_EXHAUSTION._
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PERIOD--RENEWED SCANDINAVIAN
INVASIONS--LEGISLATION--ARCHBISHOP AELFHEAH: HIS MARTYRDOM--END OF THE
DANISH WAR--CNUT AND THE CHURCH--THE KING'S CLERKS--SPIRITUAL
DECADENCE--FOREIGNERS APPOINTED TO ENGLISH SEES--EFFECT OF THESE
APPOINTMENTS--PARTY STRUGGLES--EARL HAROLD--PILGRIMAGES--A LEGATINE
VISIT--A SCHISMATICAL ARCHBISHOP--THE PAPACY AND THE
CONQUEST--SUMMARY: THE NATIONAL CHARACTER OF THE CHURCH BEFORE THE
NORMAN CONQUEST.
[Sidenote: Characteristics of the period, 980-1066.]
From the renewal of the Danish invasions to the conquest of England by the
Normans the Church threw itself unreservedly into the affairs of the
State, and almost lost all separate life. While churchmen directed the
councils of the nation, the conciliar action of the Church ceased
altogether. Bishops took a leading part in politics, and the ablest of the
clergy were employed in secular administration. The Church did the nation
good service during the period of invasion, and finally converted a savage
conqueror into a beneficent king. Nevertheless it became worldly, and
though it exercised vast power, its own life dwindled and sank with the
life of the nation to a lower level. The close union between the Church
and the nation strongly affected the history of both alike. The struggle
against the foreigners who were promoted by Eadward the Confessor to
offices both in Church and State has a strongly marked ecclesiastical
side. Foreign bishops brought the Church into new relations with the
papacy, and impaired its independence and national character. Still, its
close connexion with the State was preserved, and the foreign element
which had been imported into it was for a time forcibly crushed by the
national party in the kingdom. In the hope of bringing the Church into
subjection, Rome blessed the invasion of England, and Church and State
alike were prostrated at the feet of the Conqueror. Yet the English Church
survived the Conquest, and became a powerful agent in preserving the
national life, which before long made the conquerors and the conquered one
people.
[Sidenote: Renewed Scandinavian invasions.]
Dunstan's retirement was soon followed by renewed Scandinavian invasions.
After his death he was succeeded at Canterbury by Sigeric, who in 991 took
a prominent part in purchasing peace from the Norwegian host. Although
this was the beginning of a fatal policy, his action, taken by itself,
seems capable of defence. It was a moment of pressing danger, and there
was no force ready to meet the invader. Sigeric probably hoped that if the
Norwegian fleet received payment it would defend the land from other
piratical attacks. The invaders of England found shelter in the harbours
of Normandy, and this led to a dispute between AEthelred and the Norman
duke. War was prevented by the intervention of the Pope, the proper
mediator between Christian princes. John XV. sent an envoy to England,
and at his request a treaty was made between the king and the duke.
Unfortunately, the peace with the Norwegians was broken. A fleet was
fitted out for the defence of the coast; two bishops and two lay nobles
were entrusted with the command, and, in spite of treachery, it gained one
of the few successes of the reign. Two years later an invasion was made by
the combined forces of Olaf of Norway, who, it is said, had already
received Christianity from English missionaries, and of Swend, the
apostate king of Denmark. After a time, AElfheah (St. Alphege), bishop of
Winchester, was sent to treat for peace with Olaf, who was with his fleet
at Southampton. The king listened to the bishop's exhortations, and fully
accepted the faith into which he had been baptized. He met AEthelred at
Andover, and there received confirmation, and promised never to return to
England as an enemy. He kept his word, sailed away to evangelize his own
dominions, and became one of the most heroic figures in early Scandinavian
history. This bloodless victory won by the Church gave the land rest for
three years, during which the Bernician see at last found an
abiding-place. Fear of the Northmen drove Bishop Ealdhun and his monks to
flee from Chester-le-Street. Taking the body of their patron with them,
they sought shelter at Ripon, and in 995, when the immediate danger had
passed, settled at Durham. There Ealdhun raised his church on the height
above the Wear, in that strong place that has had so great an influence on
the history of the see. Even in his time the bishopric began to assume
its special character as a march against the Scots.
[Sidenote: The Church and the witan.]
On AElfric's death AElfheah was translated to Canterbury. The new archbishop
appears to have laboured to bring about a national reformation. Two
meetings of the witan were held, in which the ecclesiastical element was
evidently strong. During one of these the bishops and abbots met each day
for prayer and consultation, arranging probably the part they would take
in the discussions of the assembly. Decrees were made enjoining acts of
penitence and the observance of the day of the new saint, Eadward the
Martyr. All were to live righteously, were to love one God, uphold one
Christendom, and be true to one lord, the king. Measures were also taken
for the defence of the kingdom. Thus even a strictly ecclesiastical matter
like the observance of a "mass-day" was made a subject of legislation by
the national Council. At the same time the assembly was largely
ecclesiastical in character, and in its efforts after better things,
whether with regard to national unity and defence, or repentance and faith
towards God, seems to have followed the guidance of the rulers of the
Church.
[Sidenote: Martyrdom of Archbishop AElfheah, 1012.]
Efforts such as this, however, were rendered of no avail by the folly of
the king, the treachery of the nobles, and the disorganization of the
country. In 1011 Thurkill, who was then in command of a Danish fleet, was
promised a large sum of money if he would cease from his ravages. Payment
was delayed, and the Danes attacked Canterbury, sacked the city, burned
the cathedral, and carried off many captives, and among them the
archbishop. For seven months they kept AElfheah in their ships in chains,
hunger, and misery. At first he promised to ransom himself; but he
repented of this, for he thought of the sufferings of the people from whom
the money must be raised. While in captivity he spoke of Christ to those
who guarded him, and his words did not fall to the ground. The fleet lay
at Greenwich, and no money came either as tribute or for the ransom of the
archbishop. On 19th May 1012, the day on which the ransom was due, the
Danes made a feast, and drank deeply of some wine they had brought from
southern lands. Then they brought the archbishop forth and demanded the
ransom. He replied that he would pay nothing, that he was ready to suffer,
and that he commended his soul to God. Thurkill saw his danger, and tried
to save him, offering all he possessed, except his ship, for his life. But
they would not hearken, and pelted AElfheah with stones and the bones of
the oxen which they had eaten, until at last one who had been converted by
the archbishop, and whom he had confirmed the day before, put him out of
his agony by cleaving his head with his battle-axe. AElfheah did not die in
vain. Soon after his martyrdom Thurkill, whom we may believe he had
converted, declared himself a Christian, and brought his ships and their
crews to serve the English king. AElfheah laid down his life for the sake
of the poor, and his death gave England an ally who, during the remainder
of AEthelred's reign, defended her to the utmost of his power against the
attacks of his own countrymen.
[Sidenote: End of the Danish war.]
At last AEthelred was forced to flee from his kingdom, and Swend was
chosen king. His reign was short. He had a special hatred for the memory
of Eadmund, the martyred king of East Anglia, and threatened to destroy
his church and put its priests to death by torture. As he was on his way
thither he was struck by death, and men said that he cried out that the
armed figure of the martyred king appeared to him and smote him with his
weapon. AEthelred returned to his kingdom after Swend's death, and soon
after his return held a witenagemot, by the advice of Archbishop Lyfing.
In the decrees of this assembly the influence of the Church is again
strongly marked; they are mainly expressions of desires for national
repentance, reformation, and unity. One resolution is especially
noteworthy. It seems as if some assemblies had been held which had treated
of secular, or perhaps of ecclesiastical, matters exclusively. This was
declared to be wrong; Christ's law and the king's law were to be declared
together, as in old time. In the struggle between Eadmund and Cnut, which
soon followed, churchmen gave their lives for the national cause; for
after Eadmund's last battle at Assandun the bishop of Dorchester and other
clergy were found among the slain. Some late writers say that they came to
pray, and not to fight.
[Sidenote: Cnut and the Church, 1017-1035.]
In the change that came over the character of Cnut, soon after he ascended
the throne, we may discern that the Church won a spiritual victory of much
the same kind as the conversions of Olaf and Thurkill. The fierce
barbarian became a wise and just ruler. This change was, it may be
gathered, largely due to the influence of AEthelnoth, called the Good,
whom Cnut made archbishop after the death of Lyfing. Cnut's ecclesiastical
laws consist mainly of repetitions from earlier codes: the "mass-days" of
King Eadward and Archbishop Dunstan were to be observed by all, men were
to go to "housel" three times a year at least, and the clergy were to
instruct their flocks diligently. One law declares the liability of the
laity to maintain churches--"all people ought of right to help to repair
the church." Cnut gave largely to monasteries, and, moreover, built at
Assandun, in commemoration of his victory, a secular, or non-monastic,
church which was served by a priest named Stigand. He made a pilgrimage to
Rome in 1026-7, and while he was there wrote a letter addressed to the two
archbishops and all the English people, telling them how honourably he had
been received by the Pope and the Emperor Conrad; how he had spoken to
them of the wants of his people, and Conrad had promised that the
merchants and pilgrims of England and Denmark should not be oppressed with
tolls when they crossed the Alps. To the Pope he said that he was much
annoyed to find that his archbishops had to pay vast sums when they
fetched their palls, and it was decreed that this should be so no longer.
He told his people how anxious he was to rule well, and, among other
matters, charged the bishops and reeves to see that all tithes, Peter's
pence, and church dues were paid up by the time he came back.
This letter was addressed to the archbishops by name, for they were, in
virtue of their office, the recognized heads of the people of England.
The authority of the archbishop of Canterbury was, no doubt, strengthened
by the influence that AEthelnoth exercised over the king. Its extent is
illustrated by the story that after Cnut's death AEthelnoth refused to
crown Harold, declaring that the sons of Emma had a prior claim. Although
this story may not be true, it at least shows that it was held not to be
impossible that the archbishop should have acted thus. The see of
Canterbury gained special splendour from Cnut's policy with regard to the
different kingdoms under his dominion. He treated England as the head of
his northern empire, and carried this policy out in ecclesiastical as well
as in civil matters; for he appointed certain English priests to Danish
sees, and caused AEthelnoth to consecrate them. They must, therefore, have
professed obedience to Canterbury. This roused the anger of the archbishop
of Hamburg, the metropolitan of the North, and Cnut promised that it
should not happen again.
[Sidenote: The king's clerks.]
[Sidenote: Spiritual decadence.]
Although the archbishop of Canterbury, and indeed the bishops generally,
had considerable political influence at this period, Cnut's chief minister
was a layman, and this had an important bearing on the progress of a
change in the administrative machinery of the kingdom that deeply affected
the Church. As long as the chief minister of the king was an ecclesiastic,
the clergy who carried on the routine of government under his direction
naturally had no distinct position. Now, however, the king's clerks or
chaplains begin to appear as a recognized body of officials discharging
the ordinary business of the administration. When Cnut visited different
parts of the kingdom he took four of these clerks with him; for his
journeys were really judicial circuits, and he needed clerks to register
his decrees and other acts. Deeds and charters drawn up by these clerical
secretaries were, when necessary, kept in the royal chapel, of which they
were the priests. In the Confessor's reign it became customary for the
king to signify his will by sealed writs, and an officer was appointed to
keep the king's seal. He was called the chancellor, from the screen
(_cancelli_) behind which the secretaries worked. He was chief of the
royal clerks, and the institution of his office gave further distinctness
to the body over which he presided. The king's clerks were generally
rewarded with bishoprics or other ecclesiastical preferments; and thus,
while the State gained the services of a body of trained officials, the
Church lost much; for the surest path to preferment lay in the discharge
of secular rather than of religious duties, and many of its chief
ministers were servants of an earthly rather than of a Heavenly King.
Indeed, from the death of Cnut to the Norman Conquest, the life of the
Church is marked by increasing worldliness. Bishops played a large part in
the affairs of the nation, but, for the most part, had little regard for
their spiritual duties. Bishoprics were sought after as sources of wealth
and power, and were often obtained by simony and held in plurality. While
Wulfstan of Worcester was a man of holy life, Leofric of Exeter an
ecclesiastical reformer, and Ealdred of York a prelate of conspicuous
energy, most of the bishops of this period were simply greedy, second-rate
men. Nor do the inferior clergy appear to have been better than their
rulers; for baptism is said to have been much neglected, because the
clergy refused to administer it without a fee.
[Sidenote: Eadward the Confessor, 1042-1066.]
[Sidenote: Foreigners appointed to English sees.]
On the death of Harthacnut, in 1042, the line of Danish kings ended, and
Eadward the Confessor, a representative of the old English royal house,
was chosen king, mainly through the influence of Earl Godwine. In spite of
his saintly reputation, Eadward did no good to the Church; for he did not
strive to appoint faithful bishops. He might have done so; for, though the
clergy had a right of election, and appointments were made in the
witenagemot, the king certainly at this time generally gave bishoprics to
whom he would. It rested with him to issue the writ for consecration, and
he invested the new prelate with the temporalities of the see by the gift
of the ring and staff. Eadward, even if guiltless of simony himself, took
no pains to ensure the purity of episcopal appointments, and treated them
simply as a means of gratifying his favourites. His long residence in
Normandy had made him more of a Frenchman than an Englishman. He loved to
have foreigners about him, and promoted Normans to English bishoprics
without any regard for their fitness, giving London to Robert of Jumieges,
a meddlesome politician, who had unbounded influence with him, and setting
Ulf, one of his Norman clerks, who was grossly ignorant of ecclesiastical
things, over the diocese of Dorchester. The Norman party of the court was
opposed by Earl Godwine, the king's chief minister, and it is probable
that the appointment of certain Lotharingians to English sees was due to
his desire to counterbalance the influence of the Norman bishops. That
even Godwine, the head of the national party, should, in the hope of
strengthening his position, have procured English bishoprics for
foreigners seems to prove that native churchmen of learning and high
character were scarce.
[Sidenote: Effect of these appointments.]
All the foreign bishops, Normans and Lotharingians alike, were accustomed
to greater dependence on Rome than had ever been owned in England, and the
effect of their appointment was to weaken the national character of the
Church. We now for the first time find bishops, after they had been
nominated by the king, going to Rome for confirmation, and the Roman court
claiming to have the right to reject a royal nomination. Various matters,
too, were now referred to the Pope for decision, contrary to the custom of
the English Church. Other foreign fashions were also introduced. In
England, any place was chosen for a bishop's see that was a convenient
centre for diocesan work; on the Continent, bishops always had their sees
in cities. Leofric, bishop of Crediton, a Lotharingian by education though
not by birth, naturally had foreign ideas, and wished to transfer his see
from the village of Crediton to the city of Exeter. He did not first apply
to the king for leave to make this change, as any of his predecessors
would have done, but asked Pope Leo IX. for his sanction. Leo wrote to
Eadward expressing his surprise that Leofric should have "a see without a
city," and requesting that the change should be made. At the same time,
the removal was actually effected in virtue of a charter granted by the
king in 1050 with the consent of the witan. When, after the Conquest,
foreigners were dominant in the Church, the translation of sees from
villages to cities was, as we shall see, widely carried out. Leofric also
made the clergy of his cathedral conform to a rule observed by canons in
Lotharingia, called the rule of Chrodegang of Metz; he would not allow
them to live in their own houses, and forced them to sleep in a common
dormitory and eat at a common table. This gave his chapter a character
that was half monastic and half secular, and, of course, prevented the
clergy from living as married men. The system was introduced at Wells by
the Lotharingian bishop Gisa, and, with some modifications, at York by
Ealdred; but it never took root in England. The influence of the foreign
prelates may also be traced in the presence of English bishops at papal
councils. Several attended the council which Leo held at Rheims in 1049,
and also his council at Vercelli the next year. At Vercelli, Ulf sought
the papal confirmation of his appointment to the bishopric of Dorchester,
and, we are told, "they were very nigh breaking his staff," because he
could not perform the Service of the Church. Nevertheless, ignorant as he
was, he was allowed to keep his office; for he spent a large sum in
bribery.
[Sidenote: Party struggles.]
In 1050 a trial of strength took place between the national and foreign
parties at the court with reference to an election to the see of
Canterbury. The monks of Christ Church chose one of their number, named
AElfric, a kinsman of Earl Godwine, and their choice was approved by the
clergy. Godwine begged the king to accept AElfric, but he refused, and
appointed his Norman favourite, Robert of Jumieges, to the primacy, and
Spearhafoc, abbot of Abingdon, an Englishman and a skilful goldsmith, who
was making a crown for him, to the bishopric of London. When Robert came
back from Rome with his pall he refused to obey the king's order that he
should consecrate Spearhafoc, declaring that the Pope had forbidden him to
do so. Spearhafoc, however, though he was not consecrated, kept the
bishopric for some months. Archbishop Robert succeeded in undermining
Godwine's influence with the king, and a quarrel became imminent. Some
attempt at mediation was made by Stigand, bishop of Winchester, originally
the priest of Cnut's church at Assandun, who had been appointed by
Harthacnut to the see of Elmham. He lost this see because some one offered
the king money for it, and regained it probably by giving a larger sum. He
was not consecrated until 1043; then he was deprived by Eadward for
political reasons, but made his peace with the king, and again regained
his bishopric. He belonged to Godwine's party, and was translated to
Winchester while the earl was in power. His attempt at mediation failed;
Godwine and his sons were outlawed by the witan, and the foreigners became
dominant in Church and State. Spearhafoc was now ousted, and the bishopric
of London was given to one of the king's Norman clerks, named William. The
next year Godwine anchored at Southwark with an armed force. When the
Frenchmen found that his restoration was certain they fled. Robert and Ulf
cut their way through the streets of London, and the archbishop "betook
himself over sea, and left his pall and all Christendom here on land, so
as God willed it, as he had before gotten his worship as God willed it
not." He and all his countrymen were outlawed, and Stigand was appointed
archbishop in his stead. William of London was, however, allowed to return
to his see, because he had made himself acceptable to the people.
[Sidenote: Earl Harold.]
The English clergy generally were on the side of Godwine, as the champion
of the national cause; and when his son Harold succeeded to his earldom
and power, they seem to have upheld him also. Harold was a more religious
man than his father, who was greedy and unscrupulous, and laid hands on
some of the possessions of the Church. Unlike the other chief nobles of
England at this time, Godwine was not a benefactor to any religious house.
His son, however, founded a church at Waltham in honour of the Holy Rood.
Contrary to the fashion of the day, he made his foundation collegiate, not
monastic; he did not build his church for monks, whose special aim was to
secure their own salvation, but made it a college of secular clergy or
canons, whose duty it was to do good to others. He intended his college to
be a place of education; for the chancellor of the church was to deliver
lectures, and, as learning was scarce in England, he gave the office of
chancellor to a foreigner, Adelard of Liege. Two Lotharingians were
appointed to bishoprics after Harold became the king's chief minister, so
that in this respect he seems to have followed the ecclesiastical policy
of his father.
[Sidenote: Pilgrimages.]
In addition to the Romanizing influence exercised on the Church during
this reign by foreign prelates, the revival of the custom of making
pilgrimages, due perhaps to the example of Cnut, perhaps to increased
communication with the Normans, with whom this form of devotion was
exceedingly popular, tended to magnify the papal authority in England.
Eadward himself vowed to go on pilgrimage to Rome. The witan, however,
told him that he ought not to leave the country, and, it is said, advised
him to pray the Pope to remit his vow. At all events he sent Ealdred, then
bishop of Worcester, and the bishop of Ramsbury for that purpose to Rome.
Leo granted the king's request, and by his direction Eadward built
Westminster Abbey instead of making the pilgrimage. Harold and his
brothers, Tostig and Gyrth, all visited Rome. Tostig was accompanied by
Ealdred, who in 1061 went to fetch his pall after he had received the see
of York. Ealdred was a notable pluralist; he had administered three
dioceses at once, and was now holding the diocese of Worcester, which he
intended to keep along with York, as had been the custom almost ever since
Oswald's time. Nicolas II. refused to grant him the pall, accused him of
ignorance, simony, and plurality, and of having accepted translation
without his permission, and actually declared him degraded from the
episcopal order. As he and Tostig were on their way home they were robbed
by brigands at Sutri. This was lucky for Ealdred. They returned to Rome,
and the fierce earl rated the Pope soundly. If this, he said, was the
treatment English pilgrims were to expect, he would find that he would get
no more money from England; the king should be told of the whole affair.
The Pope was frightened; he was reconciled to Ealdred, and granted him
the pall on his agreeing to give up Worcester. Besides those who journeyed
to Rome, some English people went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and among
them Ealdred, before he was made archbishop, had journeyed thither, "with
such worshipfulness as none had ever shown before."
[Sidenote: A legatine visit, 1062.]
Soon after Ealdred returned from Rome with his pall two legates landed in
England. This was an unusual event, for the Church had been virtually free
from legatine interference for nearly three centuries, and this visit
marks the change that had been effected in her relations with the Papacy
during the reign of Eadward. By the advice of these legates, Wulfstan was
chosen bishop of Worcester by the "clergy and people" of the city, and his
election was approved by the witan. No better choice could have been made.
[Sidenote: A schismatical archbishop.]
Although the independence of the Church had been impaired, its national
character was still strong. No better proof can be given of this than the
ecclesiastical changes consequent on Earl Godwine's return. Robert and Ulf
were deprived of their sees simply by a decree of the witan, and Stigand
received the archbishopric as a reward for political services. As far as
regards character, he was certainly no better fitted for the office than
his Norman predecessor; for he was worldly and grasping, and retained the
see of Winchester along with the archbishopric. It was obvious that as
long as Robert lived no one could canonically hold his office; and though
Stigand enjoyed the revenues of Canterbury, he was not looked on as a
canonical archbishop, and he had not received the pall. Robert carried his
wrongs to Rome, and his deprivation was pronounced unlawful; so Stigand
could not hope that the pall would be granted him. For some years he wore
the pall which Robert left behind him, but bishops-elect would not receive
consecration at his hands; at last he obtained a pall from Benedict X. As,
however, Benedict failed to make his position good, and was reckoned an
anti-pope, Stigand was involved in the guilt of his schism. Indeed, though
the gift of this pall enabled him to consecrate two bishops, his claims
were still looked on with suspicion, and it is said that when the legates
were in England they pronounced the papal condemnation of his pretensions.
Wulfstan would not be consecrated by him, and he was not allowed to hallow
Harold's church at Waltham, or Eadward's new minister, or to place the
crown on Harold's head. England was held to be involved in his schism.
Robert was not the man to let his wrongs be forgotten, and they were
reckoned among the causes that were alleged in justification of the Norman
invasion.
[Sidenote: The Papacy and the Conquest.]
When, on Eadward's death, Harold was chosen king, the Norman duke,
William, determined to enforce his claim to the throne. He was careful to
enlist the sympathy of Christendom; he appealed to the religious feelings
of the age by declaring that Harold had forsworn himself on the relics of
saints, and he sent an ambassador to lay his claim before Pope Alexander
II. and ask his approval. He thus constituted the Pope the arbiter of his
claim to the English throne; and he did so at a time when the Roman see
was under the guidance of the mastermind of the Archdeacon Hildebrand,
afterwards Gregory VII. William's ambassador, no doubt, insisted strongly
on his master's declaration that if he was successful he would reform the
ecclesiastical condition of the country. We may gather from later events
that the duke promised that Peter's pence should be paid regularly, and we
are told that he even declared that he would consider the kingdom a grant
from St. Peter. Harold sent no one to plead his cause; nevertheless many
of the cardinals urged that the Holy See ought not to sanction bloodshed.
Hildebrand, however, upheld the duke's request. With him the greatness of
the papacy outweighed all other considerations. England was held to be an
undutiful daughter of Rome. Her king, Harold, had visited Rome in
Benedict's time, and had acknowledged the schismatical Pope, and her chief
bishop had received the pall from him; political interests governed the
affairs of the English Church; the papal authority was lightly regarded,
and prelates whose appointments had been confirmed at Rome were deprived
of their sees by the national assembly. Hildebrand's arguments prevailed;
and in after-days the cardinals blamed him for thus making the Holy See a
party to the destruction of so many lives. Alexander sent the duke a ring
and a consecrated banner, and the conquest of England was undertaken as a
Holy War. This gives special significance to the night spent in prayer by
the invading host, to the presence of many clergy in William's army, and
to the early mass at which he received the Holy Elements. In the battle
the duke wore hanging from his neck the relics to which Harold is said to
have done despite. The Dragon of Wessex sank before the papal banner, and
the standard of Harold was sent to the Pope in exchange for his gift.
[Sidenote: Summary: the national character of the Church before the Norman
Conquest.]
Although the close union of the Church with the State during the period
before the Conquest had some ill effects on the character of the clergy,
it gave the Church a firm hold on the people. The use that it made of its
influence on society lies apart from the main purpose of this book; yet
some notices have been given of its efforts for social reformation. From
it came all that there was of purity, gentleness, and humanity in the life
of the people. By example and precept it taught the rich their duty
towards the poor, it educated all who cared to learn, it purified domestic
life, it exalted the position of woman and protected her weakness, it
shielded the helpless from oppression, and proclaimed that the slave was
precious in the sight of God. The clergy recommended the manumission of
slaves as a meritorious deed; the ceremony was often performed at the
altar of a church, and records of such acts are recorded in the
missal-books of minsters. When a king or noble visited some church, it was
held that the visitor paid a high compliment to the clergy if he freed a
slave or a captive before their altar. The national character of the
Church deeply affected the life of the State. Its unity in a large measure
gave unity to the people, and created the nation. Its ministers held each
his recognized place in the national organization; the parish priest, as
the head of the parish, attended the hundred-court with the reeve of the
lord; the bishop was a member of the national council, and sat with the
ealdorman in the local courts. Great as the political power of the bishops
was, they made no attempt to strengthen their temporal position at the
expense of the national system; they did not seek to become territorial
princes, like the bishops of the Continent, who held a position derived
from the arrangements of the Roman Empire. This is true even of the two
archbishops, though the high degree of temporal power attached to their
sees is signified by the right they exercised of coining money. For, while
the archbishops of Canterbury succeeded to much of the power once held by
the under-kings of the Kentish kingdom, they did not use it in attempts to
build up a subordinate princedom; and if the archbishops of York appear
for a season as independent political leaders of the Northern people, they
cease to do so when their province is thoroughly united to the dominions
of the English king. In the midst of the struggles of contending parties
and the treason of ambitious nobles, the English prelates continued
faithfully to fulfil their duties to the State, and the clergy at large
supplied it with a succession of able administrative officials. Churchmen
bore their share of the national burdens. The fleets with which the king
and the witan sought to guard the coasts were raised by levies from every
shire. To these levies the lands of the Church were liable equally with
those of laymen. Accordingly we find that Archbishop AElfric, at his death
in 1005, was possessed of ships and their equipments, the quota, no doubt,
that he was bound to furnish when the witan decided on gathering a fleet.
His best ship together with armour for sixty men he left to the king, and,
besides this, he gave a ship to the people of Kent, and another to the
people of Wiltshire--probably to help them to bear the burden that the war
laid upon them. Moreover, the Danegeld, which was originally raised for
the purpose of buying peace of the Danes, and was continued as a permanent
tax on every hide of cultivated land until it was abolished by the
Confessor, to be reimposed in a more oppressive form by the Norman
Conqueror, was paid, except in cases of special exemption, on the lands of
ecclesiastics as well as of laymen.
The freedom of the Church kept alive the national spirit in the evil days
that followed the Conquest; it was used to restrain oppression, and the
Church became the bond that united conquerors and conquered in one people.
As regards the Church itself, its national character gave it independence,
and in many ways it acted by itself apart from the rest of Western
Christendom. From the reign of the Mercian Cenwulf to the reign of the
Confessor it was virtually free from papal interference, and the Popes
took little heed of what passed in England. It made saints of those who
were venerated by the English people, and observed their mass-days in
accordance with the decrees of the national council; it constantly used
the tongue of the people in prayers and homilies; its doctrines were held
and advanced with little reference to papal authority, and its rights were
laid down by kings and enforced by civil officers. Isolated from the rest
of Europe, England seemed to men like another world, of which the
archbishop of Canterbury was pope. The isolation and strongly national
character of the Church were not without danger to its well-being. To be
cut off from Rome was to lose all share in the manifold and progressive
life of Western Christendom. Had the Church of England retained its purely
insular character, it would never have risen much above the level of the
nation, nor have been able to elevate society. During the years
immediately preceding the Conquest it sank with the nation. It was a
period of exhaustion both in Church and State; and the time might have
come when the isolation of the Church of England would have ended in a
decay as complete as that of the Celtic Church. From such a danger the
Church was saved by the Norman Conquest. It rested with the Conqueror and
his successors to determine how far the Conquest was to lead to the
fulfilment of Hildebrand's expectations, to decide whether England should
become the submissive handmaid of Rome.