power. 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 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 But after those forces were withdrawn, he concluded a private treaty with the French king.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 measures with the pope, began to grow less hearty in his cor- from king king goes off respondence with king Henry. At this treaty, the marriage 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. Henry's 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 her 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 1 By the civil account the year did not commence till the 25th of March. tion. VIII. 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 expedient of 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. 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 de- about the bating 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, Bp. Burnet, dispute come upon the board again, when it had been thus pt. 1. p. 106. acceptably determined in convocation so long ago? But after 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 Journal of the journal of the upper house, I find nothing of this kind 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. the Upper House of tion, fol. 55, Conventiones, Acta These two questions were determined the same way on the Publica, &c. king's side, by the convocation at York, two only dissenting tom. 14. p. 454. May 13. Ibid. P. 474. to each point proposed. 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. Britan. superiori autem patrum conventu, in quo Bononiensis, Pataviensis, Parisiensis, aliarumque universitatum, de eâ quæstione judicia recitata sunt, controversia inter Stokesleyum Londinensem, et Fisherum Roffensem episcopos aliquandiu mota, ab 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 VIII. lower house of convocation. But farther, the truth of the HENRY case is fully discovered from the subscriptions of the convocation published by this reverend prelate. In this list all the members of the upper house subscribe apart, which method was followed by those of the lower: the instrument is an original, and may be safely trusted. Bp. Burnet, form. pt. 1. Addend. p. 315. 75. A. D. 1537. Here it is evident that the bishops, abbots, and priors constituted the upper house: and that all deans, archdeacons, What memproctors of the clergy, and chapters of cathedrals, sat in the bers sat in lower house of convocation. And that this reign did not introduce anything new as to this point, may be proved from precedents more than one century prior to the reformation. For instance, in the convocation held in the year 1462, the lower house wanting a small sum of ready money, agreed to raise it by setting a fine upon the absent members. To this purpose a list of the absentees of the lower house was brought in. Amongst which were these the deans of Sarum, Lincoln, Windsor, Wells, and Chichester; the archdeacons of Colchester, Winchester, Surrey, Taunton, Dorset, &c. How the distinction of the two houses was thus settled, it may not be improper to relate. Some time after the present constitution of parliaments was introduced, in the reign of Henry III.; some time after this, great numbers of abbots and priors were summoned to parliament, by writs directed to each of them. Now all the religious thus summoned by particular writs sat amongst the peers. These abbots and priors had a double capacity, and were ranged under two distinctions: as ecclesiastical prelates they were part of the first; and as holding their baronies of the king, part of the second estate represented in parliament. For we are to observe, that such abbots and priors as held in chief of the king were usually summoned to parliament. convocation. Harmer, p. 31, 32. In the reign of Edward III. the number of abbots and priors summoned by particular writs was considerably lessened and this custom held on to the reformation. For after the reign last-mentioned, only some of the greater abbots received summons. And here the number, though not unalterably fixed, was always between twenty and thirty. They had sometimes a warrant from the king to dispense with their attendance of which we have an instance in the reign before us. num. 23. See Records, |