An inter view be tween the pope and RALPH, at Gisors, upon the confines of Normandy. Malmsbury Abp. Cant. relates, his holiness was much disgusted with the king, and expostulated sharply with him, for keeping his brother Robert prisoner, who had distinguished himself so handking Henry, somely in the holy war. But the king, as this historian goes on, quickly softened him to silence, by making a colourable defence: for rhetorick has a strange force, and is apt to change the appearances of things, especially when it is backed with presents, and speaks strongly from the Malmsbur. pocket. 312. 1. 5. fol. 90. Orderic. Vital. Eccles. Histor. 366. Ordericus Vitalis gives some particulars of the conference: the pope began his remonstrance, by representing, that, by the law of God, every one ought to enjoy his right, according to the respective constitution of the country; that nobody ought to grasp at what did not belong to him, nor do that to another which he would not willingly suffer himself. "The late synod, therefore," continues the pope, "has unanimously resolved to entreat your highness to release your brother Robert, whom you have detained under so long a confinement; and that you should restore to him and his son the duchy of Normandy, which you have wrested from him." To this the king made a very ceremonious answer; and promised to be entirely governed by his holiness's directions. From hence he proceeds to harangue upon the lamentable condition of the duchy of Normandy, and how earnestly he was solicited to interpose for its rescue: and, in short, seems to lay the whole stress of his defence upon his brother's mal-administration. The pope, who was, it seems, in a friendly humour, declared himself extremely satisfied, and that he should give his highness no farther trouble upon this head. To give the pope a farther entertainment, two young 1. 12. p. 865, gentlemen, the earl of Mellent's sons, engaged the cardinals in the forms of logick, and entangled them so dexterously in mood and figure, that all their sense and learning was not of force sufficient to break through the argument; insomuch, that the cardinals confessed they were surprised with the opposition, and never expected such improvements in learning in those western climates. In short, the pope was much pleased with the conference, declared positively for the justice of the king's cause, and ad K. of Eng. A. D. 1119. mired his prudence and elocution. This was the conclusion HENRYI. of the matter, with respect to Robert, duke of Normandy". As to other points, the pope granted the king all those Malmsb. ib. ecclesiastical privileges which his father had enjoyed, No foreign either in England or Normandy; and, particularly, that no legate to foreign legate should be put upon the English, unless the England king should desire it upon some extraordinary emergency, king's inthe case being too difficult for the English prelates to de- stance. termine. come into unless at the Eadmer. Things being thus far adjusted, the pope desired the king p. 125, 126. to be reconciled to Thurstan, and permit him to return to his archbishoprick. The king answered, he had solemnly ↑ It is particularly pleasing to observe the successive processes by which the interference and intrusion of papal influence in Britain were gradually abolished. In spite of the popes' ingenious and reiterated attempts to misrepresent the nature of the regale and the prerogative of the crown, the true character of the British monarch was every day recovering its position. Each successive year contributed evidence to the fact, that the British monarch, as a divine personage, possesses of right a double supremacy within these islands, that the crown is supreme alike in ecclesiastical and civil affairs; supreme alike over Church and State. This divine character and right of princes, all uniting and all embracing, was found to be the grand conception on which the true theory of our constitution necessarily depends, This conception of kingship was maintained by several of the fathers of the Church, and is beautifully illustrated by Hooker and by Selden. Being, however, somewhat transcendental and metaphysical, the doctrine was long disputed. Many scholars did not duly consider that the king, as a divine, unitive, and parental character, possessed a prerogative at once ecclesiastical and civil. Therefore, what God had joined together, they endeavoured to divide; some of them went about to prove that the king was exclusively an ecclesiastical person, and some, an exclusively secular person. By degrees, however, the syncretic doctrine of kingship prevailed, and was fully established in the reign of Henry VIIIth. After that period the true dignity and supremacy of the crown were secured. Some writers were indeed still found absurd enough to represent the king as so ecclesiastical a person that he had no business to interfere in secular matters, as if, like another Edward the Confessor, he had become civiliter mortuus; and some others, going to the opposite extreme, represented him as so civil and secular that he had no authority to sway ecclesiastical affairs. But the opinions of these party writers, though they made some stir, and exhibited very violent oscillations, never again regained the ascendancy. I am obliged thus early to be very explicit on this particular question, which is so elaborately and vehemently discussed by Collier. The more the parental character of the British crown is understood, the more certainly will our national monarch become a centre and bond of union to all ecclesiastical and political denominations within this empire. Beneath a sovereignty, thus emulative of the God from whom it sprung, and whose government it exemplifies to men, will Jews, Papalists, and Protestants, maintain their several spheres of action in harmony and prosperity. If our national monarch is held to be anything short of this, our sects and parties become as children without a parent, each running riot in a vain assumption of superiority, "an anarchy of spirits toy-bewitched." N 2 RALPH, promised never to consent to any such proposal. To this Abp. Cant. Calixtus replied, that he was pope, and, in case his highness complied, he would release him effectually from his engagement. "When I have considered that point," says the king, "I shall acquaint your holiness with my resolution." Upon this he took leave of the pope, and soon after sent him word, that he did not think it consistent with the honour of a prince to set aside his promise, and suffer his conscience to be untied in such a manner: that by this latitude he should make himself a precedent for breach of faith, and weaken the securities of trust; for "who will give any credit to another man's word, when they see so remarkable an instance of the insignificancy of such an assurance?" "However, since his holiness," continues the king, "is so desirous of Thurstan's admission to the see of York, I am willing to gratify him, upon condition that prelate makes his appearance at Canterbury, and pays the customary submission of his predecessors; otherwise, no interest or authoEadmer, ib. rity shall ever prevail with me for his restitution." The pope threatens Thurstan, being a man of courage, and having the pope's ear, refused to acquiesce upon the king's terms, or submit to the see of Canterbury: however, he had not courage enough to appear either in England or Normandy. The pope, as Hoveden writes, resented his banishment very warmly, wrote in a very angry manner to the king and the archbishop, menaced the latter with suspension, and the kingdom with an interdict, in case Thurstan was not restored the kingdom within a month after the letters were received. By virtue of with an in- this interdict, all divine service was to cease, and no part of Hoveden, the sacerdotal office to be exercised, unless in the baptism of infants, and absolution of dying penitents. Eadmer reports this matter much in the same way; only he observes, that the king was threatened with excommunication, and that Thurstan engaged the pope thus far in his quarrel by dint of bribery. By the way, this letter of the pope's was written two years after the interview above-mentioned. terdict. Annal. f. 273. Eadmer, 1. 6. p. 136. It must be confessed, the pope's conduct in this affair looks very unintelligible; for which way can his appearing thus vigorously for Thurstan be reconciled to clear dealing. Did he not openly promise the king, and archbishop Ralph, K. of Eng. Ann. p. 269. 313. Mat. Paris. An. 1113. not to bring any disadvantage upon the see of Canterbury? HENRYI. Had not Thurstan publickly renounced his claim to the see of York? Why then did his holiness engage so warmly for so exceptionable a person, and treat the king and the archbishop so very ruggedly without provocation? Alford grants all this looks something surprising at first sight, but fancies he has found an expedient to save the pope's honour. He pretends Ralph had received his investiture from the crown, and that for this reason he had a just ground of quarrel against the king and the archbishop. But which Alford. way does this annalist prove the archbishop received his vol. 4. investiture from court, since, after a long contest in Anselm's His appeartime, the king had solemnly resigned this point in a late Thurstan ining for council at London? But Alford proves his assertion from Matthew Paris, who is followed in this report by Matthew Histor. of Westminster. To this it may be answered, that Mat- Angl. ad thew of Westminster is, in effect, no more than a tran- p. 65. scriber of Matthew Paris, and lived about a hundred years after him. And, as for Matthew Paris himself, he is no older than king Henry III., wrote a great while after the fact in question, and misreports a circumstance of the story. He tells us, that Ralph was translated from London to Canterbury, whereas he had never been bishop of any see, excepting Rochester. But that which is a stronger objection Eadmer. against Matthew Paris's testimony, is the silence of those Malmsbur. authors who lived in this reign, or very near it; for instance, de Gest. neither Eadmer, Florence of Worcester, Huntington, Nubri- fol. 131. gensis, Hoveden, nor Gervasius Dorobernensis, mention a syllable of this matter. Now it is very strange such a breach of articles, such an attempt upon the liberties of the Church, should be passed over without notice. To which we may add, that it is not pretended the king gave investiture to any other prelate, excepting this Ralph. Now, it is somewhat unaccountable the see of Canterbury should be treated with particular hardship, and fare worse than the rest. From all which it is pretty evident, the matter of fact is mistaken by Matthew Paris. But, secondly, supposing this story true, it is not a sufficient plea to justify the pope; for, granting archbishop Ralph faulty in this respect, which way can this justify the pope's partiality to Thurstan, in restoring him after he had 109. Pontif. 1. 1. A. D. 1119. nal. vol. 4. RALPH, renounced his see, in consecrating him contrary to his own Abp. Cant. promise, and supporting him in his non-submission to the see of Canterbury? No disobligation from the archbishop of Canterbury is defence sufficient for such proceedings. And after all, Alford is contented to clear the archbishop of Canterbury from the charge of receiving investiture from the king; and argues very reasonably, that if Ralph had lain under the blemish of such an imputation, pope Paschal Alford. An- would never have sent him the pall. This historian therefore makes Calixtus disgusted with the see of Canterbury, p. 270. rather than with the person of the archbishop. It seems when some foreign legates had been lately sent, their admission was refused upon the score of prejudice to the see of Canterbury. The pope, therefore, being angry to find his authority disputed, was willing to mortify that see, and set the archbishoprick of York upon the same level. But supposing Alford is right in his conjecture, this apology will do the pope no service; for to proceed in this manner looks more like revenge than justice, for the reasons above mentioned. The death of Herbert, bishop of Norwich. This year, Herbert, bishop of Norwich, departed this life. He translated the see from Thetford to Norwich, as has been observed. He built the cathedral of that city at his own charge. He likewise built the bishop's palace, and a cloister for the monks: to which we may add five parish churches; two at Norwich, one at Elmham, one at Lynn, and another at Yarmouth. He was a person of great learning and elocution, well qualified for state affairs, and secular business. In his younger time he lived at William Rufus's court, professed the law, and was employed by that prince, and seems to have been too forward in making his fortune. He is said to have been guilty of simony, for which he made publick satisfaction. And indeed he behaved himself so worthily in the latter, and greater part of his life, that the failings of his youth ought not to be objected to his memory. I shall conclude this year with the Malmsbur, death of Geoffrey, bishop of Hereford, of whom there is little remarkable, excepting that he recovered the interest of his bishoprick, and improved the revenues. de Gest. Pont. 1. 2. fol. 136. Godwin in Soon after the archbishop of Canterbury's return from Norwicens. Godwin in Episcop, Hereford. |