We dealt in the last chapter with the relation between the pre-Reformation Archbishops and Metropolitans and the Pope, and we saw how each in turn swore obedience to the Vicar of Christ as his spiritual sovereign.  We will now conclude the present chapter by transcribing a typical address presented by another representative body of men to the Pope, in past times.  It is the year 1427.  Now Chicheley, the Archbishop of Canterbury, had been accused at Rome of some fault or indiscretion, so the other Bishops of the province met together for the purpose of defending him.  With this end in view, they address a letter to Pope Martin V. It begins as follows:—­

“Most Blessed Father, one and only undoubted Sovereign Pontiff, Vicar of Jesus Christ upon earth, with all promptitude of service and obedience, kissing most devoutly your blessed feet,” and so forth.  They then proceed to defend their Metropolitan, and in doing so declare that “the Archbishop of Canterbury is, Most Blessed Father, a most devoted son of your Holiness and of the Holy Roman Church”.  Nay, more; they go on to testify that “he is so rooted in his loyalty, and so unshaken in his allegiance especially to the Roman Church, that it is known to the whole world, and ought to be known to the city (i.e., Rome) that he is the most faithful son of the Church of Rome, promoting and securing, with all his strength, the guarantees of her liberty”.

Now, what we wish to know is, how in the world can a man be “the most faithful son of the Church of Rome,” so rooted in his loyalty to her that “his allegiance is known to the whole world,” and yet not be a Roman Catholic?  The Bishops then add that “they go down upon their knees” to beseech the Pope’s favour for the Archbishop, and in doing so declare that they are “the most humble sons of your Holiness and of the Roman Church”.

Then Archbishop Chicheley follows up their letter, by writing one himself, in which he says:  “Most Blessed Father, kissing most devotedly the ground beneath your feet, with all promptitude of service and obedience, and whatsoever a most humble creature can do towards his lord and master” (i.e., domino et creatori—­literally “creator,” in the sense that the Pope had made or “created” him archbishop) and so forth.  Then he goes on to explain that “Long before now, were it not for the perils of the journey and the infirmities of my old age, I would have made my way, Most Blessed Father, to your feet, and have accepted most obediently whatsoever your Holiness would have decided” (see Wilkins, vol. iii. pp. 471 and 486).  Surely, no Archbishop or Bishop could use language of such profound reverence and of such perfect loyalty and obedience, unless he recognised the Pope as the true representative of Christ upon earth, invested with His divine authority ("To Thee do I give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven").  There is a whole world of difference between such men and the Anglican Prelates of to-day who take the oath of homage to the King, and say:  “I do hereby declare that your Majesty is the only supreme governor of this your realm, in spiritual and ecclesiastical things, as well as temporal”.