WAR HAM, diction and authority, in such courts spiritual and temporal of Abp. Cant. the same, as the nature and quality of the cases shall require, without regard to any custom prejudicial to the same; any foreign inhibitions, appeals, interdictions, excommunications, or any other process from the see of Rome, or any other foreign courts to the contrary notwithstanding. And here those who make any such appeals, or procure any such censures in pursuit of them, fall under the penalty of præmunire. And those who refuse to give the sacraments to such as are interdicted or excommunicated by the pope, are to suffer one year's imprisonment, and make fine and ransom at the king's pleasure." 24 Hen. 8. cap. 12. The king with the The order of the process settled by this statute is this: "If the suit was commenced before the archdeacon, or his officials, the party grieved had the liberty of appealing to the diocesan, and from thence, within fifteen days after judgment, to the archbishop of the province. And in case this suit was commenced before the archdeacon of any bishop, or his commissaries, then the appeal might be made within fifteen days after sentence to the court of Arches; and from the court of Arches, within the same interval, to the archbishop of the province, there to be finally determined. In all which cases, there is a saving for the prerogative of the archbishop, and church of Canterbury. And lastly, in all causes where the king was concerned, the last appeal was to be made to the upper house of convocation." This statute against appeals seems to point particularly at the divorce now depending, and to preclude the queen from any applications to the court of Rome. Amongst other things, at the late interview at Bononia, it was concerted, that the pope should write to the king of England, to send forces against the Turk, who threatened Christendom with another invasion. The king answered, that expostulates if any such misfortune happened, it must be thrown upon the emperor's ambition, and the uncautious temerity of the pope. It seems his holiness, at the emperor's instance, had lately excommunicated John Sepuse, Vayvode of Transylvania, and elected king of Hungary. This prince had applied for succour to the Porte, and drawn the infidels upon Christendom. Upon this occasion the king puts his holiness in mind, how necessary precaution is in such cases. But to offer somewhat pope, and proposes his retiring to Avignon. VIII. Ld. Herbert, P. 346. between the pope and the towards satisfaction; if his holiness was apprehensive of having HENRY any share in this calamity, he advises him to retire to Avignon; and that then himself and the French king would engage for his protection. As to the emperor, there was little to be expected; for it was plain, that prince was resolved to gratify the German princes, and yield to some innovations in religion, on purpose to reduce his holiness, and lessen his power. How this motion was relished by the pope, is somewhat uncer- A treaty tain. However, he does not seem to have been in a condition to discover his mind. Such freedom might have proved dangerous, French king. while the emperor's army was quartered in Italy. But after those forces were withdrawn, he concluded a private treaty with the French king. This prince having concerted new The French king goes off measures with the pope, began to grow less hearty in his cor- from king respondence with king Henry. At this treaty, the marriage Henry's between Catherine de Medicis, his holiness's niece, and Henry duke of Orleans, second son of Francis, was concluded, and solemnised at Marseilles, in October following. The pope had likewise promised the French king an assistance for recovering his claims in Italy, and hoped that monarch would favour him in his designs upon Modena and Rheggio. The king of England perceiving the courts of France and Rome thus closely united, and that the French king seemed to forget some of his engagements at the interview at Calais ; particularly that he had executed some persons in France for opposing the papal authority, and recalled one Bede from banishment, who had vigorously opposed the king of England's divorce; for these reasons the king resolved to end this controversy at home, and stand to the decision of the English clergy. interest. promoted to To succeed the better in this affair, a proper person was to Cranmer be pitched on for the see of Canterbury: a person of character the see of and resolution, and not over-obsequious to the see of Rome. Canterbury. These qualities seemed to concur in Dr. Cranmer, who had lately been employed by the king in Italy, and was now in Germany negotiating for the divorce. The king, who had resolved his promotion, acquainted him with it, with orders for a speedy return. Cranmer endeavoured to decline the station, and moved slowly in his journey, in hopes, as it is said, the see might be filled before his arrival. But all this backwardness and excuse served only to raise the king's opinion of his merit : VOL. IV. P CRAN so that at last, he found himself obliged to yield, and underMER, take the charge. Abp. Cant. hibited. 74. Our learned Church historian observes, that "the king sent Papal bulls for bishops to the pope for the bulls for Cranmer's promotion; and though not yet pro- the statutes were passed against procuring more bulls from Rome, yet the king resolved not to begin the breach till he was forced to it by the pope." But here I must take notice of a mistake; for though there were statutes passed against the payment of annates and appeals, yet there were no acts against procuring of bulls for the consecrating of bishops, till the 25 Hen. 8. twenty-fifth of this reign. Bp. Burnet, Hist. Reform. pt. 1. p. 128 cap. 20. Regist. Cranmer scruples the taking an oath to the pope, but complies To proceed. The pope, on the other side, had no mind to come to a rupture with England: it is true Cranmer had taken several unacceptable steps: he had published a discourse for the divorce, disputed against the pope's power in dispensing, and held a correspondence with Osiander, and other Lutherans in Germany. These were ill recommendations at Rome; however the pope went through, and dispatched eleven bulls to complete his character. By one bull he is upon the king's nomination promoted to the see of Canterbury: this instrument is directed to the king. By a second, directed to himself, he is made archbishop. A third absolves him from all censures. A fourth is sent to the suffragans. A fifth to the dean and chapter. A sixth to the clergy of Canterbury. A seventh to all the laity in his diocese. An eighth to all who held lands of the see, requiring them to acknowledge him as archbishop. All these bear date the twenty-first of February 1533. But then we are to observe, that this computation of the Church of Rome, begins the year with January. For in England the year 1532 was not expired'. By a ninth bull, dated the twenty-second of February, he was to be consecrated upon taking the oath in the pontifical. By a tenth bull, dated the third of March, the pall was sent him. And by the eleventh, the archbishop of York and the bishop of London were ordered to put it on. Upon the arrival of these bulls Cranmer was consecrated by the bishops of Lincoln, Exeter, and St. Asaph. It has been observed that by one of these bulls Cranmer was obliged to take a customary oath to the pope. This circumstance he could not get over at first; and it is supposed By the civil account the year did not commence till the 25th of March. VIII. expedient of tion. num. 22. wholly de by some writers, that it was this condition which made him so HENRY backward in accepting that dignity. He thought several papal constitutions wanted reformation; and that his taking this upon the oath would embarrass his motion, and make his duty impracti- a protestacable. But the canonists found out an arrangement, and relieved him under this scruple. They proposed the making a protestation before he took the oath. By this expedient he was to save his liberty, and renounce every clause in the oath, which barred him doing his duty to God, the king, and his country. See Records, Our learned Church historian observes, "this arrangement This expeagreed better with the maxims of the canonists and casuists, than dient not with Cranmer's sincerity." This gentleman means there were fensible. Bp. Burnet, some strains of art, and mysterious practice in it; and I am alto- pt. 1. p. 129. gether of his mind. For this protest was not made at Rome to the pope Cranmer's proxies had no such instructions, as appears by the instrument. Had this reserve been insisted on in the conclave, we have reason to believe the bulls would never have been granted. We cannot conceive the pope would have ever agreed to this latitude: so that it is pretty plain, the oath was not taken in the sense of the imposer. However, the reverend prelate above-mentioned infers, "that if Cranmer did not wholly save his integrity, yet he intended to act fairly and above board." But to act above board is not always Ibid. defensible it is sometimes an aggravation of a fault. Besides, how a man can act fairly, and yet not save his integrity, is farther than I can discover. And therefore, with due regard to Cranmer's memory, it must be said there was something of human infirmity in this management. about the divorce de year in con When Cranmer's consecration was over, he is said to come The question into the convocation: and that the houses were warmly debating the business of the divorce. That is, whether it was bated this lawful for a man to marry his brother's wife, upon the supposition vocation. the marriage had been consummated? And secondly, whether this supposition was matter of fact between prince Arthur and queen Catharine? But this account, as to the time, looks Ibid. somewhat improbable. For these two questions about the divorce, had been already settled under archbishop Warham: they had been settled, I say, as our historian reports, to the king's satisfaction three years before. Why then should this See above, dispute come upon the board again, when it had been thus pt. 1. p. 106. acceptably determined in convocation so long ago? But after Bp. Burnet, MER, CRAN all, it is possible the two questions might not be formally Abp. Cant. debated in the convocation till this year: for upon perusing the journal of the upper house, I find nothing of this kind the Upper upon the board till March the twenty-sixth, 1533. And now within ten days the point was settled, as before related, and a public instrument drawn up for the king's satisfaction. Journal of House of tion, fol. 55, These two questions were determined the same way on the Publica, &c. king's side, by the convocation at York, two only dissenting to each point proposed. tom. 14. 454. May 13. Ibid. p. 474. Before I part with this account, I am obliged to make another remark. Our learned Church historian relates, "that the opinions of nineteen universities were read for the divorce Bp. Burnet, in the convocation." But this number exceeds by more than pt. 1. p. 129. A mistake half, as has been proved already. This gentleman seems to be concerning led into this mistake, by a hasty translation of Joceline, whom universities he quotes upon this occasion. To put this matter beyond rectified. doubt, I shall cite the author in his own language. "In nineteen Antiquit. superiori autem patrum conventu, in quo Bononiensis, Pataviensis, Parisiensis, aliarumque universitatum, de eâ quæstione judicia recitata sunt, controversia inter Stokesleyum Londinen327, 328. sem, et Fisherum Roffensem episcopos aliquandiu mota, ab Edit. Han. omnibus patribus, qui ducenti sexdecim personaliter, vel per procuratores interfuerunt, præterquam a 19, universitatum prædictarum sententiis assensum est." The English of which is this. "In the upper house of convocation, the censures upon the question of the divorce passed at Bononia, Padua, Paris, and some other universities, were reported. Now Stokesly, bishop of London, and Fisher, bishop of Rochester, happening to clash in the debate, this house, consisting of two hundred and sixteen, including proxies, all of them, excepting nineteen, agreed to the decision of the universities abovementioned." Our learned Church historian upon this occasion attempts somewhat of a history of the convocation and offers a conjecture by what members the houses were distinguished. He believes none sat in the lower house, but those who were deputed by the inferior clergy: and that bishops, abbots, mitred and not mitred, and priors, deans, and archdeacons sat then in the upper house of convocation. But first, this conjecture Page 113. disagrees with what he has already affirmed: for he has told us, that Reginald Pole, as dean of Exeter, was a member of the |