THE BISHOP.
Whatever variety of form the heathendom of the Anglosaxons may have
assumed in different districts, we are justified in asserting that a
sacerdotal class existed, and that there were different grades of rank
within it. We hear of priests, and of chief priests; and it is not
unnatural to conclude that to the latter some pre-eminence in dignity,
if not in power, was conceded over their less-distinguished colleagues.
Similarly, the necessities of internal government and regulation, and
the analogy of secular administration, had gradually supplied the
Christian communities with a well-organized system of hierarchy, which
commencing with the lower ministerial functions, passed upward through
the presbyterate, the episcopal and metropolitan ordinations, and found
its culminating point and completion in the patriarchates of the eastern
and western churches. The paganism of the Old World, which admitted the
participation of different classes in the public rites of religion, if
it did not cause, could at least easily reconcile itself to, this
systematic division. Our own heathen state is not well known enough to
enable us to affirm as much of our forefathers; but the immediate
foundation of an episcopal church in all the newly-converted Teutonic
countries, seems to show that no difficulty existed or was apprehended
as to its ready reception. In England, as elsewhere, the introduction of
Christianity was immediately followed by the establishment of bishops.
But it is necessary to draw a distinction between the effects of this
establishment in England and in various parts of the continent. As we
pursue the inquiries which necessarily meet us in investigating the
history of conversion in the West, we are led to a remarkable fact, viz.
that the power of the Roman see was, generally speaking, most
substantially founded by the efforts and energy of Teutonic prelates;
while a much more steady opposition to its triumph was offered by the
provincials who usually filled the episcopal office in the cities of
Gaul.
The apparent strangeness of this however soon vanishes, when we consider
the many grounds upon which the Gallic churches contested the immediate
supremacy of Rome. The archbishop of Vienne long claimed the patriarchal
authority in Gaul, upon the same grounds as the bishops of Rome and
Constantinople claimed it in those cities[833]. Many of the provincial
churches boasted an antiquity hardly inferior to the Roman, and a
foundation not less illustrious; many had shown in persecution and
suffering a spirit of Christian perseverance and a steadfastness of
faith, which the City itself had not exceeded in her own hour of trial.
Above all, there continued to exist a vigorous nationality in Gaul,
however oppressed and bridled by the energy of the Frankish conquerors,
especially in Neustria or the northern portion of modern France. To this
spirit of nationality, based upon ancient descent and long familiarity
with the civilization of the Roman empire, and fed in turn by a great
amount of material prosperity, we must refer the complete dissolution of
the Carolingian empire itself, and the establishment of the counts of
Paris as kings in the western districts of that unwieldy body.
-----
Footnote 833:
Hüllmann, ‘Origine de l’organisation de l’Eglise au Moyen Age,’ p. 30.
-----
It is true that the Western Church did not lay definite claim to any
such total independence as Cyprian vindicated for his African
communities: the good offices and arbitration of St. Peter’s successor
were sought in disputed and doubtful cases, even if we cannot admit of
positive appeals to the Roman curia: the bishops of Burgundy, Provence
and Spain, early found that union with the oldest and most respected
church of the West offered an important defence of orthodoxy threatened
by the Arian and semi-Arian dogma of the barbarians who had wrested
those fine provinces from the empire: and the popes were not unwilling
to encourage a tendency which helped to realize the idea of a
pre-eminence in their church over all the Christian communities.[834]
The institution of Missi, or special commissioners, was familiar: they
adopted it, and at a very early period we find papal vicars exercising
some sort of authority in Gaul, and perhaps even in Britain.
-----
Footnote 834:
This was strongly asserted by Romanus against Cyprian, and never lost
sight of by the Roman controversialists, whatever opposition it
encountered in other churches. But while Rome really was the first
city of the world, it was consonant to the analogy of the other
episcopal relations that her prelate should claim the primacy. The
founding it either on St. Peter’s peculiar principality, or on
pretended decrees of the Roman emperors, was quite a different thing,
and an afterthought.
-----
The conversion of Clovis to the orthodox faith, instead of that which he
might have learned from his Arian neighbours, was not only a source of
power and importance to the Catholic bishops of Gaul, but ultimately of
the greatest moment to the bishop of Rome. We must admit that under the
Merwingian kings, the popes enjoyed some authority and great
consideration in Gaul, though not enough to endanger the independence
and freedom of the Gallican church: but under the family of Pipin they
necessarily occupied a very different position. For during the earlier
years of the imperial constitution, Rome was a city, and its bishop to a
certain extent an officer, of the empire, and the power and influence of
the popes was advanced by the Frankish emperor as best might suit his
own purposes. It is assuredly not true that under Charlemagne those
bishops ventured upon any of the usurpations which they succeeded in
substantiating under later emperors.
During the reign of Hluduuig indeed, a pious but weak prince, they
obtained various concessions which in process of time bore fruit of
power[835]. It was reserved for later days to witness the triumph of
Roman independence through the combination of communal with priestly
tendencies. This combination first darkly arose when the nationality of
Rome itself burst forth, encouraged by the vigour with which the bishop
made head against the invading Saracens in Italy, supported the orthodox
prelates of the southern kingdoms, Arles, Burgundy and Spain against
Arian dukes and governors, and regulated the internal affairs of the
city, neglected by its Frankish patricians and missi. At this time too
Rome had no competitor: Africa had fallen, Constantinople had abdicated
her imperial position, the cities and the sees of the East had vanished
together; Rome—at least one of the oldest—was now unquestionably the
most powerful of the Christian churches. She had all the prestige of the
old empire, and all the support of the new one which she had helped to
found upon the ruins of the old.
-----
Footnote 835:
But, as yet, no independence. Pope Paschal in 823, being accused by
the Romans of participation in various homicides, Hluduuig sent his
Missi,—Adalung a presbyter and abbot, and Hunfrid duke of Rhætia (or
Coire) to investigate the affair. Paschal appeared before them, and
cleared himself by oath. “Qui supradictus Pontifex cum iuramento
purificavit se in Lateranensi patriarchio coram supradictis legatis et
populo Romano, cum episcopis 34, et presbyteris et diaconibus
quinque.” Thegan. Vit. Hludov. Imp. Pertz, ii. 597.
-----
But this gradual advance and this commanding power could not at first
have been contemplated. It is a common error to suppose that great
results, which seem necessarily produced by a long series of combined
causes, have from the first been prepared and foreseen. The spectator in
his own struggle after a logical unity rejects the accidental and
accessory facts, to fix his eyes upon the apparently essential
development; and supposes everything to have been grasped together,
because his intellect cannot conceive the whole variety of occurrences
without so grasping them. The relations of Rome with the Franks were
hardly the consequence of any deliberate or well-considered plan. The
Frankish kings had been selected as patrons merely because they could
afford the protection which was looked for in vain from Constantinople,
or indeed any other quarter; and had Italy not been overrun by Germanic
invaders of various race, from whose power there seemed no refuge, save
in other and still more barbarous Germanic defenders, the Western empire
might never have been restored: but when once it was so restored,—from
the moment when Pope Leo and the Roman municipality agreed to place the
command of the city, and the rights of the ancient Caesars, in the hands
of a barbarian king,—but one capable of appreciating and securing all
the advantages of his great position,—Rome itself became not only
identified with the new views, but necessary to their fulfilment[836].
Had the new emperor been a Roman, or had he selected Rome as his
residence, and thus made it the local as well as real and political
centre of his power, the Papacy would probably never have attained its
territorial authority. But the Frankish king remained true to the habits
of his people and of his predecessors, resided in peaceful times at
Ingleheim or Aix la Chapelle, and spent years in wandering from one
royal vill to another, or in the duties of active warfare upon the
several confines of his empire; and thus the government of the eternal
city practically fell into the hands of Frankish officers, dukes, missi,
counts palatine, and ministerials, who gradually proved no match for the
enlightened skill, unwearied diplomacy and increasing power of the
pontiffs, the Roman aristocratic families, and the resuscitated
municipality: yet the popes had hardly succeeded in attaining to a
complete independence of the German Caesars, when the son of Hugues,
called Capet, expelled the last Caroling from the soil of France; though
in the course of a policy long inexorably pursued, they had gone far to
prepare for a dismemberment of the empire which was to be of more
important consequence to the world than even that separation[837]. In
956—the year in which Eádwig, the mark of monkish calumny, came to the
throne of England, the Patrician Octavian, son of Alberic of Spoleto,
and through him grandson of the scandalous Marozia, caused himself to be
elected Pope; and thus united the highest worldly and spiritual
authorities in the city, concentrating in his own person all the rights
both of the empire and the papacy[838].
-----
Footnote 836:
No sooner was Charlemagne crowned as emperor by Leo III. (Dec. 20th,
800) than he caused an oath of fidelity to be administered to all his
subjects who were above the age of twelve years. See on this subject
Dönniges, p. 2, etc. He thus obtained all the rights of the ancient
emperors over the church and the Roman provincials, in addition to the
powers as a German king, which in his vigorous hands assumed a
consistency and compass unknown to his predecessors. Charlemagne
required all the aid of the Pope against the great Frankish families,
who might have given him a mayor of the palace, as they had given his
own progenitors to the Merwingian kings. The following important
passage will show in what spirit he considered the imperial authority
which he had assumed, “A.D. 802. Eo anno demoravit domnus Caesar
Carolus apud Aquis palatium quietus cum Francis sine hoste; sed
recordatus misericordiae suae de pauperibus, qui in regno suo erant et
iustitias suas pleniter [h]abere non poterant, noluit de infra palatio
pauperiores vassos suos transmittere ad iustitias faciendum propter
munera, sed elegit in regno suo archiepiscopos et reliquos episcopos
et abbates cum ducibus et comitibus, qui iam opus non [h]abebant super
innocentes munera accipere, et ipsos misit per universum regnum suum,
ut ecclesiis, viduis et orfanis et pauperibus, et cuncto populo
iustitiam facerent. Et mense Octimbrio congregavit universalem synodum
in iam nominato loco, et ibi fecit episcopis cum presbyteris seu
diaconibus relegi universos canones quas sanctus synodus recepit, et
decreta pontificum, et pleniter iussit eos tradi coram omnibus
episcopis, presbyteris et diaconibus. Similiter in ipso synodo
congregavit universos abbates et monachos qui ibi aderant, et ipsi
inter se conventum faciebant, et legerunt regulam sancti patris
Benedicti, et eam tradiderunt sapientes in conspectu abbatum et
monachorum; et tunc iussu eius generaliter super omnes episcopos,
abbates, presbyteros, diaconos seu universo clero facta est, ut
unusquisque in loco suo iuxta constitutionem sanctorum patrum, sive in
episcopatibus seu in monasteriis aut per universas sanctas ecclesias,
ut canonici, iuxta canones viverent, et quicquid in clero aut in
populo de culpis aut de negligentiis apparuerit, iuxta canonum
auctoritate emendassent; et quicquid in monasteriis seu in monachis
contra regulam sancti Benedicti factum fuisset, hoc ipsud iuxta ipsam
regulam sancti Benedicti emendare fecissent. Sed et ipse imperator,
interim quod ipsum synodum factum est, congregavit duces, comites et
reliquo christiano populo cum legislatoribus, et fecit omnes leges in
regno suo legi, et tradi unicuique homini legem suam, et emendare
ubicumque necesse fuit, et emendatam legem scribere, et ut iudices per
scriptum iudicassent, et munera non accepissent; sed omnes homines,
pauperes et divites, in regno suo iustitiam habuissent.” Annal.
Lauresham, xxv. Pertz, i. 38. In the theory of that great man, the
imperial title was no empty name.
Footnote 837:
A.D. 987. See Dönniges, p. 197 _seq._ Thierry, Lettres sur l’Histoire
de France, let. xii.
Footnote 838:
Since A.D. 924 there had been in fact no Emperor of Germany, and the
empire itself might seem to have been resolved anew into its original
and discordant elements. From the year 904, when the elder Theodora
succeeded in placing Sergius the Third upon the papal throne, the
faction of that profligate woman and her daughters had completely
disposed of all the dignities of the city, and the bed of the
Theodoras or Marozia was the best introduction to the Chair of St.
Peter.
-----
Three hundred and sixty years earlier, Gregory, then bishop of Rome, had
despatched a missionary adventure to this country.
The zeal of modern polemics has dealt more hardly with Gregory than
justice demands[839]. Who shall dare to attribute to him, or to any
other man, entire freedom from human error, or total absence of those
faults which, for the very happiness of man, are found to chequer the
most perfect of human characters? But even if we admit that he shared,
to not less than the usual degree, in the weakness and selfishness of
our nature, it is impossible to withhold the meed of our admiration from
the man whose intellect could combine, whose prudence could direct, and
whose courage could cope with, all the details of a conversion such as
that of Saxon England. Let us only consider the circumstances under
which he found himself placed at home, and we shall the better
comprehend the power of mind which could devise and execute the vast
design of a spiritual colonization, a transplantation of religion as it
were from Rome the centre, to Britain the extreme, the least known, and
most barbarous point of the ancient empire[840]. Temporal as well as
spiritual ruler of the city, abandoned by those miserable intriguers who
inherited from the emperors nothing but their title and their vices, and
pressed on every side by the vigorous advance of the Langobardic arms,
it was Gregory’s fate or fortune to pass in the midst of political
excitement a life which he had hoped to devote to pious meditation. But
he possessed a character capable of moulding itself to all the
exigencies of his situation; whether reluctantly or not, he flung
himself into the gap, and comprehended, with a perfect singleness of
insight, that to whom belongs the post of greatest honour, on him lies
also the burthen of the greatest toil and greatest danger. By turns
soldier, captain, negotiator, and priest,—now wielding the pen to
instruct, now the sword to protect or to chastise,—now pouring
passionate exhortations from his pulpit, now providing for the resources
of his commissariat, or superintending the builders engaged on the
material defences of his walls,—we see in him one of those men whom
troublous times have often educated to cope with themselves, and whose
names have thus justly become the very landmarks and pivots of history.
-----
Footnote 839:
See Soames, Anglos. Church, p. 40 _seq._, and Latin Church during
Anglos. Times, p. 12 _seq._, 19 _seq._ On the other side, Schrödl, Das
erste Jahrhundert der Englischen Kirche, p. 10 _seq._
Footnote 840:
It must not be forgotten that the Southerns shuddered at the Saxons,
as the most savage and barbarous of all the Germanic tribes. However
unjust the opinion might be, it was the fashionable one at Rome.
-----
A great writer, who sometimes suffers his hostility against Christianity
and its professors to outweigh the calmer judgment of the historian, has
left us this graphic account of the condition of Rome at the end of the
sixth century[841].
-----
Footnote 841:
Gibbon, Dec. and Fall, chapter 45.
-----
“Amidst the arms of the Lombards, and under the despotism of the Greeks,
we again inquire into the fate of Rome[842], which had reached, about
the close of the sixth century, the lowest period of her depression. By
the removal of the seat of empire, and the successive loss of the
provinces, the sources of public and private opulence were exhausted;
the lofty tree, under whose shade the nations of the earth had reposed,
was deprived of its leaves and branches, and the sapless trunk was left
to wither on the ground. The ministers of command and the messengers of
victory no longer met on the Appian or Flaminian Way, and the hostile
approach of the Lombards was often felt and continually feared. The
inhabitants of a potent and peaceful capital, who visit without an
anxious thought the garden of the adjoining country, will faintly
picture in their fancy the distress of the Romans; they shut or opened
their gates with a trembling hand, beheld from the walls the flames of
their houses, and heard the lamentations of their brethren, who were
coupled together like dogs, and dragged away into distant slavery beyond
the sea and the mountains. Such incessant alarms must annihilate the
pleasures and interrupt the labours of a rural life; and the Campagna of
Rome was speedily reduced to the state of a dreary wilderness, in which
the land is barren, the waters are impure, and the air is infectious.
Curiosity and ambition no longer attracted the nations to the capital of
the world: but if chance or necessity directed the steps of a wandering
stranger, he contemplated with horror the vacancy and solitude of the
city, and might be tempted to ask, Where is the senate, and where are
the people? In a season of excessive rains, the Tiber swelled above its
banks, and rushed with irresistible violence into the valleys of the
seven hills. A pestilential disease arose from the stagnation of the
deluge, and so rapid was the contagion, that fourscore persons expired
in an hour in the midst of a solemn procession, which implored the mercy
of heaven[843]. A society in which marriage is encouraged and industry
prevails, soon repairs the accidental losses of pestilence and war; but
as the far greater part of the Romans was condemned to hopeless
indigence and celibacy, the depopulation was constant and visible, and
the gloomy enthusiasts might expect the approaching failure of the human
race[844].”
-----
Footnote 842:
“The passages of the Homilies of Gregory, which represent the
miserable state of the city and country, are transcribed in the Annals
of Baronius, A.D. 590, No. 16; A.D. 595, No. 2. etc.”
Footnote 843:
“The inundation and plague were reported by a deacon, whom his bishop,
Gregory of Tours, had despatched to Rome for some relics. The
ingenious messenger embellished his tale and the river with a great
dragon and a train of little serpents.” Greg. Turon. lib. x. cap. 1.
Footnote 844:
“Gregory of Rome (Dialog. l. ii. c. 15) relates a memorable prediction
of St. Benedict. ‘Roma a gentilibus non exterminabitur sed
tempestatibus, coruscis turbinibus et terrae motu in semetipsa
marcescet.’ Such a prophecy melts into true history, and becomes the
evidence of the fact after which it was invented.”
-----
It was in the midst of scenes such as these that Gregory found time to
organize the mission of Augustine to Britain. In the absence of definite
information, derived from his own account, or the relations of his
friends and contemporaries, it is impossible to penetrate the motives
which led the pontiff to this step. They have been variously interpreted
by the zeal of opposing historians, who have construed them by the light
of their own prejudices, in favour of the conflicting interests of their
respective churches. Nor, with such insufficient means, do we attempt to
reconcile their differences: human motives are rarely unmixed, rarely
all good or all evil: it is possible that there may be some truth in all
the conflicting views which have been taken of this great act; that
while an earnest missionary spirit, and deep feeling of responsibility,
led the Pope to carry the blessings of an orthodox Christianity to the
distant and benighted tribes of Britain, he may have contemplated—not
without pardonable complacency—the growth of a church immediately
dependent upon his see for guidance and instruction. It may be that some
lingering whispers of vanity or ambition spoke of the increase of wealth
or dignity or power which might thus accrue to the patriarchate of the
West. Nay, who shall say that, looking round in his despair upon Rome
itself and the disject members of its once mighty empire, he may not
even have thought that England, inaccessible from its seas, and the
valour of its denizens, might one day offer a secure refuge to the last
remains of Roman faith and nationality, and their last, but not least
noble, defender?
To the pontiff and the statesman it was not unknown that the Britannic
islands were occupied by two populations different alike in their
descent and in their fortunes; the elder and the weaker, of Keltic
blood; the younger and the conquering race, an offshoot of that great
Teutonic stock, whose branches had overspread all the fairest provinces
of the empire, and had now for the most part adopted something of the
civilization, together with the profession, of Christianity. He was
aware that commercial intercourse, nay even family alliances, had
already connected the Anglosaxons with those Franks, who, in opposition
to the Arian Goths, Burgundians and Langobards, had accepted the form of
faith considered orthodox by the Roman See[845]. The British church, he
no doubt knew, in common with others which claimed to have been founded
by the Apostles[846], still retained some rites and practices which had
either never been sanctioned or were now abandoned at Rome: but still
the communion of the churches had been maintained as well as could be
expected between such distant establishments. British bishops had
appeared in the Catholic synods[847], and the church of the Keltic
aborigines reverenced with affectionate zeal the memory of the
missionaries whom it was the boast of Rome to have sent forth for her
instruction or confirmation in the faith[848]. On the other hand, it had
reached the ears of the Pope, that the Germanic conquerors themselves
yearned for the communication of the glad tidings of salvation; that
tolerance was found in at least one court,—and that, one of
preponderating influence; while an unhappy instinct of national hatred
had induced the British Christians to withhold all attempts to spread
the Gospel among their heathen neighbours[849].
-----
Footnote 845:
“I cannot bear to see the finest provinces of Gaul in the hands of
those heretics,” cried Clovis, with all the zeal of a new convert. The
clergy blessed the pious sentiment, and the orthodox barbarian was
rewarded with a series of bloody victories, which mainly tended to
establish the predominance of the Frank over all the other elements in
Gaul.
Footnote 846:
If traditions could be construed into good history, Britain was
abundantly provided with apostolical converters: Joseph of Arimathea,
Aristobulus, one of the seventy, St. Paul himself, have all had their
several supporters. Nay even St. Peter has been said to have visited
this island: Ἔπειτα [ὁ Πέτρος] ... εἰς βρεττανίαν παραγίνεται· Ἔνθα δὴ
χειροτριβήσας καὶ πολλὰ τῶν ἀκατοναμάτων ἐνθῶν εἰς τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ
πίστιν ἐπισπασάμενος ... ἐπιμείνας τὲ τοῖς ἐν βρεττανὶᾳ ἡμέρας τινὰς,
καὶ πολλοὺς τῷ λόγῳ φωτίσας τῆς χάριτος, ἐκκλησίας τε συστησάμενος,
ἐπισκόπους τε καὶ πρεσβυτέρους καὶ διακόνους χειροτονήσας, δωδεκάτῳ
ἔτει τοῦ Καίσαρος αὖθις εἰς Ῥώμην παραγίνεται. Menolog. Graec. xvi.
Mart.
Footnote 847:
At Arles in 314, Sardica in 347, and Rimini in 359.
Footnote 848:
Not to speak of Ninian, Palladius and Patricius, we may refer to
Germanus of Auxerre, who is stated to have been sent as Papal Vicar to
England, to arrest the progress of Pelagianism, at the beginning of
the fifth century. Schrödl asserts this in the broadest terms: “Auf
Bitten der Britischen Bischöfe, und gesendet von Pabst Cölestin,
besuchte der Bischof Germanus von Auxerre in der Eigenschaft eines
päbstlichen Vicars, zweimal Britannien,” etc. Erste Jahrh. p. 2.
Lingard is somewhat less decided: he says, “Pope Celestine, at the
representation of the deacon Palladius, commissioned Germanus of
Auxerre to proceed in his name to Britain,” etc. Ang. Church, i. 8.
Both these authors refer to Prosper, in Chron. _anno_ 429. “Papa
Coelestinus Germanum Autisiodorensem episcopum _vice sua_ mittit, et
deturbatis haereticis Britannos ad Catholicam fidem dirigit.” Prosper
was not only a contemporary of the facts he relates, but at a later
period actually became secretary to Celestine: his authority therefore
is of much weight. Still it is observable that Beda, in his relation,
does not attribute the mission of Germanus to the Pope. He says, that
the Britons having applied for aid to the prelates of Gaul, these held
a great synod, and _elected_ Germanus and Lupus to proceed to England.
Hist. Eccl. i. 17. Beda’s account is taken from the life of Germanus
written by Constantius of Lyons, about forty years after the bishop’s
death. He says as little of the Vicariate in his account of the second
mission. However, even supposing Prosper, whose means of judgment were
certainly the best, to be right, it only follows that Celestine
dispatched Germanus as his Vicar, but not that the British prelates
formally received him in that capacity. It does not seem to me that
the passage contains any satisfactory proof that the Roman See enjoyed
a _right_ of appointing Vicars in England at the period in question,
however it may have desired, or tried practically, to establish one.
Footnote 849:
Beda, II. E. i. 22.
-----
Under these circumstances, in the year 596, at the very moment when the
ancient metropolis of the world seemed on the point of falling under the
yoke of the Langobards, Augustine and his forty companions set out to
carry the faith to the extreme islands of the West,—a deed as heroic as
when Scipio marched for Zama, and left the terrible Carthaginian
thundering at the gates of the city. Furnished with letters of
introduction to facilitate their passage through Gaul, where they were
to provide themselves with interpreters, and where, in the event of
success, Augustine was to receive episcopal consecration, the
adventurers finally landed in Kent, experienced a gentle reception from
Æðelberht, and obtained permission to preach the faith among his
subjects. In an incredibly short space of time—if we may credit the
earliest historian of the Anglosaxon church—their efforts were crowned
with success in the more important districts of the island; Canterbury,
Rochester and London received the distinction of episcopal sees; swarms
of energetic missionaries from Rome, from Gaul, from Burgundy, followed
on their track, eager to aid their labours, and share their triumph; and
at length the Keltic Scots themselves, emulous of their successes, or
awakened, though late, to a sense of their own culpable neglect, entered
vigorously upon the vacant field, and preached the Gospel to the pagan
tribes north of the Humber, and in the central provinces of England. The
progress of the new creed was not, however, one unchequered triumph: in
Wales and Scotland the embittered Kelts refused not only canonical
submission to the missionary archbishop, but even Catholic communion
with his neophytes[850]. In Eastanglia, Essex, nay Kent itself, apostacy
followed upon the death of the first converted kings; while Wessex
remained true to its ancient paganism; and Penda of Mercia, tolerant of
Christianity although himself no Christian, was dangerous through his
very indifference, his ambition, and the triumphs of his arms over
successive Northumbrian princes. Still the great aim of Gregory was not
to be vain, and despite kings and peoples, nay even despite the
faintheartedness and “little faith” of the missionaries, the work of
conversion did go on and prosper, until it embraced every portion of the
island, and every part of England made at least an outward profession of
Christianity.
-----
Footnote 850:
“Scottos vero per Daganum episcopum in hanc, quam superius
memoravimus, insulam (sc. Britanniam) et Columbanum abbatem in Gallis
venientem, nihil discrepare a Brittonibus in eorum conversatione
didicimus. Nam Daganus episcopus ad nos veniens, non solum cibum
nobiscum, sed nec in eodem hospitio quo vescebamur, sumere voluit.”
Such is the account Laurentius, Mellitus and Justus give in their
epistle to the Scottish prelates themselves. Beda, Hist. Eccl. ii. 4.
And the Keltic example is answered in an equally intolerant spirit by
Theodore:—“Qui ordinati sunt Scottorum vel Brittonum episcopi, qui in
Pascha vel tonsura catholicae non sunt adunati aecclesiae, iterum a
catholico episcopo manus impositione confirmentur. Licentiam quoque
non habemus _eis poscentibus_ chrisma vel eucharistiam dare, nisi ante
confessi fuerint velle nobiscum esse in unitate aecclesiae. Et qui ex
eorum similiter gente, vel quicumque de baptismo suo dubitaverit,
baptizetur.” Cap. Theod. Thorpe, ii. 64. See also Canones Sancti
Gregorii, cap. 145. Kunstmann, Poenit. p. 141.
-----
No sooner had the new creed found a reception among the Saxons than the
establishment of bishoprics followed in every separate kingdom. The
intention of Gregory had been to appoint two metropolitans, each with
twelve suffragan bishops, one having his cathedral in London, the other
in York. But political events prevented the execution of this plan:
Canterbury retained the primacy of the greater part of England, and
(except during a very few years) the rule over all the bishops on this
side the Humber; while York, after receiving an archbishop in the person
of Paulinus, remained for nearly a century after his death under a
bishop only; and never succeeded in establishing more than four
suffragan sees, which were finally reduced to two. This state of things
naturally sprang from the circumstances under which the conversion took
place. Had England been subject to one central power, or had the
relinquishment of paganism taken place simultaneously in the several
districts, a general system might have been introduced whose leading
features might have been in accordance with Gregory’s desire; but this
was not the case. The work of conversion was subject to many
difficulties which could not have been appreciated at Rome. The pope had
probably but sparing knowledge of the relations which existed between
the Anglosaxon kingdoms, and how little concert could be expected from
their scattered and hostile rulers. Nor could he have anticipated a
jealous and sullen resistance on the part of the Keltic Christians,
which was perhaps not altogether unprovoked by the indiscreet
pretensions of Augustine[851]. But the first bishops were in fact
strictly missionaries,—as much so as the bishop of New Zealand among the
Maori,—heads of various bodies of voluntary adventurers, who at their
own great peril bore the tidings of salvation to the pagan inhabitants
of distant and separate localities. Prudence indeed dictated the
propriety of commencing with those whose authority might tend to secure
their own safety, and whose example would be a useful confirmation of
their arguments; whose own religious convictions also were less likely
to be of a settled and bigotted character than those of the villagers in
the Marks. Christianity, which in its outset commenced with the lowest
and poorest classes of society, and slowly widened its circuit till it
embraced the highest, thus reversed the process in England, and
commenced with the courts and households of the kings.
-----
Footnote 851:
This seems to follow from the relation of what passed at Augustine’s
interview with the Welsh prelates. At the same time we should judge
very unwisely were we to believe missionary jealousies confined to the
nineteenth century. In the distracted state of the British the bishops
were almost the only possessors of a legal authority; and it is not at
all probable that they would have looked with equanimity on those who
came with an open proposal of subordination, even had it been
unaccompanied with circumstances wounding to their self-love.
-----
Accordingly the conversion of a king was generally followed by the
establishment of a see, the princes being apparently desirous of
attaching a Christian prelate to their comitatus, in place of the Pagan
high-priest who had probably occupied a similar position. Considerations
of personal dignity, not less than policy, may have led to this result:
the lurking remains of heathen superstition may not have been without
their weight: whatever were the cause, we find at first a bishopric
co-extensive with a kingdom[852]. But this was obviously an insufficient
provision in the larger districts, as Christianity continued its
triumphant course, and towards the close of the seventh century,
Theodore, the first archbishop who succeeded in uniting all the English
church under his authority, finally accomplished the division of the
larger sees. From this period till the ninth century, when the invasions
of the Northmen threw all the established institutions into confusion,
the English sees appear to have ranked in the following order[853]:—
Province of Canterbury.—1. Lichfield. 2. Leicester. 3. Lincoln. 4.
Worcester. 5. Hereford. 6. Sherborne. 7. Winchester. 8. Elmham. 9.
Dummoc. 10. London. 11. Rochester. 12. Selsey.
Province of York.—1. Hexham. 2. Lindisfarn. 3. Whiterne.
-----
Footnote 852:
Kent is probably only an apparent exception. Rochester can hardly have
been otherwise than the capital of a subordinate kingdom.
Footnote 853:
I neglect temporary changes, such as that of John at Beverley, Birinus
at Dorchester, etc., and confine myself to the settled and usual
location of the sees, and what appears to have been the established
order of their precedence. One of the most solemn ecclesiastical acts
on record, namely that of archbishop Æðelheard’s synod at Clofeshoo,
in 803, by which the integrity of the see of Canterbury was restored,
was signed by the following prelates in the order in which they stand,
and which usually prevails in the rest of the charters:—
1. Æðelheard, archbishop of Canterbury.
2. Aldwulf, bishop of Lichfield.
3. Werenberht, bishop of Leicester.
4. Eádwulf, bishop of Sidnacester (Lincoln).
5. Deneberht, bishop of Worcester.
6. Wulfheard, bishop of Hereford.
7. Wigberht, bishop of Sherborne.
8. Ealhmund, bishop of Winchester.
9. Alhheard, bishop of Elmham.
10. Tidfrið, bishop of Dunwich.
11. Osmund, bishop of London.
12. Wermund, bishop of Rochester.
13. Wihthun, bishop of Selsey.—Cod. Dipl. No. 1024.
The archbishop of York, and his suffragans, it appears, did not care
to attend a synod which restored his rival of Canterbury to a
predominant authority in England.
-----
Thus, inclusive of Canterbury and York, there were seventeen sees. At a
later period some of these perished altogether, as Lindisfarn, Hexham,
Whiterne and Dummoc; while others were formed, as Durham for
Northumberland, Dorchester for Lincoln; and in Wessex, Ramsbury
(Hræfnesbyrig, Ecclesia Corvinensis) for Wilts, Wells for Somerset,
Crediton for Devonshire, and during some time, St. Petroc’s or Padstow
for Cornwall.
The earliest bishops among the Saxons were necessarily strangers. Romans
occupied the cathedral thrones of Canterbury, Rochester and London, and
for a while that of York also. Northumberland next passed for a short
time under the direction of Keltic prelates,—Scots as they were then
called,—who held no communion with the Romish missionaries. Felix, a
Burgundian, but not an Arian, evangelized Eastanglia; Birinus, a Frank,
carried the faith to Wessex. But as these men gradually left the scene
of their labours, which must have been much increased by the difficulty
of teaching populations who spoke a strange language, by means of
interpreters, their Saxon pupils addressed themselves to the work with
exemplary zeal and earnestness; it was very soon found that the island
could supply itself with prelates fully equal to all the duties of their
position; and to a mere accident was the English church indebted at the
end of the seventh century for a foreign metropolitan, in the person of
Theodore of Tarsus. Although we may reasonably suppose the traditions of
the heathen priesthood not to have been without some weight, we must not
conclude that these alone will account for the number of noble
Anglosaxons whom, from the earliest period, we find devoting themselves
to the service of the church, and clothed with its highest dignities. It
must be admitted that nowhere else did Christianity make a deeper or
more lasting impression than in England. Not only do we see the high
nobles and the near relatives of kings among the bishops and
archbishops, but kings themselves—warlike and fortunate kings—suddenly
and voluntarily renouncing their temporal advantages, retiring into
monasteries, and abdicating their crowns, that they may wander as
pilgrims to the shrines of the Apostles in Rome. We find princesses and
other high-born ladies devoting themselves to a life of celibacy, or
separating from their husbands to preside over congregations of nuns:
well descended men cannot rest till they have wandered forth to carry
the tidings of redemption into distant and barbarous lands; a life of
abstinence and hardship, to be crowned by a martyr’s death, seems to
have been hungered and thirsted after by the wealthy and the
noble,—assuredly an extraordinary and an edifying spectacle among a race
not at all adverse to the pomps and pleasures of worldly life, a
spectacle which compels us to believe in the deep, earnest,
conscientious spirit of self-sacrifice and love of truth which
characterized the nation.
The complete organization of the ecclesiastical power in England appears
to have been effected by Theodore, who is distinctly affirmed to have
been the first prelate whose authority the whole church of the Angles
consented to admit[854]. There is reason to suppose that this was not
accomplished without some difficulty, for it involved the division of
previously existing dioceses, and the consequent diminution of
previously existing power and influence. Theodore, like Augustine, had
been despatched from Rome to England, under very peculiar circumstances.
After the death of Deusdedit, archbishop of Canterbury, a difficulty
appears to have arisen about the election of a successor, in consequence
of which the see remained for some time without an occupant[855]. At
length however Oswiú of Northumberland and Ecgberht of Kent undertook to
put a period to a state of affairs which must have caused grave
inconveniences[856], and accordingly they took, with the election and
consent of the church, a presbyter of the late archbishop, named
Wigheard, and sent him to Rome for consecration. It is most remarkable
that we hear nothing of any co-operation on the part of Wessex in this
step, or of the powerful king of Mercia, Wulfhere, who had succeeded in
establishing the independence of his country against all the efforts of
Oswiú himself. Shortly after his arrival in Rome Wigheard died, and
after some correspondence with the English kings, Vitalian undertook to
provide a prelate for the vacant see[857]. Various difficulties being
finally overcome, his choice fell upon Theodore of Tarsus, who
accordingly was despatched to England with the power of an archbishop,
and solemnly enthroned at Canterbury in 668.
-----
Footnote 854:
“Isque primus erat in archiepiscopis, cui omnis Anglorum aecclesia
manus dare consentiret.” Beda, II. E. iv. 2.
Footnote 855:
Deusdedit died Nov. 28th, 664. The Saxon Chronicle and Florence assign
667 as the date of Wigheard’s mission, but this is hardly reconcilable
with the facts of the case, and appears to be an erroneous calculation
founded on the circumstance that the see was vacant three years, and
that Theodore arrived only in 668. Some time must have elapsed from
Wigheard’s departure for Rome, until the interchange of letters
between Oswiú and Pope Vitalian, and the completion of the
negotiations which resulted in Theodore’s appointment.
Footnote 856:
The want of an archbishop to give canonical ordination to bishops,
seems to have forced itself upon their notice. “Hunc antistitem
ordinandum Romam miserunt; quatenus accepto ipso gradu
archiepiscopatus, catholicos per omnem Britanniam aecclesiis Anglorum
ordinare posset antistites.” Beda, H. E. iv. 29. It was at all events
a good argument, though the difficulty was one which Gaul had often
arranged.
Footnote 857:
This event has naturally been discussed with very different views. The
Roman Catholics construe it to imply a recognized right in the Roman
See: the Protestants look upon it as rather a piece of skilful
manœuvring on the part of the Pope. Lappenberg (i. 172) says: “The
death of Wigheard was taken advantage of by the Pope to set over the
Anglosaxon bishops a primate devoted to his views.” “This opportunity
was not lost upon Italian subtlety. Vitalian, then Pope, determined
upon trying whether the Anglosaxons would receive an archbishop
nominated by himself.” Soames, Anglos. Church, p. 78. Against this, of
course, Lingard has expatiated in his Hist. and Antiq. i. 75. He
attributes the selection of Theodore to a _request_ of the two kings,
and adds in a note: “That such was their request is certain. Beda
calls Theodore, who was selected by Vitalian, ‘the archbishop asked
for by the king’—episcopum quem petierant a Romano pontifice (Bed. iv.
c. 1)—and ‘the bishop whom the country had anxiously sought’—doctorem
veritatis, quem patria sedula quaesierat. Id. Op. Min. p. 142.
Vitalian, in his answer to the two kings, reminds them that their
letter requested him to choose a bishop for them in the case of
Wigheard’s death—‘secundum vestrorum scriptorum tenorem.’ Bed. iii.
29. Certainly these passages must have escaped the eye of Mr. Soames,
who boldly, and without an atom of authority for his statement,
ascribes the choice of a bishop by Vitalian to Italian subtlety.” Mr.
Churton in his Early English Church, p. 67, inclines also to this
view, which is again combated by Soames in his Latin Church, etc. p.
80 _seq._; but this author with a happy skill which he sometimes
manifests of not seeing disagreeable data, says nothing of the “_quem
petierant_ a Romano pontifice.” Yet in these words lies the matter of
the whole dispute. It certainly does not appear from Vitalian’s
letter, that any such contingency as Wigheard’s death was provided for
by the kings; this is in itself extremely improbable, and the
assertion is an evidence of Lingard’s rashness where the interests of
his party are concerned. But is it not on the other hand very probable
that more letters passed between the kings and the pope than are now
recorded? that Vitalian announced Wigheard’s death, and that the
kings, conscious of the difficulty of coming to any second settlement
in such a state of society as their own (especially as they were but
two of four very equally poised authorities), fairly asked him to
solve the problem for them? I greatly doubt the strict adherence to
canonical forms of election in the seventh century; and indeed
throughout the history of the English church it appears that the kings
dealt very much at their own pleasure in the appointment of bishops.
It could hardly be otherwise with a clergy dispersed through so many
heterogeneous fractions as then made up England: and if it is now much
to be desired that the appointment by the central authority should
spare the church the scandal which might ensue from the canonical
election of bishops—strictly construed—(for acted upon strictly it
never has been under any orderly and strong government, since
Christianity began), it was much more necessary then, when the clergy
belonged to hostile populations. That central authority was royalty,
recognized wherever found.
-----
Hitherto there had been churches in England; henceforward there was a
church,—and a body of clergy existing as a central institution, in spite
of the separation and frequent hostility of the states to which the
clergy themselves belonged. No doubt the common rank and interests of
the bishops, as well as the necessity for canonical consecration had
from the first produced some sort of union among them. But from the time
of Theodore we find at least the southern prelates assembling in
provincial synods, under the direction of the metropolitan, to declare
the faith as it was found among them, establish canons of discipline and
rules of ecclesiastical government, and generally to make such
arrangements as appeared likely to conduce to the well-being of the
church, without regard to the severance of the kingdoms. To these
synods, which though not holden twice a year in accordance with
Theodore’s plan, and indeed with the ancient canons of the church, were
yet of frequent occurrence, the bishops repaired, accompanied by some of
their co-presbyters and monks, and when the business before them was
completed, returned to promulgate in their dioceses the regulations of
the council, and spread among their clergy the news of what was doing in
other lands for the furtherance of the Gospel.
The respectful deference paid to the Roman See was thus naturally
converted into a much closer and more intimate relation. Saxon England
was essentially the child of Rome; whatever obligations any of her
kingdoms may have been under to the Keltic missionaries,—and I cannot
persuade myself that these were at all considerable,—she certainly had
entirely lost sight of them at the close of the seventh and the
commencement of the eighth centuries. Her national bishops, as the Kelts
and disciples of the Kelts have been unjustifiably called, had either
retired in disgust, like Colman, or been deposed like Winfrið, or
apostatized like Cedd. It was to Rome that her nobles and prelates
wandered as pilgrims; it was the interests of Rome that her missionaries
preached in Germany[858] and Friesland; it was to her that the
archbishops elect looked for their pall[859]—the sign of their dignity:
to the Pope her prelates appealed for redress, or for authority: in the
eighth century we find one pope sanctioning the formation of a third
archiepiscopal see, in defiance of the metropolitan of Canterbury; and
in the first year of the ninth century we find this new arrangement
abrogated by the same authority. Lastly it was England that gave to Rome
Wilfrið and Willibrord and Adelberht, Boniface and Willibald, Anselm and
Becket and Robert of Winchelsea.
-----
Footnote 858:
Boniface found an ancient church even in Germany. Vit. Bonif. Pertz,
ii. 341. He rendered it a papal one. It is no doubt difficult to
imagine how it could have been originally anything else; but at all
events his efforts brought it back into subjection to the Vatican.
“D’abord les églises de la Grand Bretagne et de l’Allemagne, fondées
par les missionaires du pape, furent toutes rattachées et subordonnées
à l’épiscopat Romain. C’est surtout Saint Boniface, le fondateur de
l’église Allemande, mort en 755, qui reserra cette union. Ou diminua
partout les métropolitains, et les simples évêques devinrent plus
indépendans par leurs rapports directs avec Rome.” Warnkönig, Hist. du
Droit Belgique, p. 163. The spirit in which Boniface considered his
mission, which he himself calls _apostolicae sedis legatio_ (Vita,
Pertz, ii. 342) is apparent from the correspondence with Pope Gregory
III. in 731. “Denuo Romam nuntii eius venerunt, sanctumque sedis
Apostolicae pontificem adlocuti sunt, eique prioris amicitiae foedera,
quae misericorditer ab antecessore suo, Sancto Bonifatio eiusque
familiae conlata sunt, manifestaverunt; sed et devotam eius in futurum
humilitatis apostolicae sedi subiectionem narraverunt, et ut
familiaritati ac communioni sancti pontificis atque totius sedis
apostolicae ex hoc devote subiectus communicaret, quemadmodum edocti
erant, praecabantur. Statim ergo sedis apostolicae Papa pacificum
profert responsum, et suam sedisque apostolicae familiaritatis et
amicitiae communionem tam sancto Bonifatio quam etiam sibi subiectis
condonavit, sumptoque archiepiscopatus pallio, cum muneribus
diversisque sanctorum reliquiis legatos honorifice remisit ad
patriam.” Pertz, ii. 345. With such provocation, the Popes would
indeed have acted an unwise part in not availing themselves of the
ready service of their Anglosaxon converts!
Footnote 859:
Mr. Soames very cursorily says: “Augustine received about the same
time from Gregory the insidious compliment of a pall. He was charged
also to establish twelve suffragan bishops, and to select an
archbishop for the see of York. Over this prelate, who was likewise to
have under his jurisdiction twelve suffragan sees, he had a personal
grant of precedence. After his death the two archbishops were to rank
according to priority of consecration.” Anglosax. Church, p. 55. The
language, thus most carefully selected, is intended to meet any
argument which might be derived from the despatch of the pallium, in
token of assumption of authority by the Pope. But there can be little
doubt, whatever its original character may have been, that this
distinction was both intended and accepted as a mark of the
archiepiscopal dignity, and as conveying powers which without it could
not be exercised. This was obviously the way Beda understood it, and
Gregory meant it to be understood. In his answers to Augustine’s
questions, one of which referred to the relations which were to
subsist between the Gallican and English churches, the pope thus
refuses to give his missionary any authority over the continental
bishops:—“In Galliarum episcopis nullam tibi auctoritatem tribuimus;
quia ab antiquis praedecessorum meorum temporibus pallium Arelatensis
episcopus accepit, quem nos privare auctoritate percepta minime
debemus.” Hist. Eccl. i. 27. And in a subsequent letter to Augustine
the same pope writes:—“Et quia nova Anglorum aecclesia ad omnipotentis
Dei gratiam, eodem Domino largiente et te laborante, perducta est,
usum tibi pallii in ea ad sola missarum solemnia agenda concedimus:
_ita ut_ per loca singula duodecim episcopos ordines, qui tuae
subiaceant ditioni, quatenus Lundoniensis civitatis episcopus semper
in posterum a synodo propria debeat consecrari, atque honoris pallium
ab hac sancta et apostolica, cui Deo auctore deservio, sede precipiat.
Ad Eburacam vero civitatem te volumus episcopum mittere, quem ipse
iudicaveris ordinare; ita duntaxat, ut si eadem civitas cum finitimis
locis verbum Dei receperit, ipse quoque duodecim episcopos ordinet, et
metropolitani honore perfruatur; _quia_ ei quoque, si vita comes
fuerit, pallium tribuere Domino favente disponimus.” Beda, Hist. Eccl.
i. 29. On which Beda remarks:—“Misit etiam litteras in quibus
significat se ei pallium direxisse, simul et insinuat qualiter
episcopos in Britannia constituere debuisset.” Thirty years later,
Pope Honorius sent palls both to Paulinus of York and Honorius of
Canterbury, with letters to Eádwini of Northumberland; in these he
says:—“Duo pallia utrorumque metropolitanorum, id est Honorio et
Paulino direximus, ut dum quis eorum de hoc saeculo ad Auctorem suum
fuerit arcessitus, in loco ipsius alter episcopum ex hac nostra
auctoritate debeat subrogare.” Hist. Eccl. ii. 17. The reason of this
Beda tells us was the inconvenience of going to Rome for
archiepiscopal ordination:—“Ne sit necesse ad Romanam usque civitatem
per tam prolixa terrarum et maris spatia pro ordinando archiepiscopo
semper fatigari.” Hist. Eccl. ii. 18. We learn from Honorius’s letter
to the archbishop of Canterbury, that this alleviation was granted at
the petition of the English kings and prelates:—“Et tam iuxta vestram
petitionem, quam filiorum nostrorum regum, vobis per praesentem
nostram praeceptionem, vice beati Petri apostolorum principis,
auctoritatem tribuimus, ut quando unum ex vobis Divina ad se iusserit
gratia vocari, is qui superstes fuerit, alterum in loco defuncti
debeat episcopum ordinare. Pro qua etiam re singula vestrae dilectioni
pallia pro eadem ordinatione celebranda direximus, ut per nostrae
praeceptionis auctoritatem possitis Deo placitam ordinationem
efficere: quia ut haec vobis concederemus, longa terrarum marisque
intervalla, quae inter nos ac vos obsistunt, ad haec nos condescendere
coegerunt.” Hist. Eccl. ii. 18. The archiepiscopate in York ceased
after Paulinus’s expulsion till 735, when it was restored, king
Eádberht having succeeded in obtaining a pall for his brother
Ecgberht. The short chronicle appended to Beda says:—“Ecgberhtus
episcopus, accepto ab apostolica sede pallio, primus post Paulinum in
archiepiscopatum confirmatus est; ordinavitque Fridubertum et
Friduwaldum episcopos.” See also Chron. Sax. an. 735; Sim. Dunelm. an.
735. The following archbishops are recorded to have received their
palls from Rome:—
Canterbury:— Tátwine. Sim. Dun. an. 733.
Nóðhelm. Chron. Sax. an. 736. Flor. Wig. an. 736.
Cúðberht. Rog. Wend. i. 227. an. 740.
Eánberht. Chron. Sax. an. 764. Flor. Wig. an. 764.
Wulfred. Chron. Sax. an. 804. Flor. Wig. an. 804. Rog.
Wend. an. 806.
Ceólnóð. Chron. Sax. an. 831. Flor. Wig. an. 831.
York:— Ecgberht. an. 745. Rog. Wend. i. 228.
Alberht. Sim. Dun. an. 773.
Eánbald I. Chron. Sax. an. 780. Flor. Wig. an. 781. Sim. Dun.
an. 780.
Eánbald II. Chron. Sax. an. 797. Sim. Dun. an. 797.
Oswald. Flor. Wig. an. 973.
At some period however, which our chroniclers do not note, the custom
arose for the archbishop not to receive, but to fetch his pallium. The
following cases are recorded:—
Canterbury:— Ælfsige. Flor. Wig. an. 959.
Dúnstán. Flor. Wig. an. 960.
Sigeríc. Chron. Sax. an. 990.
Ælfríc. Chron. Sax. an. 995.
Ælfheáh. Chron. Sax. an. 1007.
Æðelnóð. Chron. Sax. an. 1022. Flor. Wig. an. 1022.
Rodbyrht. Chron. Sax. an. 1048.
York:— Ælfríc. Chron. Sax. an. 1026. Flor. Wig. an. 1026.
Aldred. Rog. Wend. i. 502. an. 1061.
Wendover states that when Offa determined to erect Lichfield into an
archbishopric, he sent to Pope Adrian for a pall; and that the pall
was accordingly dispatched, Rog. Wend. i. 138.
The avarice of the Roman See was thus fed fat: but the inconveniences
were felt to be so intolerable, that in 1031 Cnut made them the
subject of an especial remonstrance to the Pope. In his letter to the
Witan of England he says, writing from Rome:—“Conquestus sum iterum
coram domino papa et mihi valde displicere causabar, quod mei
archiepiscopi in tantum angariabantur immensitate pecuniarum quae ab
eis expetebatur, dum pro pallio accipiendo, secundum morem,
apostolicam sedem peterent; decretumque est ne ita deinceps fieret.”
Epist. Cnut. apud Flor. Wig. 1031. The question is not whether the
Roman See had a right to make a demand, but whether—usurpation or
not—it was acquiesced in and admitted by the Anglosaxon church; and on
that point there can be no dispute.
-----
Although these facts will not suffice to establish that sort of
dependence _de iure_, which zealous Papal partizans have asserted as the
normal condition of the English church, they do indisputably prove that
the example, advice and authority of the See of Rome were very highly
regarded among our forefathers. It was impossible that it should be
otherwise; and there is not the slightest doubt that—despite the Keltic
clergy—the Anglosaxon church looked with affection and respect to Rome
as the source of its own being. Respect and high regard were paid to
Rome in Gaul long before Theodore; but not such submission as our
countrymen, less acquainted no doubt with their danger, were zealous to
pay. Indeed, when we consider the position of the Roman See towards the
North of Europe, during the interval from the commencement of the
seventh till that of the ninth century, we can scarcely escape from the
conclusion that England was the great basis of papal operations, and the
ποῦ στῶ from which Rome moved her world. In the ninth century a
continental author calls the English “maxime familiares apostolicae
sedis[860],” and in the tenth century it was unquestionably England that
made the greatest progress, even if it did not take the initiative with
regard to the revival of monachism and the great question of clerical
celibacy. In short, throughout, the most energetic and successful
missionaries of Rome were Englishmen.
-----
Footnote 860:
“Unde remur, aliquos venerabiles viros aut de Britannia, id est gente
Anglorum, qui maxime familiares apostolicae sedis semper existunt,”
etc. Gest. Abb. Fontanellens. Pertz, ii. 289.
-----
But England nevertheless retained in some sense a national church. Many
circumstances combined to ensure a very considerable amount of
independence in this country. On the continent of Europe the prelates
and clergy whom the invasions of the barbarians found established in the
cities were, in fact, Roman provincials; and this character continued
for a very long time to modify their relations toward the conquerors: in
Britain, either Christianity was never widely and generally spread, or
it retreated before the steady advance of the pagan Saxons. It is
remarkable that we nowhere hear of the existence of Christian churches
before Augustine, except in the territory exclusively British, and in
the household of Æðelberht’s Frankish queen, the latter an exception of
little moment.
But no sooner do the first missionary prelates vanish from the scene,
than we find them replaced by Saxons belonging to the noblest and most
powerful families, and thus connecting the clergy with the state by that
most close and intimate tie which forms the strongest and least
objectionable security for both. Berhtwald, the eighth archbishop of
Canterbury, was a very near relative of the Mercian king Æðelred;
Aldhelm was closely connected with the royal family of Wessex; and even
down to the Conquest we find the scions of the royal and noble houses
occupying distinguished stations in the ministry of the Church. It is
obvious how much this near and intimate association with the national
aristocracy must have tended to diminish the evils of a separate
institution, having some kind of dependence upon a foreign centre; and
when to this it is added that the principal clergy, as ministers of
state and members of the Witena gemót, had a clear and distinct interest
in the maintenance of good government, and a personal share in its
administration, we can easily understand why the clergy were, generally
speaking, kept better within bounds in England than in other
contemporaneous states[861]. Guilty of extravagancies the clergy were
here, no doubt, as elsewhere; but on the whole their position was not
unfavourable to the harmonious working of the state; and the history of
the Anglosaxons is perhaps as little deformed as any by the ambition and
power, and selfish class-interests of the clergy[862]. On the other hand
it cannot be denied that in England, as in other countries, the laity
are under the greatest obligations to them, partly for rescuing some
branches of learning from total neglect, and partly for the counterpoise
which their authority presented to the rude and forcible government of a
military aristocracy. Ridiculous as it would be to affirm that their
influence was never exerted for mischievous purposes, or that this
institution was always free from the imperfections and evils which
belong to all human institutions, it would be still more unworthy of the
dignity of history to affect to undervalue the services which they
rendered to society. If in the pursuit of private and corporate
advantages they occasionally seemed likely to prefer the separate to the
general good, they did no more than all bodies of men have done,—no more
than is necessary to ensure the active co-operation of all bodies of men
in any one line of conduct. But, whatever their class-interests may from
time to time have led them to do, let it be remembered that they existed
as a permanent mediating authority between the rich and the poor, the
strong and the weak, and that, to their eternal honour, they fully
comprehended and performed the duties of this most noble position. To
none but themselves would it have been permitted to stay the strong hand
of power, to mitigate the just severity of the law, to hold out a
glimmering of hope to the serf, to find a place in this world and a
provision for the destitute, whose existence the state did not even
recognize. That the church of Christ does not necessarily and
indispensably imply that form of ministration or constitution called
Episcopal, is certain; but on the other hand let us not listen too
readily to the doctrine which represents episcopacy as inconsistent with
Christianity. To put it only on the lowest grounds, there is great
convenience in it; and though there are no peculiar priests under the
Christian dispensation, it is very useful that there should be persons
specially appointed and educated to perform functions necessary to the
moral and religious training of the people, and superior officers
charged with the inspection over those persons. It would be difficult
for the State to ascertain the condition of its members, as regards the
most important of all considerations,—their moral capability of
obedience to the law,—without such a body of recognized ministers and
recognized inspectors. Accordingly the Anglosaxon State at once
recognized the Bishops as State officers.
-----
Footnote 861:
Every wise and powerful government has treated with deserved
disregard the complaint that the “Spouse of Christ” was in bondage.
In this respect our own country has generally been honourably
distinguished. Boniface—himself an Englishman, papal beyond all his
contemporaries—laments that no church is in greater bondage than the
English,—a noble testimony to the nationality of the institution,
the common sense of the people, and the vigour of the State.
Footnote 862:
Though monks are not strictly speaking the clergy, so many prelates
and presbyters were bound by monastic vows in this country, that I
might be supposed to have fallen into confusion here, and forgotten
the troubles of Eádwig’s reign. But it will be seen hereafter that I
attach little credit to the exaggerations of the monkish authors
respecting those events, and believe their clients to have done much
less mischief than they themselves have recorded, or than their modern
antagonists have credited.
-----