of Henry VIII. in regard to his divorces and other matters, and must have done so in divers cases against his own conscience, and with full knowledge that he did wrong; and (3) that in his last struggle under Mary he recanted several times in the hope of saving his life.
I. The first of these charges need not detain us long. It belongs almost to that very class which we have just excluded from notice. Cranmer had, like every archbishop for many centuries, two oaths to take, one to the Pope and another to the King. Like almost every similar pledge, when a functionary owes allegiance to two different authorities, these oaths, if strictly interpreted by a man of scrupulous conscience, would be found to be more or less incompatible. That they were felt to be so in older and less difficult times, is proved by the fact that Archbishop Langham,[1] in Edward III.'s time, 'solemnly renounced all expressions in the Papal bulls which militated against the Royal prerogative, or infringed upon the laws lately enacted' (the laws in question being no other than the Statute of Provisors); while, on the other hand, in the reign of Edward I., Archbishop Peckham[2] 'openly stated that whatever oaths he might have taken {e.g. to the King), he should feel himself absolved from them if they interfered with his duty to the Pope.' To quote a more modern instance, the case is exactly similar to the charge brought against the Heads and Fellows of Colleges in Oxford and Cambridge, in regard to their oaths to obey statutes, &c., for several years previously to the appointment of the Royal Commission of 1850.[3] But though
- ↑ Hook, Archbishop of Canterbury, vol. iv. pp. 198-9.
- ↑ Ib. vol. iii. p. 346.
- ↑ Chaps, iv., v., vi., and vii., of the late Sir William Hamilton, Discussion on Philosophy, Education, &c. (Longmans, 1852).
