion in the work of the Church . England d iscovered that the degradation of her clergy was coincident with P the lull in apal appointments, and both the University

C of . and the ommons had to complain this Moreover, considering the enormous inﬂux of indigent clergy to the

Roman Court at Avignon , amounting under Clement VI . to (it is said) it is not surprising that attempts to provide for some should be m ade by unduly ex er n cising a right of presentation . There was o such feel ing of separate nationality in ecclesiastical life as now . h r h The C u c w , , as all one however nations might be divided ; and the Church in all countries had one mother, the Roman Church and if she did press hardly n o some, their protests and remonstrances were soon laid own aside, sometimes in their interest, and sometimes from the recognition o f the hopelessness of any availing resistance against the wishes of their mother in her ex l terna ly forlorn condition . SO that if we merely place side by side the various statutes concerned with patronage we shall not have before us an accurate presentation of the real mind of the Church in England . We must take into account both the protests of the spiritualty and the actual futility f o these enactments . We shall ﬁnd that it is true , as “ e Bishop Creighton says, that the armoury was stock d

CH A PT ER IX

TH E FAITH O F TH E C H U R C H OF EN G LAN D W H EN T H ER E

' WE RE R I V A L CLAI M AN TS TO TH E PA PA CY

“ T H E of Of Bishop Stepney, speaking the modern Papal 1 claim , which he does not seem to understand clearly , “ says, This infallibility in faith and morals was equally — true, shocking as it sounds the fault is not m ine , it is inherent in the Roman position— this infallibility was equally true of men so vile as that Pope John

XXII I . , whom the Council of Constance deposed for crimes so abom inable that fourteen of the seventy charges not out C u could be read to the o ncil . I propose to show that the Church of England did distinctly hold that the Holy See was infallible in deﬁning doctrine, even when its occupant was a person such as

John XXI I I . I waive the point as to whether John P XXII I . was really ope at all (which is a question on ff which the opinions of the learned di er) , and will make 2 the Bishop of Stepney a present of that . And I shall not enter into the question whether the Council which professed to suspend John XXI I I . was within its rights in making the attempt , supposing him to have been the i n i a actual Pope . But I must, pass ng, protest gainst the

1 . H e de u c e g . scribes it as ass ming that the voi e of the “ Pope overrides all the Cou ncils of the past if they conﬂict ” w i th it whereas the Papal hypothesis is that it never ca n be i n conﬂict with past ( E c umeni cal decisi o ns . 2 ” 8 6 hu i ch H is 1 ical c c u e 1 . 6 . C t0 So iety Le t r s , 9 , p 5 3 “ . H . . u . v i J ngmann thinks he was not ( D iss ist vol , xxxiv . FAITH OF TH E CH U RCH OF E N GLAN D 1 6 7 cavalier way in which the Bishop invents a reason for the fourteen charges not having been read out at the Council .

So far as the record goes, the reason was much more er likely to be that they could not substantiate them . C tai nly one of the gravest of the charges no one now i C z . believes to be true , v , that Balthassar ossa (after wards John XXI I I . ) poisoned his predecessor Alex H efele ander V. As remarks , even more numerous and more serious charges were made against Boniface VI I I . , and were sworn to by several prelates but no one, when 1 to . it came to the point, attempted substantiate them

Animosity in an ordinary ﬁfteenth- century prelate could of do a good deal . It is, however, importance to note that the charge of heresy was withdrawn on the motion 2 of the Cardinal of St . Mark . The point to be established here is that the Bishop of Stepney (and for that matter the Establishment in general to which he belongs) differs toto coelo on this point from

- the Church of England before the so called Reformation . This latter religious body did distinctly believe and em phatically state, that if John XXII I . were called upon ﬂi ciall to of n o y decide a point doctrine, he would ot be permitted by Almighty God to deﬁne amiss . Here is a

‘ plain issue, in which we place ourselves at the utmost n P disadvantage possible . We select o e of the few opes wh — in he o t long line which , stretching through fourteen so centuries, had produced many saints, martyrs, doctors, — wise and holy rulers disgraced the See of Peter, and we C take the hurch of England long after the time when , C according to Bishop reighton, she had discovered the f P inutility o the apacy . But we maintain that even so we can show that the faith of the Church of England was in absolute antagonism to that which bears that name

1 f l on H e e e C c. Gescb . , , 75 5 . 2 I bi d . C . x x vu . . 6 753 . f . Mansi, p 5 5 1 6 8 R OM E A N D EN GLAN D

of as a matter legal right. Whilst, therefore, admitting the legal continuity of the present Establishment, we can w sho , from the enactments of the Church of England ’ of in that most depressing time the Church s history, that the spiritual identity between her and the present

Establishment is absolutely destroyed . We are dealing here with an Obj ection very frequently raised against the unity of the Catholic and Roman

Church . The uncertainty and confusion of the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the ﬁfteenth cen tu t ies seem to some to constitute a proof that the Papacy could not have been the Divine provision for the unity

of . of of the Church But, in point fact, the distress those times only brought out more clearly the fact that P throughout Europe it was felt that there must be a ope, n the only question being which was the true o e. That being settled, obedience was due to him from every

of C C . faithful member the hristian hurch It was, in f f o o . short, a question not principle, but person The principle of obedience to the See of Peter was never in occu question the only question was, who was its proper o pant . N doubt, occasionally theses were started which , f if accepted, would have much impaired the authority o the Holy See ; but they were not destined to last, and of Europe settled down to a position general obedience, though with germs of evil deposited within her which were calculated to bear fruit in the future . But these germs were promptly counteracted here in England as soon as they began to make themselves felt, as the following incidents prove . two or The Popes in whose reigns the troubles occurred, , at any rate , reached their climax, were Alexander V. and

J ohn XXII I . And we have clear evidence as to what the

Church of England felt as to obedience to Alexander V . when he was chosen to succeed to the Papal throne at

I 7O R OME AN D EN GLAN D

how Mr . Lane , speaking of this period , could think that “ to w si c he has managed sho what is the simple truth ( ), ‘ that the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this ’ ” n er Izad realm of England , and legally ev (the italics 1 are his o wn) ; or how the Bishop of Peterborough could say that “ the Church in England admitted P ” 2 the apal jurisdiction on grounds of utility, when time after time she emphasised her belief that the Pope “ ” of was the Vicar of Christ, as being the B ishop that “ ” See of Rome which is the mother of all Churches . A mother is not merely a useful person to be discarded

b u - at will, t a Divine ordinance . A mother country is

- one thing , but a mother church , not by way of origin

of . only, but present relationship , is another And that not merely origin is meant is obvious from the expres “ ” sion all Churches . But there is another passage in the life of the Ch urch f on of England o capital importance this question , when she distinctly and emphatically deﬁned her position in regard to Rome in regard to her doctrinal authority w and disciplinary po er. On this occasion she showed n that she was not o the road to separation from Rome, or to independence of her j urisdiction and teaching

authority, even after all her protests against pecuniary — exactions and uncalled for interference . If the Bishop ’ Pe terborou h s we of g theory were based on history, ought to be able to note the gradual loosening of

the tie wh ich had bound her spiritually to her mother. N ot one plain indication of s uch a desire has yet been C quoted , until the hour when ranmer ascended the of of throne Canterbury, with the solemn oath obedi P f on ence to the ope as Vicar o Christ his lips, and the intention in his heart, told not to the Pope, but

1 6 u . . 2 Illust r. N otes on Ch rch i p 3 2 ” u d d . I I . N ational Ch rch in the Mi le Ages, p FAITH OF TH E CH URCH OF E N GLAN D 1 7!

to to others , break his oath so soon as he was seated For by Papal brief on that throne . I shall presently show that his immediate predecessor held the same doctrine on the Papacy as I am now going to prove was held by the entire Church of England in the ﬁf w/zen t/zere bad teenth century, and at the very period

l ai m a nts to il e a a just been tbree r i va cl t P p cy . who A disappointed priest, John Wiclif, had been deprived of the wardenship of Canterbury Hall by a new archbishop, whose decision was conﬁrmed at Rome, now turned his powers of invective against the Holy not See . It was long, as it never has been in such cases, before his entire teaching underwent a change, with the result that at length he was brought before a synod in London , and his teaching was dealt with P f formally by the rovince o Canterbury after his death . Twelve Oxford divines were appointed to ex am m e his “ estif writings . They discovered in them numerous p Pr rous . o e seeds Their condemnation followed , the vince of Canterbury issuing a decree which condemned

of viz . the writings Wiclif, with this important salvo , , “ that they condemned them always in all things , of to saving the authority your most Holy See , which the declaration and ﬁnal settlement (ter m i nati o) of con ” cl usi on f s o this kind is known to belong. These words

P . H ow were addressed to ope _ John XXII I , I repeat, can a bishop of the Establishment in England venture on the assertion that “ it is a delusion that the Church of r England was ever Roman Catholic, o ever acknow C P ” ledged as a hurch any subjection to the ope, as N Mr. ye records the Bishop o f Southwell to have said ? or how can the Bishop of Peterborough exclude Papal Supremacy from the essentials of the Church of ’ on England s belief before the Reformation , as he does “ ” 1 1 of N p. his ational Church in the Middle Ages ? 1 72 R OM E A N D EN GLAN D

H ow C to can the two hurches, so call them , be the same ? Is there not an essential diff erence between a Church that professes to believe that matters of faith can only be ﬁnally settled by the declaration of the See of P i eter, and a Church which holds that she is l eg ti mately independent of Rome in matters of faith f But this is not all . The words o the Archbishop of

C ff of 1 1 2 anterbury and his su ragans in this year grace , 4 , are too important for us to be content with one expres sion, however salient and decisive. They open their 1 “ letter to the Pope thus To the most Holy Father 2 P in Christ and Lord, John , by Divine rovidence Supreme Pontiff of the Sacrosanct Roman and Uni f versal Church ; Thomas, by the grace o God and of A of the Apostolic See, Minister [ rchbishop] the Church of ff f P Canterbury, and the rest, su ragans o the rovince of Canterbury, after the recommendation of themselves of C and the Anglican hurch , most humble kisses of the ” blessed feet . This was the customary formula of sub missive subjection to the supreme Pontiff .

They proceed : the only - begotten Son of — God proceeding from the Father by the illustration f P who f o the araclete, proceeds equally rom Both erected the joy of our stability on the rock of a new - born faith whilst He committed to the

of - of prince Apostles, key bearer eternal life , the f 3 rights o earthly and heavenly rule . For in his

1 . 0 Wilkins, iii . p 3 5 . 2 i e. . . John XXIII 3 Th d u d IV d e wor s se by Innocent . in the eposition u c Th C . of Frederic II . at the o n il of Lyons e words may d u d e refer to the bin ing in heaven what is bo n on arth, or to the accessory rights on earth whi ch u nder cer tai n ci r cu m s ta nces naturally followed from the spiritu al power of the Apostle in his See. The latter is the more probable of u u s interpretation the two, owing to their freq ent e in this . 1 i sense at th s t me.

1 74 R OM E A N D E N GLAN D

i and, after mention ing Wiclif by name, they descr be themselves as those “ who have been placed in this C o f God hurch by the grace and of the Apostolic See, and have been called to a share in your mos t holy and ” supreme care . ’ They say they have gathered out of John s writings , f by the help of twelve men of the University o Oxford, poisonous seeds, and they have condemned them by a of P decree the rovince . N ow the doctrine which they have just laid down as to the Holy See would naturally lead to their not resting content with the authority of a Provincial Coun cil ; and accordingly, as a matter of fact, they proceed to say that they passed sentence, saving always in of to all things the authority your most Holy See , which the declaration and ﬁnal settlement [or termination] of ” of conclusions this kind is known to belong . P They ask the ope, accordingly, to investigate the ’ “ Wicliff e s Opinions thus deduced from writings, and r to condemn and reprobate them with Apostolic autho ity, C of God for the good of the Holy hurch , and specially C for the preservation of the Anglican hurch , and the more ample fo rtiﬁcation of the Catholic faith .

Our con c lusion then must be this . When the Church of England had to drive from her bosom a nascent heresy, she put forth her own strength and condemned it by a provincial decree . But since she believed it to be part of the Christian revelation that our Lord has ordained a H supreme j udge under imself to terminate such matters, and that that j udge is the Occupant of a See that never has of i and never can fail in the deliverance the fa th , owing ’ to our Lord s promise to Peter and to His prayer that P ’ i eter s faith should not fail, they introduce a sav ng i bu t clause which disclaims ﬁnality in the r own decision, attri butes such ﬁnality to the See to which they now send FA ITH OF TH E CH U RCH OF E N GLA N D 1 75

P u the decree of the rovince, and which was now occ pied how by John XXII I . One does not see it would be possible to say in plainer words that Papal Supremacy is — essential to the Church a matter of faith or how they could m ore plainly censure by anticipation any idea of P a national Church independent of the See of eter.

But we must go a step further. In the following year a prominent Wiclifﬁte came under the censure of Con C vocation . Fortunately the Acts of onvocation in this case have been preserved by the learned Anglican Canon 1 Wilkins . Sir John Oldcastle was arraigned for heresy. And what was the formal character of heresy accord “ ing to the English Convocation ? It was that he has con thought and thinks , and dogmatises and teaches

of of P c. cerning the Sacrament the Altar and enance, & , ot/zer zvise t/za n the Roman and Universal Church teaches ” and afﬁrms .

This was their rule of faith . And the words do not “ admit of being interpreted as though the Roman and ” Universal Church cou ld be sundered for in the pre “ vious year they had addressed the Pope as the Supreme ” P f of C onti f the Roman and Universal hurch .

In pressing this teaching on Sir John , they say The faith and determination of Holy Church touching the blissful Sacrament of the Altar is this that after the s sacramental words have been said by a prie t in his Mass, ’ the material bread that was before , is turned into Christ s

u Body and the material wine that was before, is t rned into ’ C so leweth ! hrist s very Blood ; and their [ remaineth , is ne left] in the Altar no material bread , [nor] material wyn , the which were there before the saying of the sacramental ‘ ” words . Then after declaring the necessity of c onfes to c o f sion a priest, they give the tea hing the Church of

1 Cone . . se . , iii p 3 53 o 1 76 ROME A N D E N GLAN D

“ P : C England as to apal Supremacy, thus hrist ordained

Saint Peter the Apostle to be His Vicar here on earth , of whose See is the Church Rome, ordaining and grant ing [that] the same power that He gave to Peter should ’ to P succeed all eter s successors, the which we now call of C Popes Rome, by whose power in hurches particular of special , be ordained prelates [they are speaking the of power j urisdiction], archbishops, bishops, curates, and to other degrees, to whom Christian men ought obey

of . . after the laws the Church of Rome (Wilkins, iii p 3 5 5 ) ’ Sir John s replies were considered heretical, and so they tell the Bishop of London (o ne of their number) what his duty in the matter is , after they had again and again with tears exhorted the said Sir John “ that he of C would return to the unity the hurch , that he would believe and hold what the Roman Church believes and ” 1 ex com m un i holds . Sir John, remaining obdurate, was cated October 1 4 1 3 . N ow it is open to any one to say that the Church of England was wrong in her faith— that she misinterpreted

on Holy Scripture ; but it is surely not Open to any e, Of from a logical point view, to say that any body of men — is in continuity of faith and discipline that is to say, in “ — contin u ity in all essentials with the Church of Eng i f not land before the Reformation , it does believe in n Papal Supremacy as a Divine institutio . It is not open to any one to argue that the Church in E ngland had “ ” ’ “ discovered (to use Bishop Creighton s words) that that jurisdiction was dangerou s to Church and nation ” N C ” alike ational hurch in the M iddle Ages , p .

Such , then , was the emphatic declaration of the Church of England as to her belief in Papal Supremacy at the

1 6 . Wilkins, iii . p . 3 5

CHA PTER X

’ T H E TEAC H IN G OF CRAN MER S PRED ECESSOR rN TH E SE E or CAN TER BUR Y I N 1 5 3 2

WE of our have now all but reached the term inquiries . We have come close up to the time when a new religion took the place of that which had been the religion of one f England for nearly thousand years, when the rule o r faith was changed, and the authority which ou Lord appointed over H is Church ceased to be recognised as

. of such even in theory We have spoken Henry VI I I .

to f r ee Bishop Creighton says, in allusion the Statute o P “ m uni r e , that the royal armoury was stocked with weapons ff ” 1 which Henry VI II . used with surprising e ect . Most unscru true . Henry , acting in concert with the most pul ous m inister that has ever guided the destinies of England— Thomas Cromwell— initiated what has been “ ” called a royal reign of terror . He had an end to — accomplish a divorce ; he had a position unparalleled — for the purpose ; and he had a weapon at hand the “ ” m uni re. P Statute of P rce These statutes, says a ro

of P r ovi sor testant writer, speaking of the Statutes s and

n re on P r e m u i , made a profound impression the mind of the English people . The bishops and prelates walked in fear of them . For more than a hundred and ﬁfty years the ordinary Englishman believed that a person

m u n r convicted of a p ree i e might be slain with impunity.

1 ” N C u c dd . 8 . ational h r h in the M i le Ages, p 1 78 ' TEACH I N G OF CRA N MER S PREDECESSOR 1 79

This was in consequence of the words in them respecting so outlawry . This belief was general that it became necessary to extirpate it by legislative declaration in the ” 1 reign of Eliz abeth . ’ The fear of the King s proceedings under this Statute brought about the death of Cardinal Wolsey. Both King of and Cardinal had, like many their predecessors, brought themselves under its Operation . And the King decided to put it in force against the Cardinal but his Eminence on died before his trial came on. The King brought C vocation to its knees through a similar threat and work ing upon their fears, he succeeded in wringing from them of to an expression his relation the Church , which he himself meant, if necessary, to use in one sense, but which to they meant be understood in another . England was, wh unfortunately, supplied with a set of prelates o were ff for . N not made of the stu martyrs ‘ either were they f men o theological attainments, with the exception of n Bishop Fisher. Consequently they did ot perceive the mischief they were doing by their system of compromise — a most disastrous course, but natural, considering that they lived in perpetual danger of prison or death if they incurred the wrath of an imperious master bent on the f unscru u satisfaction o his passions, and assisted by the p lous craft of Thomas Cromwell .

They did , however, save the situation so far as words

1 1 . could do so, in 5 3 They were induced to call the “ ” King the protector and supreme head of the “ Church of England so far as the law of Christ per ” 2 e mits . But th y showed clearly by their amendments

1 ” T D LL D . d and . . . b arri Englan Rome, by Ingram , , ste r

- 1 P V . d at law p . 1 3 . ope M artin rew attention to the almost barbarous savagery of the terms of the Statute of

P r wm u ni re. 2 P u d an rotector was q ite an a missible term, d was u foll wm dou btless understood to colo r the o g term . See an 1 8 0 ROME A N D E N GLAN D of the original draft of the declaration in which this parenthesis occurred, that they did not themselves under i t to I f stand include any spiritual jurisdiction . t dif ered toto ca l o from the Act of 1 5 34 But a diplomatic consent to ambiguous expressions was not what the situation re

. at l en th quired Their leader, Archbishop Warham, was g ,

too . although late, brought to see this For we have the satisfaction of knowing that before his death he was pre pared to lay down his life for the truth which Henry

n viz . by his action was now clearly bent o denying, , f the necessary dependence o the Universal Church , f on of and therefore o the Church in England, the See

Peter. P f . There is a State aper of the reign o Henry VI II , which was published i n ex tenso for the ﬁrst time two of years since by Canon Moyes with the help Dom . D ubli n R iew Gasquet. It is to be found in the ev of

1 8 April 9 4 , accompanied by an article well worth perusal, from the pen of the learned Canon. It is to be found

P . . in the State apers, Henry VI I I , v and has been P Gairdner who summarised by rofessor , has ﬁxed its date indisputably from internal evidence . It is a defence which Archbishop Warham , the immediate predecessor w for i n of Cranmer, dre up himself the last few months r aem u ni r e of his life . He had been threatened with a p , to and he appears to have decided resist, even to death , the charge under which he was to be tried . His de fence is of quite exceptional importance in relation to the thesis of this book . It shows that up to the very to time when Henry was prepared break with Rome, ce of unless he could indu Rome to allow his divorce,

H ’ H V ” Introduction to M rs . ope s First D ivorce of enry III.

. G u . u P u CO . t (Kegan a l , by Dom asq et The s bjec is clearly and concisely dealt with in this admi rable intro

' u S u d d d. d uction . The vol me is one that ho l be wi ely rea

1 8 2 R OM E A N D E N GLAN D

th ’ other temporal . Wherefore, as e King s grace hath the temporal power to grant and to deliver out of his ' 1 custody the temporalities o f bishoprics at his pleasure ; so in like wise the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being, having the spiritual j urisdiction of al l bishop rics within his Province of Canterbury while they be void , in the right of his Church may at his liberty grant ’ to him tha t i s l a wf u l ly p rom oted a t R om e i n the P ope s Consistor y a bishop of any see, being void, the spiritual ” of ties the same bishoprick . The words that I have placed In italics show the ’ continuity of Archbishop Warham s teaching with all that has been shown to be the teaching of the Church of England for upwards of 9 0 0 years before his time . And it must be remembered that the Archbishop is giving what he conceives will be admitted as true by all faithful members of the Church of England . We see also what he meant by allowing the words that the King was supreme head of the Church so far as the law of ” C 1 2 hrist permits, to be passed in the Convocation of 5 3 — what a vital diff erence between that Act of Convoca

1 tion and the succeeding enactment of 5 3 4 . N 1 1 ro In the next paragraph ( O . ) the Archbishop p “ ceeds to say : And if the Archbishop of Canterbury should not give the spiritualties to hi m so promoted as ’

i . e C bishop [ . in the Papal onsistory], till the King s grace

1 D uring the vacancy of a bishopric the t emporalitie s ’ u od an d c c were in the King s c st y, the new bishop in ea h ase ’ The ual s had to su e them out of the King s hand . spirit tie T a c St . were in the hands of the A rchbishop . homas Be ket , d d u d in the hour of his eath , was aske by one of his m r erers an d u d o wn that the as to his allegiance to the King, ref se to “ ” r u ncl ud ed King was his master in spirituals . Spi it als t d d u i d matters which belonge to this worl , tho gh they nvolve his d t o a great deal more . Wolsey , in fright , was prepare betray “ the spiritualties of a diocese into the hands of the

u d . King . Warham ref se ’ TEACH I N G OF CRA N MER S PR EDECESSOR 1 83

to had granted and delivered him his temporalities , then the spiritual power of the Archbishops would hang and or w P so depend on the temp al po er of the rince, and

ff . would be of little or none e ect, which is against all law so n t And there would o be two distinct powers, accord ’

e. God ing to Almighty God s ordinance [i . as ordained

that there should be] . Further (paragraph an injury “ “ would be done to the bishop if, after that an elect is

provided a bishop at Rome in the Consistory, and after f ’ t ” the presenting o the Pope s bulls o him , the Arch “ ” bishop still clung to the exercise of the spiritualties . It will be noticed that the Archbishop ’ s interpretation of the Statute of P r ovisors is exactly that given above nor It was not meant to forbid all provisions all bulls, f but only such as touched upon the rights o the Crown . In this case the Archbishop argues (paragraph I no ’ to harm is done the King, for the exercise of the Bishop s ’ spiritualties does n ot affect the region of the King s “ ” not f P rule . The bishop is a lord o the arliament until he has done homage.

1 6 In the next paragraph (N o. ) the Archbishop draws what I may call the dividing line between what has been . called the Church of England Since 1 5 34 (with the ’ exception of Mary s reign) and the Church of England “ to . from 5 9 7 up that date He says, And as touching him that is consecrated, he is made no bishop by his con consecration , as peradventure some men think [the fusion between orders and jurisdiction so characteristic of present Anglican teaching seems to have been already

but he . i s m ade a nd rovided a bi sho at R om e dawning], p p ’ i n the P o e s Consistor consecra p y , and hath before his tion all things appertaining t o spiritual jurisdiction as a an b h nse ra t on he ha th no ur sdict on bishop, d y i s co c i j i i ‘ ‘ i ven to hi m be a ertainin g , but only such things as pp g to his order. 1 8 4 R OM E A N D EN GLAN D

And so further on (paragraph 1 9 ) he argues that it 1 were according that a Spiritual man should ﬁrst gi ve

of t the s i tua l head w i ch is the his oath obedience o p ri , h P o e f p , which is not used to be done but at the time o ’ the bishop s consecration, and , that done, then to do P h is temporal duty and ﬁdelity to his temporal rince, and not to prefer the temporal Prince to the Pope in a spiritual matter . ’ It will be seen that Bishop Creighton s theory, that the Papacy was amongst the non - essen tials of the Church ’ of She England s teaching, and that by this time had not discovered only its inutility , but its dangerous and not mischievous character, was held by the Archbishop f C o 1 2. so anterbury in 5 3 Indeed , patent did the o osi te to pp seem him , that he could plead it with the

King as a universally admitted truth . G His race proceeds to say that, in consecrating the ’ Bishop of St . Asaph , he was following the Pope s mandate of of he in virtue mine obedience, which these the ‘ words, I will observe such mandates with all my ’ power, and will cause them to be observed by others . ’ I wa s bu t the P o e s com m issar and the consecra ti n o p y , g f ’ the said B isho i s ri nci all the P o e s deed p p p y p , which commanded it to be done ; wherefore, I think it not reasonable that I should fall into a p reem uni r e for doing of to that thing, whereby (if I had done the contrary)

I Should have fallen into perjury . The next sentence proves that the King had not sufﬁciently shown his hand in 1 5 3 2 to make it useless to appeal to the Catholic faith as it had been taught in

England from time immemorial . In fact, the King did

1 It c i . e c . . Fit, suitable, ec lesiastically right is the exa t u d dx oltov dos c C u c eq ivalent of the wor , whi h the o n il of E phesus used of the speech of the legate in whi ch he desc ribed the s uccessor of Peter as the divinely appointed

u c . ruler of the Universal Ch r h ( M ansi, iv

1 8 6 R OM E A N D EN GLA N D

Then , after summing up the foregoing reasons, he turns

. f to history He appeals to the example o St . Thomas a Becket (paragraph Henry VI I I . is doing exactly

f . what Henry I I . did and repented o and disavowed of C C That article the onstitution of larendon was, he n says, condemned at Rome, and the Ki g did penance “ for hidden enforcing it, and was to give up the Statutes of Clarendon and all other evil customs against f ” the liberties o Holy Church . And the King gave “ ” them up as ill and unjust . He then shows that the of u consecration the bishop, being a good and spirit al “ w ” act , can gro no ill to the Crown whensoever it done,

e. . i . is done N ext he adduces Magna Charta on his side, giving to it exactly the same interpretation as that given above in these pages : H abeat eccl esia A ngli ca na “ liber ta tes ill cesas , Let the Anglican Church have her liberties inviolate . “ ” The words Anglican Church did not convey to the mind of Archbishop Warham , nor to any other of C prelate for ﬁve hundred years, the idea a hurch independent of the See of Peter ; and the liberties of n t the Church did o involve the m isery, as he would have deemed it, of detachment from the ties that bound them to h im whom the Archbishop has just called “ ” f to the head o all Christian men . He proceeds say “ that the breakers o f Magna Charta were solemnly cursed at Paul ’ s Cross by the most part of the bishops o f England for that time being, and the same curse

l e ia [was] conﬁrmed by Pope Innocent IV. But ecc s l A n l ana non ha bet l iberta tes sua s i lla sas g ic , when the

Church hath not its liberties to consecrate bishops, but ’ at princes pleasures . There follows a remarkable passage in which the

1 The Anglican Church has not her liberties inviolate . ’ TEACH I N G OF CRA N MER S P R EDECESSOR 1 87

Archbishop appeals to the m isfortunes that befell those that acted against the liberties of the Church (paragraph He says he does not wish to take upon him the d judgment of Go , and say determinately that the Kings he mentions were punished by the hand of God for

f B ut t . making o such Acts . he points out tha Henry I I was deserted at his death, and lay uncovered until a servant - pitied the disgrace ; that Edward I I I . died in f poverty, and the hatred o his noble subjects ; that o Richard I I . renounced his right t the crown ; and

Henry IV. was stricken with a loathsome disease . And these were severally the authors and abettors of the Constitutions of Clarendon and of the Statute of P r eem uni r e. . On the other hand , St Thom as died “ not to or for consenting obeying such Acts, and was ” so who and is a holy martyr, that those made them (the Statutes of Clarendon and the Statutes of P r ovisors and P reem uni re) may be thought to have incurred the 0 displeasure of God . He then (paragraph 3 ) refers “ P V who to ope Martin . , was a very good and holy ” “ Pope, and who wrote to King Henry IV. concern ing the Act of P reem uni re made against the liberties of i n the Church . He proposes to produce his words full in his trial . He deprecates men drawing the sword th of who against him , and points to e end those men f slew St . Thomas o Canterbury . But if they do draw “ f r to ff the sword, I think it were better o me su er to the same, than against my conscience confess this to r eem un r e for article be a p i e [i . . to be a just case of for the Operation that iniquitous statute], which ” “ [article] St . Thomas died . I should damn my soul f or where St . Thomas saved his soul and is a glorious saint in heaven for denying of this article . It is consoling to think that this good and learned old f man, as all agreed in regarding him , a ter a certain 1 8 8 R OM E A N D E N GLAN D

“ weakness in allowing the term head of the Church to Henry, with , it is true, a salvo which separated it — by an inﬁnite distance from its acceptance in 1 5 34 it is, I say, consoling to think that after all he had in f him the spirit o a martyr, and that he had decided to put h imself in continuity with the whole past of of of the Church England, and die for the supremacy he t Pope if the King pressed the trial . It pleased Almighty God to take him before the trial came on ; and , it must be added, it was in the mysterious counsels of the Divine wisdom that a scourge should be allowed to on ur descend o land in the shape of a Cranmer, to —or break the continuity between the past and future , to to speak more accurately, deprive the Apostolical f t sub succession in this land o its legal position , and o stitute a religion which has regarded the Papacy, ﬁrst,

- and a t no n as anti Christian, , nowadays, as, any rate, ’ essential to the Church s life . Our prayer is that God would speedily turn the hearts of the children to their forsaken Father in Christ, the successor of the Prince of the Apostles .

I N D E X

— M A RS 8 1 86 Can e u , Cou of i . ADA M H , 74 , t rb ry rt , xx v

Po e 1 0 1 1 Can e u See of 8 1 0 , 1 2, Adrian, p , , t rb ry, , 7, , 6 1 a o St . Po e 4 . 7 Ag th , , p , 9

Canu e. See nu dan St. Ai , , 3, 5 t K t l P i m f i 1 I 2 0 1 Ca is e, a a en o 1 Al cu n, 3 , 4 , 9 , 3 , 3 rl rl t , 33

nde V Po e 1 6 C a a, a na, Al exa r . , p , 9 h rt M g 9 3

e e c . 1 1 1 1 f ed the ea 1 8 C c , , 44 , 4 , Al r Gr t , 5 , 4 hi h l Ar hbp 5 5 i A u li C u c and Em i e 68 0 Anglican Church ( E ccl es a g h r h p r , , 7

ca na m ean n of the e m 2 C u c H is o ical Soc e Lec ), i g t r , 5 , h r h t r i ty

s i . 2 26 28 0 u e , , , 26, 9 t r , xxvi ; 9 5 , — 2 5 8 88 6 1 66 n l m St. 1 6 1 " . . . . A se , , , 5 73 9 77 44 5 9 “ ” ne o f nd os o ic See See S e , s o , a Ap t l , 9 t p y Bi h p ‘ of the Po e Col ns P of . Apostolicus (nam e p ), 9 f li , r S ee Can e u C u c inc udes c e 1 1 Archbishop . t rb ry h r h, l l rgy, 4 V I . Po e ine St . of Can e u C em en 1 August , , t rb ry, 4, l t , p , 37 2 Clericis aicos u 1 6, 1 L , b l l , 59

o n of ob . de A thona Cl oveshoe Counci of 1 2 Ayton, J h (J ), , l ,

Col ins P of. 2 26 1 88 x x i . l , r , 5 , , 3 , 33, om m on law i ts ea ie m ean C , rl r

F ICES 1 6 s . in x x i . BEN E , 5 qq g , neﬁces ese a on of 1 62 Confession 1 2 1 B e , r rv ti , , 3 , 75 6 1 0 Confessi ona s 1 B irinus, St., , 7 l , 5 5

B isco enedic 1 Cons ance Counci of 1 1 8 p, B t , 3 t , l , 57, 5

ni face V I II . Po e 1 Con inui i ts m eanin x i . Bo , p , 59 t ty, g, i is C u c 2 Counci ene al a eal to 1 Br t h h r h, l , G r , pp , 47

u s Pa a 1 1 not su e io to Po e ii . B l l , p l , 37, 47 p r r p , xx

C ei on B . of Pe e o ou r ght , p t rb r gh ,

' CA N N LA W 1 1 . 1 22 easons for se ec i n his a e O , xv r l t g p p r ,

an e u c s o s of x iv . C t rb ry, Ar hbi h p , Cu i a Rom an 1 20 1 2 1 2 r , , , 3 , 7 an e u c deacon of ac Cus om s 6 C t rb ry, Ar h , Bl k t . 54. 5 7. 4 oo of B k , 49 1 9 2 I N DE X

D ecRETA Ls fo ed 2 anf anc m u 6 , rg , 9 , L r . . 7. 34 . 35 . 4 . 47. Pa a iii . p l , xx

uns an St. e a es 1 2 6 60 0 D t , , 34, 35 L g t . 3 . 3 . 4 . 54 . . 9 . 1 0 1

’ E WA R I . 1 5 e a i ne com m ssion hi chele s D D , 59 77. L g t i , C , Ed a d I I 2 I . 1 0 1 1 6 w r , 3 , 3 , 3 “ Em i e H ol R om an 68 e a ine cons i u ions ei ac p r , y , L g t t t t , th r ” E n is C u c H is o ce tance . gl h h r h t ry , p , xix ’ ” d en s 8 1 1 2 Lichﬁel d 1 0 1 1 1 2 t , 7, , , , E s a es of P e a c 1 i foo is o t t r l y, 35 L ght t, B h p, 3 Ethelwulf 8 ondon 8 1 2 , 4 , 49 L , , L ndw od x x i y o , . REE M ecc esi as ical 0 F DO , l t , 9 9 7 A RT I N V P . o e 1 1 0 M , p , 44 , 5 eem an P of . 66 2 Fr , r , 38 , , 7

a e Pa i s ii . 1 2 nlb ert of C a es M tth w r , xxv , 4 F , h rtr , 33

GIRA LD US CA MB R EN SIs N , 9 , 75 YE The Church and her

s . 1 22 , S o . 20 8 6 1 6 gg t ry xiii , , 3 , 4 , 9

e o St . the ea 6 Gr g ry, , Gr t, 3 , 5 , ,

F FA 1 0 1 1 1 8 O , , , 5 , 4 e o St- V I I 0 Gr g ry. . 37. 43. 44 . 5 . dcas e Si r o n 1 Ol tl , J h , 75

Othob on Ca di na 1 1 1. x ix . , r l , xv , , osse es e 1 1 1 Gr t t ,

e o d Ov rl r , 39 H MA GE 5 - O , 39 717 1 47 ne s i Pa al 1 Ow r h p, p , 5 7 H ono ius III . Po e 6 1 2 1 r , p , 9 , , fo d ni e si of 1 1 Ox r , U v r ty , 47, 49 1 23 sqq.

I NA 1 8 , 5 , 4 PA LLI UM or a 8 1 0 I I 1 2 1 , p l l , , , , , 5 , i of th Po e 1 Inf al i i y e , 73 l b l t p 5 33 . 35 , 5 3, 5 5 9 9

Innocen I II . 0 8 80 6 t , 7 , 7 , 79 , , 9 Pa ac the i n idd e es p y. , M l Ag , — 1 1 8 1 2 1 . S ee Curi a

N Ki n s . 1 JOH , g, 9 3 qq , 37 Pau nus, St . , 4 o n the a o 1 li J h , bb t, 4

Pec a m c is o 1 1 1 . kh , Ar hb h p , xv , xix. o n III . Po e 1 66 s . J h XX , p , gq ’ Pe e s ence 0 1 06 1 t r p , 4 7, 5 , , 37 P aem uni e S a u e of 1 2 1 r r , , 3 , 40, KEN ULPH , 1 1 t t t 1 2 1 1 8 1 1 8 nu i n 1 0 4 1 5 5 1 7 1 79 1 3 K t, K g, 5 , 5 P o ec ion 1 1 1 r t t , 39 , 4 , 5 7, 79

. N o es on u c P o isi ons 1 LAN E I l l ust t Ch r h r v , 44 H i s o 20 2 6 1 8 1 6 1 P o iso s S a u e of 1 1 1 t ry , 7, , 7, , r v r , t t t , 3 , 35 ,

0 I 1 .2 1 7 39 . 4 3 55

B Y TH E S A ME A UTH OR

The Prim itive Church and the See of Peter

W IT H A N I N T ROD UCT ION B Y TH E CARD IN AL ARCH BIS H O P OF WEST M IN STER

P i r ce 1 6 8 0

LON GMAN S REEN A N D CO . , G , S O ME O PIN IO NS O F T HE PRES S

1 . A N GLI CA N , E TC. “ hu r h — We do not see how the work cou d ha e The Re vi ew of t he C c es . l v b ee n e tte r ne The b ook be ond a n t hi n we ha e read f or a on t im e d oes b d o . , y y g v l g , " f t a t ho i hu r h i n ritai n c redi t to t he b ranch o he C l c C c B . The a u thor has i en us a e ss on i n cou rtes and candour. The Re co rd . g v l y “ - One of the m ost d et a i ed and u m i nous accounts The S cot t i s h G ua rd i a n . l l i n our lang uage of the two l a t e r Cou nc il s ( Ephes u s a nd We i e the a u thor rea t cred it f or i nd us tr and acu m en. C hu rc h Re vi e w . g v g y “ — r i or i round s The S cot s m a n . The a u thor shows m uch eru d iti on , a nd , his a p g s i s cond uc ted wi th once rant e d a ke en crit ica s iri t . A a ru e the cont ro ers g , l p l v y " t e m er a nd o r e n rei n to the them e a p c u t sy lo g fo g . “ — ardi na V a u han i n his i ntrod uct ion m ee ts the G l as gow He ra ld . C l g ( ) now ashi onab e n ican c ont i nui t the or which has a wa s seem e d to us m ore f l A gl y y , l y a tr io t ic t ha n we - ou nd ed on a ct t he di re c t s t at e m ent t hat for 1 000 ea rs t he p ll f f , by , y E ngl ish peopl e wi th one a ccord p ro fe ssed the P ope t o b e their re ligi ous head w ere u ni t ed by t he professi on of the sam e fai t h a nd sacra m e nts i n one rel igi o n wi th t he who e of Christ endom and conse u en t a t the R e orm a t ion ess ent ia chan ed l , , q ly , f ll y g ' h M r R i v i n ton s scho ar thei r re i i o n e e ti n the au t ori t of the ee . l g n i r j c g y H oly S . g l ly t reat ise is to a l arge ex tent an a tt em pt t o prove the absol u t e t ru th of the ' " s n n t e n on Ca rd ina l s u ncom pro m i i g co ti . W a and e abora tion m a rk P u b l i c O p i n i o n ( a s hi ngton a nd N ew Yo rk) . C re l t he who e w o rk . It o rm s a co m e te su m m ar f or the his tor of the eriod s tated l f pl y y p , " r m h f o t e Ca tho li c poi nt of view. “ Y r — We wi s a f or the a uthor that he has writ ten N ew o rk Chu chm a n . ll y " with ourtes ski c y and ll .

1 1 . CA TH OLI C “ — A sub t nti e s tud a nd ex osition of a m ost i nteres tin Dub l i n Review . s a v y p g part of Church hi story . It ou ht certa i n t find a ace i n the she es f e er the o The M ont h. g l y o pl lv o v y o logi ca l l ib rary . —“ Ta b l et A m ost i m ortant and a u ab e addi tion to the i terat ure of the p ‘ v l l l th hu r h n Ca olic C c i n E ngl a d . h l i I C at o c Ti m e s . t deser es a erm anent ace in E ng ish Catho ic " v p pl l l l i te rat u re . Ir i The s h Cat hol i c a nd N at i on . Conta i ning an i m m ense wea th of his " l t orica l re se arch. The Cat ho l ic N e a te ws . m s r y ictu re of the history of the Churchduring A l p " the first our cent uri es a nd a ha of he r e x i f lf stence . “ N e ork at ho i W r — w Y C c o ld . To a ll those whe ther a t i r i n u i rers l , C hol c o q _ i nto t he Cat ho i c re i i on who wish f or i n orm a t s d m n a l l g , f ion i n re pec t to t his one fun a e t l d o m a of t he P a a S u rem a c we a nn t reco m m end a n t te r fit e g p l p y , o y one book as b e t d c ' " t o sa t i s t h1 s w a nt tha n Fa the r R 1 v 1 n fy g to n s t rea ti se . — “ Cat hol i c The c lerica l a nd l ay s t ude nt of Chu rch history ’ canno t a f ord to b e Wi tho u t Fa t her Ri v i n t on s in a a b e g v l u l book . l — “ Cat hol i c Q u a rt e r y Re vi e w We he a rt ily recom m end this r book to ou reade rs . The re 15 not hi ng abst ruse abou t i t fro m be gi nn ing to e nd the " u rse of the a r um e n t i s e a co g s y t o foll ow.

S REPLIES T AN AL O, O C ON B RIGHT, ETC. P i r ce l s .

’ ‘ B U RN S 81 OA I ES IMITE , L D .