« السابقةمتابعة »
grant his request, he puts him in mind of the services he had formerly done his holiness and his relations; that he did not K. of Eng. refresh his memory with these things to upbraid him, but only to procure his own dismission. He goes on, and takes the freedom to say, that in case the pope refused to disentangle him, in prospect of the public service he was likely to do the church, his holiness would be disappointed, and run a great hazard by making himself answerable for the event. For to speak clearly, says he, the English are so untractable, that the advantage the province receives by my government, is not so great as the disservice I do myself. The Baronius pope, having a better opinion of Lanfranc than he had of xi. ad An. himself, refused to comply. This prelate, therefore, finding there was no way to get rid of his archbishoprick, sent to Rome for his pall. But, it being an ancient custom, as Baronius represents it, for the English archbishops to take a journey to Rome, and make a personal appearance before the pope upon this occasion; for this reason the pall was not delivered to Lanfranc's agents: and, that the refusal might not be misinterpreted, Hildebrand, the archdeacon of Rome, wrote a letter by way of apology. In this letter, he acquaints the archbishop how well his agents were received, and how sorry he was the pall could not be procured without giving him the fatigue of so long a journey: that if this point had been dispensed with to any prelate of his station, he might have been assured of the same favour. He desires him, therefore, not to take it ill for falling short of satisfaction.
But notwithstanding Hildebrand's pretences, there was no such necessity, no such general custom for the archbishop's going in person for the pall; for Gregory the Great sent this distinction of habit to Augustine of Canterbury. The popes Boniface and Honorius did the same to Bede Hist. Justus and Honorius, archbishops of Canterbury. And Eccles. 1. i. Baronius himself brings a much later precedent for the same c. 8. & c. 18. practice in the popedom of John XX.
c. 29. 1. 2.
This year, Thomas, archbishop of York elect, came to 4 dispute Canterbury, according to custom, to receive his consecra- see of York tion from that archbishop. And here he was first required and Canby Lanfranc to make a profession of canonical obedience to him in Scriptis, and swear to the performance of the con
LAN- tents; all this being demanded as a customary acknowledgFRANC, ment paid by his predecessors. Thomas replied, that he Abp. Cant. would never stoop to such a submission, unless the claim could be made out by sufficient authorities, both of witnesses Chronolog. and records. This non-compliance of the archbishop of An. 1070. York proceeded more from ignorance than stiffness and ill Geste temper. Being lately come into England, he was unactif. 1. 1. fol. quainted with the usages of the English church; however, he
seems to have given too much credit to the suggestions of flatterers, who made him believe the church of York stood upon the same foot of privilege with that of Canterbury. Lanfranc endeavoured to give him satisfaction, and produced evidences for the prerogatives of his see. But Thomas, not thinking the proof sufficient, refused to acquiesce, and went away without being consecrated.
The king being informed of this contest, suspected that Lanfranc, presuming upon the advantage of his learning, had made his demands too high; though, by the way, Thomas was a man both of parts and improved education. Some few days after this dispute, Lanfranc came to court, and desired the king would please to hear him in his justification: this request being granted, he defended his claim with so much strength and clearness, that the king and court were fully convinced of the fairness of his proceedings; several English, who were perfectly acquainted with the case, giving their testimony in his behalf. The matter being thus far cleared, the king orders Thomas to return to Canterbury, to deliver Lanfranc a profession of obedience in writing, and to read it before the rest of the bishops then present. The contents of this writing were, that Thomas should obey the orders and instructions of the archbishop of Canterbury in all things relating to discipline and worship. That this profession was to be made without conditions or reserve. However, this submission of Thomas was only made to Lanfranc's person, and not to his successors. The see of Canterbury was not to receive this acknowledgment till their claim was farther proved and determined in a synod. Thomas being contented to submit upon these terms, received his consecration.
And now some of the rest of the English bishops, who had declined being consecrated by Stigand, made their sub
A. D. 1071.
1. 1. p. 6.
mission to Lanfranc upon his demand. The next year, this prelate and archbishop Thomas went to Rome for their palls. And here Lanfranc was received by Alexander II. with particular marks of respect. For the pope, as Malmsbury ob- Malmsb. de serves, laying aside the usual state and stiffness of that see, tif. 1. 1. fol. rose up to him; though he qualified the ceremony by de- 117, 122. claring, "That he did not treat him with that regard upon Hist. Nov. the score of his station at Canterbury, but for his learning, and because he had been his master. And since he had strained his regards out of pure ceremony and affection, the other ought not to fail in point of justice and duty, but throw himself, according to the custom of other archbishops, at the feet of St. Peter's successor." Lanfranc having his memory thus rubbed up, made his reverences in the usual form. And here archbishop Thomas revived the contest The archbetween Lanfranc and himself: he claimed a jurisdiction bishop of over the three dioceses of Lincoln, Worcester, and Lichfield, his claim at and insisted, that by the constitution of Gregory the Great, the churches of Canterbury and York were equal and independent; that there was to be no preference or superiority in the case, unless with regard to precedency; and that even this privilege lay in common between both sees, and depended only on the priority of ordination: but as for the three bishopricks above-mentioned, he challenged them as part of his province, and declared they had been governed as such, time out of mind, by his predecessors. Lanfranc replied to Thomas's plea, and a great deal of arguing passed on both sides: however the pope did not think fit to interpose as a judge, but told them the cause ought to be tried in England before the bishops and abbots.
K. of Eng.
And though the controversy was still depending, Lanfranc was very serviceable to archbishop Thomas at the court of Rome; for both Thomas, and Remigius bishop of Lincoln, had their rings and pastoral staffs taken from them by his holiness: the first, because his father was a priest; the other, for bribing king William for his bishoprick. Upon Lanfranc's intercession for these two prelates, the pope referred the whole matter to him: Lanfranc being thus made Malmsb. de master of the sentence, returned them their crosiers; and 1. 1. fol. 117, thus they all travelled home very cheerfully together.
Lanfranc came charged with a letter from the pope to
LAN FRANC, Abp. Cant.
king William, in which, after his holiness had commended the king for his administration, exhorted him to go on in the protection of the Church, and to act by the advice suggested by Lanfranc: after he had enlarged a little upon these heads, he proceeds to inform the king, that Agelricus, late bishop of Selsea, who had been deposed by a commission from his legates, had not a fair trial. For which reason he orders the bishop, in the first place, to be restored to his former post, and makes Lanfranc his legate for the re-hearing of the cause: but notwithstanding this order of the pope, there was no review of the cause: Agelricus continued deprived, and the see was filled by Stigand, who afterwards removed to Chichester.
xi. n. 9. ad
This year the pope granted a charter of exemption to the An. 1071. abbey of St. Edmundsbury, which runs in the usual form,
excepting one clause, which binds the house to their canonical obedience to the archbishop of Canterbury. The words are these, Salva primatis episcopi canonica reveSelden Not. rentia. This exception being somewhat unusual, I thought ad Eadmer, fit to insert it. p. 206.
The contro- To return to Lanfranc, who was resolved not to let the ed in behalf controversy between himself and archbishop Thomas sleep; of Canter- the next year, therefore, both the archbishops appeared at bury at Windsor. the king's court at Easter, where, according to custom, most Malmsb. de of the bishops and great abbots were present. And here, Gest. Pon- after the cause had been argued at length on both sides, judgment was given for the see of Canterbury.
tif. l. i. fol. 117.
Eccles. 1. i. c. 29.
Upon the course of the argument, Thomas insisted upon Gregory the Great's constitution, by virtue of which, though the spiritual jurisdiction of the whole island was assigned to St. Augustine during his life, yet after his death, the sees of Bede Hist. York and London were to stand upon an equal footing of privilege and independency. Now when Gregory passed this decree, he supposed the archiepiscopal see would have been fixed at London, as being the most considerable city in the southern part of the island. It is true, Augustine, upon the score of king Ethelbert's keeping his court at Canterbury, made that city the archiepiscopal see; but this does not alter the case. For if London, where St. Augustine and his successors were supposed to fix their see, was to have no jurisdiction over the metropolitan of York, which way can Can
terbury pretend to it? Canterbury, I say, which was only WILto succeed to the privileges designed for London. The re- K. of Eng. moving from one city to another, and the bare change of the metropolis, can be no sufficient reason to extend the jurisdiction of the metropolitan. This was the substance of Malmsb. de Thomas's plea, neither was Lanfranc able to answer it. tif. 1. 1. fol. Lanfranc was likewise mistaken in founding the privilege of 117. the see of Canterbury upon that Church's being instrumental in converting the rest of the island; for it is undeniably evident from Bede, that the north of Britain, not to mention any other parts, were converted by the Scotch Irish. But though Lanfranc failed in these two points, yet he made out his title sufficiently by the constitutions of several popes, by the archbishops of Canterbury calling councils, and exercising other branches of jurisdiction within the province of York: and by the acquiescence and submission of the prelates of that see. To give one instance, Ealdulph, archbishop of York, who lived in the eighth century, made a profession of canonical obedience to Ethelard of Canterbury, in very full and comprehensive terms. The cause being See Collecthus carried for the see of Canterbury, there was a form of tion of Recanonical obedience drawn up, and delivered to Lanfranc by iv. archbishop Thomas, which the reader may peruse in the collection of records. And as to the bounds of the respec- See Records tive provinces, Thomas was obliged to drop his pretensions A.D. 1072. to the three dioceses of Lincoln, Lichfield, and Worcester; and the river Humber was made the barrier of Canterbury. From this river northward the province of York was to extend to the farthest parts of Scotland. Farther, whenever the archbishop of Canterbury should think fit to call a council, the archbishop of York and his suffragans, were obliged to make their appearance and be governed by his directions: and upon the decease of the archbishop of Canterbury, the archbishop of York was to repair to that city, Malmsb. de and with the assistance of the other suffragans of the Gest. Ponsouthern province, consecrate the primate elect. And upon 117. the death of the archbishop of York, the person nominated vol 2. p. 5. Spl. Concil. to that see by the king, was obliged to come to Canterbury, MS. in Bibl. or any other place assigned him by his primate, and there Cotton. sub receive his consecration from the said archbishop of Can- mitiani. Effigie Doterbury. [A. 5. n. 2.]
tif. 1. 1. fol.