_ROYAL SUPREMACY._
THE CONQUEROR AND LANFRANC--CANTERBURY AND YORK--SEPARATE
ECCLESIASTICAL SYSTEM--REMOVAL OF SEES--EXTENT AND LIMITS OF PAPAL
INFLUENCE--THE CONQUEROR'S BISHOPS--CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER OF THE
CHURCH--AN APPEAL TO ROME--FEUDAL TENDENCIES--ST. ANSELM--STRUGGLE
AGAINST TYRANNY--INVESTITURES--HENRY
I.--COUNCILS--LEGATES--INDEPENDENCE OF THE SEE OF YORK--SUMMARY.
[Sidenote: Deposition of English prelates.]
[Sidenote: Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, 1070-1089.]
In order to ensure the success of his invasion, William had given the Pope
a strong claim on his obedience, at a time when the papal power was
advancing rapidly under the guidance of Hildebrand, who in 1073 became
Pope with the title of Gregory VII. Nevertheless William succeeded in
using the papal pretensions to strengthen his hold on England, and in
disregarding them when they threatened to weaken his absolute sovereignty
in Church and State. In 1070, when he had completed the conquest of the
land, he set about securing the submission of the Church, and invited
Alexander II. to send legates to his court. Accordingly certain legates
visited this country, and deposed Stigand and other bishops and abbots.
Thus the Pope was gratified by the deposition of the uncanonical
archbishop, while the Conqueror, by ousting the native prelates, crushed
the strongest element of national resistance. York, which was vacant by
the death of Ealdred, was given to Thomas of Bayeux, one of the king's
clerks; other Normans were appointed to different sees; and shortly
afterwards Lanfranc was appointed to Canterbury. Lanfranc, a native of
Pavia, a man of great learning and ability, and especially skilled in
civil law, first came to Normandy as a teacher. He suddenly gave up this
work, entered the newly founded monastery of Bec, and devoted himself to
the monastic life. He became prior, and his talents attracted the notice
of the duke, who made him his counsellor, and gave him the abbacy of his
new monastery, St. Stephen's, at Caen. At Rome, Lanfranc was honoured as
the defender of transubstantiation, and his appointment to Canterbury was
warmly approved by the Pope. He was a man on whom the Conqueror could
safely rely for the furtherance of his ecclesiastical policy. Hitherto
there had virtually been only one system of administration for both Church
and State. William's work was to create a separate ecclesiastical system,
carried on by clerical officers. Yet the Church no less than the State was
to be under his own absolute control; and so, while he needed a strong
archbishop, he needed one who would exert his strength to maintain and
increase the royal power. In Lanfranc he found an archbishop after his own
heart, in exalting whose position he strengthened his own.
[Sidenote: Canterbury and York.]
No writ was issued for the consecration of Thomas of York until Lanfranc
had received consecration, and this delay was perhaps intentional; for
when Thomas brought the writ to Lanfranc he was bidden to profess
obedience to the see of Canterbury. He refused to do so, on the ground
that Gregory had instituted two co-ordinate archbishoprics. On the other
hand, the bishops of York, from Paulinus to Ecgberht, had not enjoyed
metropolitan dignity, and even since Ecgberht's time the see had occupied
an inferior position to Canterbury. Lanfranc had papal decrees and other
evidences on his side, and gained the king's support by representing that
an independent metropolitan at York might crown an independent king of
Northumbria. William compelled Thomas to profess obedience to Lanfranc
personally, and, with respect to the future, ordered that the question
should be decided by the Pope. When the two archbishops went to Rome for
their palls, Alexander was about to degrade Thomas and Remigius, bishop of
Dorchester, who went with them, on account of canonical irregularity, and
only forbore to do so at Lanfranc's request. Thomas brought forward the
matter of the profession, and further claimed Dorchester, Lichfield, and
Worcester as subject to York. Alexander referred these matters to the
decision of an English synod, and the case seems to have been heard before
a mixed assembly of clergy and laity, which pronounced against Thomas; he
was forced to make a general profession of obedience, the Humber was
declared the boundary between the provinces, and he was left with only one
suffragan, the bishop of Durham. This disproportion between the
archbishoprics had not been contemplated by Gregory, for his division,
which was based on the assumption that the whole island was under one
rule, included Scotland in the province of York. Under William and
Lanfranc the English Church made its power felt in yet unconquered Celtic
lands. The claim of York was asserted over Scotland. As that country had
no metropolitan and no organized episcopal system, the assertion was
plausible, and a bishop of the Orkneys was certainly consecrated by
Thomas. It is extremely doubtful whether the authority of Canterbury was
in any instance acknowledged in Wales during this reign, though a few
years later it was, as we shall see, successfully asserted. In Ireland the
irregular condition of the episcopacy naturally led kings and bishops to
look up to Lanfranc; he consecrated two archbishops of Dublin, who made
profession to him, and he wrote with authority to two kings on matters of
discipline. An approach was thus made to the ecclesiastical submission of
Ireland, and the primate of Britain was not unreasonably held by Latin
Christendom to be "Patriarch of the nations beyond the sea."
[Sidenote: National synods and ecclesiastical courts.]
Under William and Lanfranc synods were again held frequently, and, in
accordance with the king's policy, ecclesiastical legislation, which had
in the preceding age been provided for in the national assembly, was
confined to them. They were councils of the whole Church; for the
archbishop of Canterbury was acknowledged as primate of all Britain: they
consisted of one house, and such of the inferior clergy as attended them
were little more than spectators, for no one might speak without special
permission save bishops and abbots. Their action was controlled by the
king, and we find them held at the same place as, and immediately after
the close of, one or other of the yearly meetings of the great council.
Episcopal elections seem to have been made in these synods instead of in
the national assembly, though in these, as in all else, the king was
supreme. While the Church thus regained separate synodical activity, the
bishops did not lose their places in the national assembly. Their right,
however, no longer rested simply on the wisdom supposed to be inherent in
their office; they now held their temporalities as baronies, and sat in
the council as barons; for the old witenagemot had been transformed into a
feudal council. A separation was also effected in the judicial system. The
Conqueror declared the union of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction to
be mischievous, and provided that henceforth no bishop or archdeacon
should sit in the hundred court; that all spiritual causes should be tried
by the bishop in his own court and be determined according to the canons,
and that if any one disobeyed the bishop's summons and remained
contumacious after excommunication, he should be brought to obedience by
the king or the sheriff. This establishment of ecclesiastical courts, with
their own system of law, was doubtless pleasing to the Pope, for the old
English practice was contrary to the spirit of Hildebrand's work. Its
ultimate tendency was to lead men to look to Rome as the supreme court of
appeal in spiritual causes, and to set churchmen in opposition to the
Crown. For some time after the Conqueror's death the separation of the
courts was not fully effected, and this tendency was scarcely apparent.
Nevertheless, his policy raised up a power in England that in later days
greatly hampered the exercise of the royal authority and brought some
troubles on the country.
[Sidenote: Removal of sees.]
Among the more important synodical decrees of this reign is that of the
council held at London in 1075, which ordered that bishops' sees should be
removed from villages to cities. The change begun by Leofric was carried
fully out now that nearly every bishop was a foreigner. The see of
Sherborne was moved by Hermann to Salisbury (Old Sarum), to be moved again
when the present church of the new Salisbury was built in the reign of
Henry III.; the see of Selsey was moved to Chichester; that of Lichfield
to Chester, and a few years later to Coventry, where the bishop seized on
the abbey by force; the see of Elmham was moved first to Thetford, and
then to Norwich; and in the reign of Rufus, the bishop of Wells left his
little city for Bath. While the decrees of ancient Popes and councils were
cited as authorities for this measure, the act of the council, like all
the conciliar acts of the reign, derived its force from the king's
approval.
[Sidenote: Extent of papal influence.]
Gregory had reason to congratulate himself on the part he had taken in
forwarding the Conquest. The uncanonical archbishop was deposed, and his
place taken by one who was especially pleasing to the Holy See; insular
peculiarities were removed, the new foreign bishops were far more amenable
to papal influence than the native bishops had been, and the changes
effected in the government of the Church were generally such as he
approved. In these and some other matters his desires were in accord with
the policy of the Conqueror. Where it was otherwise he found that the king
and his archbishop would act according to their own judgment. While
Lanfranc cordially sympathized in Gregory's attempt to root out the custom
of clerical marriage, his action was governed by the circumstances of the
Church over which he presided. In England the custom obtained too widely
to be attacked without discrimination. Accordingly the Council of
Winchester, in 1076, only partially followed the example of the council
which Gregory had held in Rome two years before. It decreed that no canon
should have a wife, that the marriage of priests was for the future
forbidden, and that no bishop should ordain a married man deacon or
priest. On the other hand, priests who were already married were not
called upon to leave their wives. Other decrees of this council insisted
on the sanctity of marriage, and the necessity of obtaining the Church's
blessing in matrimony.
[Sidenote: Its limits.]
The absolute supremacy of the Conqueror in ecclesiastical matters is
expressed in three rules which he is said to have laid down, and which
define his rights in relation to the papacy. He would have no Pope
acknowledged as apostolic without his bidding, and no papal letters
brought into his kingdom unless he approved them. Synodical decrees were
to have no force unless he had first ordained them; and none of his barons
or officers of state were to be excommunicated or subjected to
ecclesiastical rigour without his precept. Nor did he hesitate to return a
flat refusal to a papal demand; for when Gregory sent a legate to
admonish him to be more punctual in forwarding Peter's pence, and to
demand a profession of fealty to the Holy See, he wrote that he admitted
the one claim and not the other. Fealty he would not do, for he had not
promised it, nor did he find that earlier kings had done it. He took his
stand on his position as king of England; that which his predecessors had
done he would do, but he would not grant the Pope any authority over his
kingdom that they had not granted. Even Gregory was forced to suffer this;
he seems to have blamed Lanfranc for the king's independent answer, bade
him come to Rome, and urged him to bring William to obedience. Lanfranc
defended himself in becoming terms, but stayed where he was, and at last
the Pope threatened to suspend him if he did not obey his summons.
Gregory, however, had powerful enemies nearer home, and did not care to
quarrel with a king who steadily refused to take part against him. His
struggle with Henry IV. gave occasion for the exercise, perhaps for the
enunciation, of the first of the Conqueror's rules, and Lanfranc writes
that "our island" had not yet decided between Gregory and the antipope
Clement. Lanfranc's own sympathies, of course, were with Gregory, but he
would not condemn the action of the Emperor; he thought that the proper
attitude for England was one of neutrality.
[Sidenote: Norman bishops.]
With the exception of Worcester, no English see was left in the hands of a
native bishop. They were held either by Normans or by the Lotharingians
who had been appointed in the Confessor's reign. At Worcester, Wulfstan,
though not a man of learning, was allowed to retain his bishopric on
account of his holiness. Among his other good works, he preached in
Bristol against the slave-trade with Ireland that was largely carried on
there, and persuaded the townsmen to give it up. Most of William's bishops
were men of high character, for his appointments were free from simony,
and were, no doubt, suggested by Lanfranc; and the king himself had no
liking for evil men. Some of them were learned; nearly all were
magnificent. They did not play a great part in State affairs, and stand in
some contrast both to the old native bishops, who were leaders of the
witan, and, though several of them had been the king's clerks, to the
bishops of a later period, who were before all things royal ministers.
They generally rebuilt their churches in the Norman style, of which the
Confessor's church at Westminster was the earliest example in England. At
York, Archbishop Thomas did away with the discipline introduced by
Ealdred, and assigned separate prebends to each of the canons, an
arrangement which was gradually adopted in all cathedral churches with
secular chapters. That the chapter of a cathedral church should consist of
monks was extremely rare except in England, but as the Normans generally
were strong supporters of monasticism, this was a peculiarity of which
they approved, and in some churches secular canons were displaced by
monks. Some of the bishops, however, who were not monks, with Walchelin,
bishop of Winchester, at their head, saw that monastic chapters were a
hindrance to the bishop, and were unfitted for their duties. They
conceived the idea of replacing the monks by secular canons even in the
metropolitan church. William is said to have approved of the scheme; but
it was highly distasteful to Lanfranc, "the father of the monks," and he
obtained a letter from Alexander II. indignantly forbidding it. The scheme
was defeated, and Walchelin, who had forty clerks with their tonsure cut
and their dress prepared as canons, ready to take the place of the monks
of St. Swithun's, and to divide the monastic estates into prebends, had to
send them about their business. Although William's Norman bishops were
generally good specimens of continental churchmen, they had no sympathy
with the thoughts and feelings of their clergy and people. Of one only,
Osbern of Exeter, it is said that he adopted the English mode of life.
Lanfranc despised the national saints, and doubted the right of his
predecessor, AElfheah, to the title of martyr, until he was taught better
by Anselm, abbot of Bec. The admiration of the Normans for monasticism
caused a considerable increase in the practice of endowing monasteries
with tithes and parish churches, and thus in many cases tithes were paid
to abbeys both here and abroad.
[Sidenote: The national character of the Church.]
In every respect our Church lost much of its insular, and something also
of its national, character by the Conquest. Its prelates were foreigners;
it was drawn more closely to Rome, and legates came over, and judged and
deposed her native bishops, not always justly; its councils and courts
were separated from the councils and courts of the nation. There seems to
have been a change made even in doctrine; for the dogma of
transubstantiation, of which Lanfranc was the special champion, was now
universally accepted, and the archbishop's eagerness in this matter is
reflected in the many stories of miracles connected with the Holy Elements
which appear in contemporary literature. Yet the Church remained the
representative of English nationality; her influence at once began to turn
Normans into Englishmen; and it is interesting to find Lanfranc using the
terms "our island" and "we English," and describing himself to Alexander
II. as a "new Englishman." As primate of the English Church, he was the
spiritual head of the nation, of English villeins as well as of Norman
barons. All were Englishmen to him, and all soon became in truth one
people. And while the establishment of a separate system of ecclesiastical
administration tended to destroy the national character of the Church,
this tendency was neutralized by the exercise of the king's supremacy. The
new system worked well; but its success was due to the fact that it was
carried out by a king and a primate at once so strong and so united in
policy as the Conqueror and Lanfranc.
[Sidenote: William Rufus, 1087-1100.]
The first William, if an austere man, was a mighty ruler, who loved order
and valued the services of good men: the second was a braggart and a
blasphemer, whose life was unspeakably evil and whose greediness knew no
shame. In his hands the royal supremacy became a hateful tyranny, and the
relations between the Church and the Crown were disturbed. Early in the
reign the change in these relations was illustrated by an appeal to Rome.
William of Saint-Calais, bishop of Durham, an ambitious and crafty
intriguer, was cited to appear before the king's court on a charge of
treason, and his lands were seized. He complained that his bishopric had
been seized, and Lanfranc, who upheld the king's action, answered that his
fiefs were not his bishopric. Next he pleaded the privilege of his order,
and refused to be judged by the lay barons. "If I may not judge you and
your order to-day," said Robert of Meulan, "you and your order shall never
judge me." If bishops refused the jurisdiction of the king's court, they
should cease to be members of it, they should no longer hold fiefs of the
Crown. Finally, William appealed to Rome. Archbishop Robert had in exile
appealed to the Pope against a decree of the national assembly; Bishop
William, for the first time since the days of Wilfrith, made a like appeal
in the presence of the king and his council. The sole object of Rufus was
to obtain Durham Castle; the bishop surrendered it, and was allowed to go
abroad, but he does not appear to have prosecuted his appeal.
[Sidenote: Feudal tyranny.]
The special danger which threatened the Church in this reign arose from
the attempt to treat it as a feudal society. Ralph Flambard, the minister
of Rufus, raised money for his master chiefly by exaggerating and
systematizing the feudal elements already existing in civil life. The
practice of granting the temporalities by investiture shows that, even
before the Conquest, Church lands were to some extent regarded in a feudal
light, and since then this idea had gained strength. Rufus treated them as
mere lay fiefs, and dealt with the prelates simply as his
tenants-in-chief. No profits could, of course, accrue to the Crown from
Church lands, such as were gathered from lay fiefs in the form of reliefs,
a payment made by the heir on entering on his estate, or from other
feudal burdens of a like kind. When, therefore, a bishopric or royal abbey
fell vacant, the king, to compensate himself for the disparity, instead of
causing the property to be administered for the benefit of the Church,
entered on the lands and treated them as his own. It thus became his
interest to keep sees vacant until he received a large sum for them.
Simony grew prevalent and the character of the clergy declined; they
engaged in secular pursuits, farmed the taxes, and sought in all ways to
make money. After the death of Lanfranc in 1089, the king kept the
archbishopric vacant, and granted the lands of the see to be held by his
friends or by the highest bidder. This was a different matter from his
dealings with other sees; for the archbishop was the spiritual head of the
nation, and constitutionally the chief adviser of the king and the
foremost member of his court, as he had been of the witenagemot.
Accordingly the barons saw the king's conduct with displeasure. Rufus was
not moved by greediness alone. While Lanfranc lived he had been forced to
listen to his remonstrances with respect, and as he hated reproof, he
determined not to appoint another archbishop as long as he could avoid
doing so. He would, he declared to one of his earls, be archbishop
himself. Neither the suffragan bishops nor the monks of Christ Church
dreamed of electing without his order, and each year the state of the
Church grew worse. At last Rufus fell sick and was like to die. Then the
bishops and nobles entreated him, for his soul's sake, to appoint a
primate and do other works meet for repentance. He consented willingly,
and they sent for Abbot Anselm, who chanced to be in England.
[Sidenote: S. Anselm, archbishop, 1093-1109.]
Anselm was a native of Aosta. Born and brought up amid the cloud-capt
Alps, he longed when a child to climb the mountains and find God's house,
which, he had been told, was in the clouds. One night he dreamed that he
had done so and had found the palace of the Great King: he sat at the
Lord's feet and told Him how grieved he was that His handmaids were idling
in the harvest-fields below. Then, at the Lord's bidding, the steward of
the palace gave him bread of the purest whiteness, and he ate and was
refreshed. The dream is told us by his friend and biographer, Eadmer, who
no doubt heard it from his own lips. It was prophetic of his life and
character. He grew up studious and holy; his learning was renowned through
Europe, and by Lanfranc's advice he entered the monastery of Bec, and
became abbot there. He visited England more than once, and men marvelled
to see how the stern Conqueror became gentle when he was by. When he was
brought to the sick-bed of Rufus he received his confession and urged him
to amend his life. The king, who thought that he was dying, promised to do
so, and his lords begged him to begin by naming an archbishop. He raised
himself in his bed, and pointing to Anselm, said, "I name yonder holy
man." There seems to have been no form of election; the king's word was
held a sufficient appointment. Anselm was sorely unwilling to accept the
office; he believed that the king would recover, and he knew his evil
heart. To make him archbishop was, he said, "to yoke an untamed bull and
an old and feeble sheep together." He told Rufus that if he consented, the
grants made during the vacancy of the lands of the see must be revoked,
and that he must take him as "his spiritual father and counsellor;" for
such was the constitutional position of the primate with respect to the
king. Lastly, he reminded the king that he had already acknowledged Urban
II. as Pope; for Rufus had not yet decided between the two claimants for
the papacy.
[Sidenote: The untamed bull and the feeble sheep.]
Before Anselm's consecration the king recovered, and turned back to his
evil ways. He tried to make Anselm promise that he would not reclaim the
lands of the see which he had granted out as knights' fees. To this Anselm
could not agree, for he would not lessen the property of his church.
Nevertheless he was consecrated, and did homage to the king, as the custom
was. Before long Rufus wanted money for an expedition against Normandy.
The archbishop offered L500. Rufus was advised to demand a larger sum, and
sent the money back. His demand was evidently based on the idea that
Anselm owed him much for making him archbishop; and Anselm, though willing
to contribute to the king's need, rejoiced that now no one could assert
that he had made a simoniacal payment, and gave the money to the poor.
When Rufus was about to sail, Anselm asked to be allowed to hold a synod,
and the wrathful king answered him with jeers: "What will you talk about
in your council?" Anselm fearlessly replied that he would speak of the
foul vices that infected the land, and named the special vice of the king
and his court. "What good will that do you?" asked the king. "If it does
me no good," was the answer, "I hope it will do something for God and for
you." He prayed him to fill the vacant abbacies. "Tush!" said the king,
"you do as you will with your manors, and may I not do what I will with my
abbeys?" In his eyes the rights of a patron were merely the rights of a
lord over his lands. He left England in wrath with the archbishop. Anselm
had not yet received the pall, and when the king came back he asked leave
to go and fetch it. "From which Pope?" demanded the king; and Anselm
answered, "From Urban." Now, though Rufus had no objection to acknowledge
Urban, he did not choose that any one should decide the matter save
himself. He took his stand upon his father's rule, and the rule was a good
one, for the acknowledgment of a Pope was a matter of national policy. His
fault lay in refusing to make his choice out of a sheer love of tyranny. A
meeting of the great council was held at Rockingham to decide whether
Anselm could maintain "his obedience to the Holy See without violating his
allegiance to his earthly king." The king most unfairly treated him as
though the question had been decided against him and he was contumacious.
The bishops took part against him, and their conduct shows how deeply the
feudal idea had sunk: they were the "king's bishops," and their counsel
was due to him and not to their metropolitan. William of Saint-Calais, now
in favour again, even advised the king to take away the archbishop's staff
and ring, and at the king's bidding the bishops renounced their obedience
to him. The nobles, however, would not become instruments of a tyranny
that might strike next at themselves. "He is our archbishop," they said,
"and the rule of Christianity in this land is his; and therefore we as
Christians cannot, as long as we live, renounce his authority." The matter
was adjourned; yet it was something that the tyrant had been shown that
men recognized higher laws of action than the feudal principles by which
he sought to make Church and State alike subservient to his caprices.
[Sidenote: Council of Bari, 1098.]
As evil ever strives to master good, so the Red King was set on mastering
Anselm. To this end he acknowledged Urban, persuaded him in return to send
the pall to him, and then offered the legate who brought it a large sum
for the Pope if he would depose Anselm. When the legate refused his offer,
he tried to make Anselm give him money for the pall. In this, of course,
he failed, and the pall was placed by the legate on the high altar of
Canterbury Minster, whence Anselm took it. The next year the king found a
new cause of quarrel; the military tenants of the archbishopric serving in
the Welsh war were badly equipped, and he bade Anselm be ready to answer
for it in his court. Anselm then petitioned to be allowed to go to Rome,
and urged his request in spite of the king's repeated refusals. His case
was discussed at a meeting of the great council at Winchester. In
persisting in his demand against the will of the king he was certainly
acting contrary to the customs of the kingdom, and he was, if not in
words, at least in fact, appealing to the Pope against the king. At the
same time, it must be remembered that he had none to help him, and that he
naturally turned to Rome as the place of strength and refreshment in his
troubles. The bishops plainly told him: "We know that you are a holy man,
and that your conversation is in Heaven; but we confess that we are
hampered by our relations whom we support, and by our love of the manifold
affairs of the world, and cannot rise to the height of your life." Would
he descend to their level? "Ye have said well," he answered; "go, then, to
your lord. I will hold me to God." Nor were the nobles on his side. At
Rockingham his demand was in accordance with the customs of the realm;
here the case was different. Rufus declared that he might go, but that if
he went he would seize the archbishopric. He went, and the king did as he
had said. Urban received the archbishop magnificently, styling him the
"pope and patriarch of another world," and promising to help him. At the
Council of Bari the Pope called on him to defend the Catholic faith
against the Greek heresy. His speech delighted the council; the conduct of
Rufus was discussed, and it was decided that he ought to be
excommunicated. Anselm, however, interceded for him, and his intercession
availed. Although Urban in public spoke severely enough to a bishop whom
Rufus sent to plead his cause, he talked more mildly in private; money was
freely spent among the papal counsellors, and a day of grace was given to
the king. It is scarcely too much to say that Anselm's cause was sold. He
was present at the Lateran Council in 1099, where he heard sentence of
excommunication decreed against all who conferred or received investiture;
his wrongs were spoken of with indignation, but nothing was done to
redress them. He left Rome convinced that he could never return to
England while Rufus lived, and was dwelling at Lyons when he heard of the
king's death.
[Sidenote: Investitures.]
In the first clause of the charter in which Henry I. declared the
abolition of the abuses introduced by Rufus we read that he made "God's
holy Church free;" he would "not sell it nor put it to farm," and he would
take nothing from the demesne of bishopric or abbacy during a vacancy. He
invited Anselm to return, and welcomed him joyfully. When, however, he
called on him to do him homage on the restoration of his lands which Rufus
had seized, Anselm refused; for he had laid to heart what he had heard at
the Lateran council. It is evident that personally he had no objection to
perform these acts, which he had already done to Rufus. His objection
arose from the fact that they were now forbidden. Rome had spoken, and he
felt bound to obey. As the question of Investitures forms the subject of a
separate volume of this series, it will be enough to say here that the
conveyance of the temporalities of a see was regarded in the feudal state
as the chief thing in the appointment of a bishop, who received
investiture of his office by taking the ring and crozier from the hands of
the king--a ceremony which encouraged the feudalization of the Church and
gave occasion for many abuses. At the same time, it was by no means
desirable that a prelate should hold wide lands and jurisdictions without
entering into the pledge of personal loyalty required of other lords. With
the abstract side of the question, however, Anselm was not concerned. With
him it was a matter of obedience, and he held that he was bound to obey
the Pope rather than the law of the land. For the king's demand was
justified by the custom of England, and it was on this that he took his
stand. "What," he said, "has the Pope to do with my rights? Those that my
predecessors possessed in this realm are mine." Anselm would neither do
homage nor consecrate the bishops elect who had received investiture. Yet
the dispute was conducted with moderation on both sides. The archbishop in
person brought his men to defend the king against the invasion of Robert;
he forwarded Henry's marriage and crowned his queen; while Henry, even
during the progress of the dispute, authorized him to hold a synod and
sanctioned its decrees. Stern as the king was, he loved order and justice,
and his conduct presents a striking contrast to the conduct of his
brother.
The closer relations with Rome introduced by the Conquest compelled the
king to attempt to gain the Pope's agreement to the English law. Paschal
II., while bound to abide by the decision of the Lateran council, was
evidently unwilling to alienate the king, and seems to have temporized. At
last Anselm went to Rome, at the request of the king and the nobles, who
no doubt hoped that he would learn there that the Pope was scarcely
whole-hearted in the matter. His presence, however, seems to have stirred
Paschal to give the king's envoy a flat refusal. Henry then took the
archbishopric into his hands, and Anselm remained abroad. During his
absence the king embarked on a piece of ecclesiastical administration. His
constant want of money led him to levy a fine on all the clergy who had
disobeyed the decree of Anselm's council by neglecting to put away their
wives; and, finding the sum less than he calculated, he demanded a payment
from every parish church. About two hundred priests, in their robes,
waited on him barefoot, and prayed him to release them from this demand
without success. At last, in 1107, the question of investitures was
arranged between the king and the Pope, and the arrangement was sanctioned
by a great council at London. The king gave up the investiture, and in
return his right to homage was acknowledged. He may be said to have
surrendered the shadow and to have secured the substance. While the
chapters were allowed to choose the bishops, they were to exercise their
right at the king's court, where, of course, they were subject to his
influence. Anselm again received the temporalities, and the vacant
bishoprics were filled up. Throughout the dispute the clergy remained
loyal to the king in his struggle with the feudal lords, and the affairs
of the Church went on as usual. The speedy and satisfactory settlement of
a question that agitated the Empire for half a century, and the moderate
spirit in which it was debated, were mainly due to the character of the
king; for Henry was a statesman of fertile genius, and, unlike Rufus,
acted on well-defined principles. He was willing to grant the exact amount
of freedom of action that seemed necessary to orderly development, while,
at the same time, he kept that freedom in strict subordination to his own
supremacy.
[Sidenote: Synodical activity under Henry I.]
Acting on these principles, he allowed councils to be held, though, like
his father, he made ecclesiastical legislation dependent on his sanction.
At Anselm's synod, held at Westminster in 1102, a return was made to the
old English custom of the joint action of the clergy and laity; for the
nobles took part in it along with the bishops and abbots. The suspension
of synodical action during the reign of Rufus had weakened the authority
of the Church, and it was thought advisable that both orders should act
together in legislation. The first canon marks the growth of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction consequent on the separation of the courts.
Archdeacons had now become judicial officers over distinct territorial
divisions, and as the profits of their courts were considerable, it became
necessary to decree that they should not be farmed. An advance was made on
Lanfranc's legislation on clerical marriage; married priests and deacons
were now ordered to put away their wives, an order which, as we have seen,
was widely disregarded; no married man was to be admitted to the
subdiaconate; tithes were not to be paid except to churches, and several
decrees were made for the maintenance, dress, and general conduct of the
clergy. Another national council, held in 1127, sat in the church of
Westminster while the king held his court in the palace; just as now the
Convocation of the Province of Canterbury and the High Court of Parliament
are summoned to meet at the same time at Westminster.
[Sidenote: Legates.]
Henry, like his father, aimed at establishing perfect harmony between
Church and State, keeping both alike in absolute dependence upon himself.
Accordingly he resisted any unauthorized interference on the part of the
Pope with the affairs of the Church. Early in the reign a Burgundian
archbishop landed here without invitation, claiming legatine authority
over the whole kingdom. His claim was pronounced "unheard of." Although
the Conqueror had invited the Pope to send him legates for a specified
purpose, the archbishop of Canterbury was held to be the permanent
representative of the Holy See in England, a _legatus natus_, whose
authority was not to be superseded by a special legate, or _legatus a
latere_. No one acknowledged the legate's authority, and "he went back,"
Eadmer remarks, "as he came." A more serious attempt to override the
rights of the Church was made in the time of Anselm's successor, Ralph.
The king was in Normandy, and when it became known that a legate, Anselm's
nephew and namesake, was on his way hither, the bishops and nobles of the
kingdom met in council, and sent Ralph over to Henry to request that he
"would bring the innovation to nought," and the king prevented the legate
Anselm from landing. In the time of the next archbishop, William of
Corbeuil, Henry was, for political reasons, anxious to stand well with
Rome, and accordingly admitted into the kingdom a legate from Honorius
II., named John of Crema. Men saw with indignation that this legate sat in
the highest seat in the metropolitan church, and said mass in the
archbishop's stead, clad in episcopal vestments, though he was only a
priest; "for both England and other countries knew that, from St. Augustin
onwards, the archbishops were held to be primates and patriarchs, and were
never made subject to a Roman legate." At the same time, though John
occupied the seat of honour at the council of 1125, the summons ran in
the name of the archbishop and the decrees were confirmed by the king.
While, then, the Crown, the English Church, and the papal representative
acted concurrently, the royal authority was saved. It was not so with the
see of Canterbury or with the national interests it represented, and the
archbishop went to Rome to complain of the injury done to his see.
Honorius silenced his complaints by giving him a legatine commission, a
measure which, while gratifying William personally, lessened the inherent
dignity of his see and the independence of the Church.
[Sidenote: Thurstan, archbishop of York, 1119-1140.]
In spite of various efforts, the archbishops of York had hitherto been
unable to evade the profession of obedience to Canterbury. Thurstan, the
fourth since the Conquest, was a man of different mould from his
predecessors, and refused to make the profession. Archbishop Ralph
accordingly refused to consecrate him, and the king upheld the right of
the primatial see, bidding Thurstan do what was due according to ancient
usage. Thurstan was encouraged in his revolt by Popes Paschal II. and
Calixtus II., who treated it as a good opportunity for a covert attack on
the greatness of the English primate. The see of York remained vacant for
about five years. At last Thurstan obtained leave from the king to attend
the council held by Calixtus at Rheims, promising that he would not accept
consecration from the Pope, while Calixtus undertook that he would do
nothing to the prejudice of the see of Canterbury. Nevertheless Thurstan
received consecration from Calixtus, and so escaped making the
profession. Henry refused to allow him to return to England; and the next
Pope, Honorius II., seems to have actually declared the kingdom under an
interdict, though the sentence was not published here. The dispute went on
for some years, and the old question appears even now to excite the local
patriotism of some of the clergy of York. Yet it can scarcely be denied
that Thurstan sacrificed the interests of the national Church to the
aggrandizement of his see, and that both he and Calixtus got the better of
the king by a somewhat discreditable trick. York was freed for ever from
the obligation of obedience by a bull of Calixtus.
[Sidenote: Scottish and Welsh bishoprics.]
One phase of the quarrel between Canterbury and York concerned the
Scottish bishops. On a vacancy of the see of St. Andrews, Alexander, king
of Scots, was induced to write to Ralph of Canterbury, asking him to
recommend a new bishop, and reminding him that the bishops of St. Andrews
were always consecrated by the Pope or the archbishop of Canterbury, which
was, of course, the reverse of the truth, for they were suffragans of
York. Ralph highly approved of this new doctrine, and in course of time
Eadmer, the historian, a monk of Canterbury, was duly elected. Meanwhile,
however, Alexander had changed his mind, and commanded Eadmer to receive
consecration from Thurstan. This he refused to do, for he was heart and
soul a Canterbury man, and after much disputing, he was forced to return
to his convent unconsecrated. The dispute between Canterbury and York
encouraged some of the Scottish bishops to revolt against Thurstan, whose
authority was upheld by Calixtus. This quarrel is memorable because the
Pope accepted Thurstan's theory that the king of Scots was the man of the
king of England for Scotland, and not, as the Scots held, merely for
Lothian or any other fief: in other words, he declared Scotland a vassal
kingdom, a decision that became of importance later on. The question of
canonical subjection was debated between St. Andrews and York, until, in
1188, Clement III. declared the Scottish Church immediately dependent on
the Holy See. The upshot of these disputes was, that the archbishops of
Canterbury ceased to be the "primates and patriarchs of Britain," for York
was freed from dependence upon them, and their attempt to extend their
jurisdiction over Scotland utterly failed. On the other hand, the
authority of Canterbury was established in Wales by the election to the
see of St. David's of the Norman Bernard, who received consecration from
Archbishop Ralph, and made profession to him.
[Sidenote: Summary.]
The ecclesiastical system of the Norman kings may be summed up as a
generally successful attempt to give the Church power of action apart from
the State, so far as was consistent with the supremacy of the Crown. Under
Rufus this system became a mere means of tyranny; and among the many
glories that attend the memory of St. Anselm, not the least is that he
delivered the Church from the domination of the feudal idea, which would
have destroyed her spirituality and left her helpless before the royal
power. By the Conqueror and Henry I. the supremacy was used to establish
harmony of action between Church and State, and to preserve the national
character of the Church. Nevertheless the new relations with Rome
introduced by the Conquest began to bear fruit in Henry's time, for on all
occasions, both by the grant of legatine commissions and by upholding the
pretensions of York, the Popes strove to depress the primatial see and to
increase their own authority in England.
Although Henry had none of the brutal contempt for law that distinguished
his brother, he was not less despotic, and his policy towards the Church
differed from that pursued by his father in that, while the Conqueror made
her co-ordinate under himself with the State, he degraded her to the
position of a servant. He kept the see of Canterbury vacant for five years
after the death of Anselm; all ecclesiastical matters were governed by
political or personal considerations rather than with an eye to the true
interests of the Church, and Henry was not above making money from
ecclesiastical appointments. His chief adviser was Roger, bishop of
Salisbury, an able minister and a magnificent noble, who owed his
preferment to his administrative talents; for Henry employed clerical
ministers, partly because he was thus enabled to secure men who had
received a regular official training as royal clerks, and partly, no
doubt, because their celibacy made it less likely that they would put
their authority to a dangerous use. He rewarded them with bishoprics and
other preferments, and thus secularized the Church in order to make her
serve the State. At the same time, his reign saw the beginning of a
movement that was destined to revive her spiritual character, and by that
revival to increase her power and dignity. This quickened influence was
due to the higher life that followed the introduction of the Cistercian
rule.