CHAPTER IX.

THE CLERGY AND MONKS.

The almost total absence of documentary evidence leaves us in great

doubt as to the condition of the church in England previous to the

organization brought about by Theodore. It is nevertheless probable that

it followed in all essential points the course which characterized other

missionary establishments. The earliest missionaries were for the most

part monks; but Augustine was accompanied by clerics also[902], and in

every case the conversion of a district was rapidly followed by the

establishment of a cathedral or a corresponding ecclesiastical

foundation. These were at first central stations, from which the

assembled clergy sallied forth to visit the neighbouring villages and

towns, and preach the tidings of salvation: the necessities of daily

provision, the attainment of greater security for their persons, the

mutual aid and consolation in the perils and difficulties of their task,

all supplied motives in favour of a cœnobitical mode of life: monks

and clerics were confounded together through the circumstances of the

adventure in which they shared; nay the very administration of those

rites by which the imagination of the heathen Saxons was so strongly

worked upon, could only be conducted on a sufficiently imposing scale by

an assemblage of ecclesiastics. To this must be added the protection to

be derived from settling on one spot, in the immediate neighbourhood of

a royal vill, and under the safeguard of the royal power: for though the

residences of kings were rarely in cities, yet their proximity offered

much more secure guarantees than the outlying villages and clearings in

the mark; even as the general tendencies of courtly life were likely to

present fewer points of opposition than the characteristic bigotry of

heathen, _i. e._ rural populations. This combination of circumstances

probably led at an early period to that approximation between the modes

of life of monks and clerks, which at the close of the eighth century

Chrodogang succeeded in enforcing in his archbishopric of Metz, but

which had been attempted four centuries earlier by Eusebius of

Vercelli[903]. Both the Roman and Scottish missionaries followed the

same plan, which indeed appears to be the natural one, and to have been

generally adopted on all similar occasions, whether in ancient Germany,

in Peru or in the most modern missions of Australia or New Zealand. In

Beda’s Ecclesiastical History, which in these respects no doubt was

founded upon ancient and contemporary records, we frequently read of

prelates leaving their monasteries (by which general name churches as

well as collections of monks are designated) to preach the Gospel and

administer the rite of baptism in distant villages[904]. But this system

had also inconveniences of no slight character; the distance of the

converts from the church, the necessity for daily superintendence and

continual exhortation on the part of the preacher, the very danger and

fatigue of repeated journeys into rude, uncultivated parts of the

country, must have soon forced upon the clergy the necessity of

providing other machinery than they as yet possessed. The multiplication

of centres of instruction was the first and greatest point to be

ensured; whereby a more constant intercourse between the neophyte and

the missionary might be attained. This had long been secured in other

countries by the appointment of single presbyters to reside in single

districts, under the general direction of the bishop; or, where

circumstances required it, by the settlement of several presbyters under

an archipresbyter or archpriest, who was responsible for the conduct of

his companions. And as the district of the bishop himself commonly went

by the name of a diocese or parish, both these terms were applied to

denote the smaller circuit within which the presbyter was expected to

exert himself for the propagation of the faith, and the due performance

of the established rites, and to perform such functions as had been

entrusted to the ministers of the faithful, for the better management of

the ecclesiastical affairs of the congregation. The custom of the

neighbouring countries of Gaul offered sufficient evidence of the

practicability of such an arrangement, which had long been in use in

older established churches: we may therefore readily suppose that so

beneficial a system would be adopted with all convenient speed in

England. As long as the possessions of the clergy were confined to a

small plot whereon their church was built, and while they depended for

support upon the contributions in kind which the rude piety of their new

converts bestowed, the bishops could naturally not proceed to plant

these clerical colonies of their own authority: though, as soon as they

became masters of vills and manors and estates of their own, they

probably adopted the plan of sending single presbyters into them, partly

to discharge the clerical duties of their station, partly to act as

stewards, administrators or bailiffs of the property, the proceeds of

which were paid over to the episcopal church, and laid out at the

discretion of the bishop[905]. But the zeal of the people could here

assist the benevolent objects of the clergy. The inconvenience of having

a distance to traverse in order to attend the ministrations of religion,

the desire to aid in the meritorious work of the conversion, the earnest

hope to establish a peculiar claim upon the favour of Heaven, nay

perhaps even the less worthy motives of vanity and ambition, disposed

the landowner to raise a church upon his own estate for the use of

himself and his surrounding tenants or friends. From a very early period

this disposition was cultivated and encouraged; and the bishops

relinquished the patronage of the church to the founder, reserving of

course to themselves the canonical subjection and consecration of the

presbyter who was ordained to the title. During the seventh century this

had become common in the Frankish empire, and Theodore followed, or

introduced, the same rule in this country[906]. Whether under this

influence or not, we find churches to have so arisen during his

government of the English sees, whose sole archbishop he was. Beda

incidentally mentions the dedication by John of Beverley of churches,

for Puch and Addi, two Northumbrian noblemen, and these were no doubt

private foundations[907]. We still possess various regulations of

Theodore, and of nearly contemporary prelates, which refer to such

separate churches, proving how very general they had become, and how

strictly they required to be guarded against the avarice or other

unworthy motives of the founders, and the simoniacal practices both of

priest and layman. In the thirty-eighth chapter of his Capitula[908] we

find the following directions:—“Any presbyter who shall have obtained a

parish by means of a price, is absolutely to be deposed, seeing that he

is known to hold it contrary to the discipline of ecclesiastical rule.

And likewise, he who shall by means of money have expelled a presbyter

lawfully ordained to a church, and so have obtained it entirely for

himself; which vice, so widely diffused, is to be remedied with the

utmost zeal. Also it is to be forbidden both to clerks and laics, that

no one shall presume to give any church whatever to a presbyter, without

the licence and consent of the bishop.” These churches frequently were

granted to abbeys or to the bishops themselves; and in the latter case

they were served by priests especially appointed thereunto from the

cathedral[909]. At this early period when tithes were not demandable as

matter of right, and when the founders of these churches were already

betraying a tendency to speculate in church-building, by claiming for

themselves the _altare_ or produce of the voluntary oblations of the

faithful, the bishops found it necessary to insist that every church

should be endowed with a sufficient glebe or estate in land: the amount

fixed was one hide, equivalent to the estate of a single family, which,

properly managed, would support the presbyter and his attendant clerks.

Archbishop Ecgberht rules[910]: “Ut unicuique aecclesiae vel una mansa

integra absque alio servitio attribuatur, et presbyteri in eis

constituti non de decimis neque de oblationibus fidelium nec de domibus,

neque de atriis vel hortis iuxta aecclesiam positis, neque de

praescripta mansa, aliquod servitium faciant, praeter aecclesiasticum:

et si aliquod amplius habuerint, inde senioribus suis, secundum patriae

morem, debitum servitium impendant.” And this regulation, though

probably already established by custom, obtained the force of law in the

Frankish empire, by a constitution of Hludwich in 816[911]. This

glebe-land the bishop seems not to have been able to interfere with, so

as to alienate it from the particular church, in favour of another, even

when both churches were within his own subjection[912].

Footnote 902:

“Clerici extra sacros ordines constituti.” Beda, H. E. i. 27. Gregory

contemplated the marriage and separate dwelling of these persons. But

for a long time it is improbable that any such arrangement could take

place. Augustine separated his monks from the canons who had

accompanied him (the presbyters he was to obtain in the neighbouring

countries of Gaul: see Gregory’s Epistles to Theodoric and Theodbert,

and to Brunhild; Bed. Op. Min. ii. 234, 235), placing the latter in

Christchurch, Canterbury. See Lingard, Ang. Sax. Church, i. 152, 153.

But this sort of separation cannot have been always practicable. The

Scottish missionaries were not all monks. Beda, H. E. iii. 3.

Footnote 903:

Neander, Gesch. der Relig. u. Kirche, i. 322; ii. 553. Lingard, Aug.

Sax. Church, i. 150. Chrodogang’s institution is thus described by

Paulus in his Gest. Episc. Mettens. “Hic clerum adunavit, et ad instar

coenobii intra claustrorum septa conversari fecit, normamque eis

instituit, qualiter in ecclesia militare deberent; quibus annonas

vitaeque subsidia sufficienter largitus est, ut perituris vacare

negotiis non indigentes, divinis solummodo officiis excubarent.”

Pertz, ii. 268. Chrodogang’s rule is preserved in Labbé, Concil. vii.

1444. Harduin, Concil. iv. 1181. See Eichhorn, Deut. Staatsr. i. 760,

§ 179. It is in many respects similar to the rule of Benedict of

Nursia, upon which it appears to have been modelled.

Footnote 904:

“Quadam autem die dum parochiam suam circuiens, monita salutis omnibus

ruribus, casis et viculis largiretur, nec non etiam nuper baptizatis

ad accipiendam Spiritus sancti gratiam manum imponeret,” etc. Beda,

Vit. Cuthb. c. 29. This however is perhaps rather to be considered as

an episcopal visitation. But there is abundant evidence that at first

the custom was such as the text describes. It is said thus of Aidan,

the Scottish bishop in Northumberland: “Erat in villa regia non longe

ab urbe de qua praefati sumus [i. e. Bamborough]. In hac enim habens

aecclesiam et cubiculum, saepius ibidem diverti ac manere, atque inde

ad praedicandum circumquaque exire consueverat: quod ipsum et in aliis

villis regis facere solebat, utpote nil propriae possessionis, excepta

aecclesia sua et adiacentibus agellulis, habens.” Beda, H. E. iii. 17.

This was a small wooden church, and certainty never a cathedral. But

the early custom of the Scottish church in Northumberland is further

described by Beda: and one can only lament that it was not much longer

maintained: for his own words show that he is contrasting it with the

custom of his own times, nearly a century later; he says: “Quantae

autem parsimoniae, cuiusque continentiae fuerit ipse [i. e. Colman]

cum praedecessoribus suis, testabatur etiam locus ille quem regebant,

ubi abeuntibus eis, excepta aecclesia, paucissimae domus repertae

sunt; hoc est, illae solummodo, sine quibus conversatio civilis esse

nullatenus poterat. Nil pecuniarum absque pecoribus habebant. Si quid

enim pecuniae a divitibus accipiebant, mox pauperibus dabant. Nam

neque ad susceptionem potentium saeculi, vel pecunias colligi vel

domus praevideri necesse fuit, qui nunquam ad aecclesiam nisi

orationis tantum, et audiendi verbi Dei causa veniebant.... Tota enim

fuit tunc solicitudo doctoribus illis Deo serviendi, non saeculo; tota

cura cordis excolendi non ventris. Unde et in magna erat veneratione

tempore illo religionis habitus; ita ut ubicunque clericus aliquis aut

monachus adveniret, gaudentur ab omnibus tanquam Dei famulus

exciperetur: etiam si in itinere pergens inveniretur, adcurrebant, et

flexa cervice vel manu signari, vel ore illius se benedici gaudebant;

verbis quoque horum exhortatoriis diligenter auditum praebebant. Set

et diebus Dominicis ad aecclesiam, sive ad monasteria certatim, non

reficiendi corporis, sed audiendi sermonis Dei gratia confluebant: et

si quis sacerdotum in vicum forte deveniret, mox congregati in unum

vicani, verbum vitae ab illo expetere curabant. Nam neque alia ipsis

sacerdotibus aut clericis vicos adeundi, quam praedicandi, baptizandi,

infirmos visitandi, et, ut breviter dicam, animas curandi causa fuit:

qui in tantum erant ab omni avaritiae peste castigati, ut nemo

territoria ac possessiones ad construenda monasteria, nisi a

potentibus saeculi coactus acciperet. Quae consuetudo per omnia

aliquanto post haec tempora in aecclesiis Nordanhymbrorum servata

est.” Bed. H. E. iii. 26. Of Ceadda we learn that after his

consecration as bishop of York, he was accustomed, “oppida, rura,

casas, vicos, castella, propter evangelizandum, non equitando, sed

apostolorum more pedibus incedendo peragrare.” Ibid. iii. 21. About

the same period we learn from Beda, that Cuthbert used to make

circuits for the purpose of preaching: “Erat quippe moris _eo tempore_

populis Anglorum, ut veniente in villam clerico vel presbytero, cuncti

ad eius imperium verbum audituri confluerent.” Ibid. iv. 27. The words

_eo tempore_ also show that in Beda’s time this custom was no longer

observed, which is naturally explained by the existence of

parish-churches. The custom of itinerant preachers in the west of

England is also noted about the same period, viz. 680. “Cum vero

aliqui, sicut illis regionibus moris est, praesbyteri sive clerici

populares vel laicos praedicandi causa adiissent, et ad villam

domumque praefati patrisfamilias venissent,” etc. Vit. Bonifac. Pertz,

ii. 334.

Footnote 905:

If a bishop found it convenient to build a church out of his own

diocese, the ecclesiastical authority remained to the bishop in whose

diocese it was built. “Si quis episcopus in alienae civitatis

territorio aecclesiam aedificare disponit, vel pro agri sui aut

aecclesiastici utilitate, vel quacunque sui opportunitate, permissa

licentia, quia prohiberi hoc votum nefas est, non praesumat

dedicationem, quae illi omnimodis reservanda est in cuius territorio

aecclesia assurgit; reservata aedificatori episcopo hac gratia, ut

quos desiderat clericos in re sua videre, ipsos ordinet is cuius

territorium est; vel si iam ordinati sunt, ipsos habere acquiescat: et

omnis aecclesiae ipsius gubernatio ad eum, in cuius civitatis

territorio aecclesia surrexit, pertinebit. Et si quid ipsi aecclesiae

fuerit ab episcopo conditore conlatum, is in cuius territorio est,

auferendi exinde aliquid non habeat potestatem. Hoc solum aedificatori

episcopo credidimus reservandum.” Concil. Arelat. iii. cap. xxxvi.

A.D. 452.

Footnote 906:

Elmham says of Theodore:—“Hic excitavit fidelium voluntatem, ut in

civitatibus et villis aecclesias fabricarentur, parochias

distinguerent, et assensus regios his procuravit, ut siqui

sufficientes essent, super proprium fundum construere aecclesias,

eorundem perpetuo patronatu gauderent; si inter limites alterius

alicuius dominii aecclesias facerent, eiusdem fundi domini notarentur

pro patronis.” Such churches had nevertheless at first not the full

privileges of parish-churches. The twenty-first canon of the Council

of Agda decreed: “Si quis etiam extra parochias, in quibus est

legitimus ordinariusque conventus, oratorium in agro habere voluerit,

reliquis festivitatibus, ut ibi missas teneat, propter fatigationem

familiae, iusta ordinatione permittimus. Pascha vero, Natale Domini,

Epiphania, Ascensionem Domini, Pentecosten, et Natalem sancti Johannis

Baptistae, vel si qui maximi dies in festivitatibus habentur, non nisi

in civitatibus, aut in parochiis teneant. Clerici vero, si qui in

festivitatibus quas supradiximus, in oratoriis, nisi iubente aut

permittente episcopo, missas facere aut tenere voluerint, a communione

pellantur.”—Concil. Agathense, A.D. 506. cap. xxi. That there were at

this period parish-churches in Gaul, served by a single presbyter,

appears from other decisions usually attributed to this council, but

really published by the Council of Albon, held eleven years later.

They are in fact not found in the three oldest MSS. of the Concilium

Agathense. “Diacones vel presbyteri in parochia constituti de rebus

aecclesiae sibi creditis nihil audeant commutare, vendere vel donare,

quia res sacratae Deo esse noscuntur.... Quicquid parochiarum

presbyter de aecclesiastici iuris proprietate distraxerit, inane

habeatur. Presbyter, dum diocesim tenet, de his quae emerit ad

aecclesiae nomen scripturam faciat, aut ab eius quam tenuit aecclesiae

ordinatione discedat.” Concil. Epaonense. A.D. 517. As late as the

time of Eádgár a regulation was made in England as to the payment of

tithe by a landowner who happened to have a church with a churchyard

upon his estate. “If there be any thane who has a church with a

churchyard upon his bookland, let him give the third part of his tithe

to his church. But if any one have a church that has no churchyard,

let him give his priest what he will out of the nine parts,”—that is

out of what remains after the payment of his tithe to the cathedral

church. Eádg. i. § 2. Thorpe, i. 262. Probably there were many such

churches in existence, which had descended together with the estates

from the first founders, and whose owners could not agree with the

ecclesiastical authorities as to their liabilities. The right of

patronage was abused unfortunately at a very early period, both by

clerics and laymen, as we learn abundantly from the decrees of the

several provincial councils.

Footnote 907:

Beda, Hist. Eccl. v. 4, 5.

Footnote 908:

Thorpe, ii. 73. Kunstmann, Poenit. p. 121.

Footnote 909:

As early as 587, I find a grant of a parish-church to the monastery of

St. Peter at Lyons, by Gerart and his wife Gimbergia, on the ground of

their daughter being professed there: “propterea cedimus et donamus

nos vobis aliquid de rebus propriis iuris nostri ... hoc est ecclesia

de Darnas cum decimis et parochia.” Bréquigny, Dipl. Chartar. i. 83.

Bréquigny, Mabillon, and the editors of the Gallia Nova Christiana,

all concur in recognising the genuineness of this charter.

Footnote 910:

Excerpt. Ecgberhti, § 25. Thorpe, ii. 100.

Footnote 911:

“Volens etiam unamquamque aecclesiam habere proprios sumptus, ne per

huiusmodi inopiam cultus negligerentur divini, inseruit praedicto

edicto, ut super singulas aecclesias mansus tribueretur unus, cum

pensatione legitima et servo et ancilla.” Vita Hludovici Imp. Pertz,

ii. 622. The tenth chapter of Hludwich’s capitulary is drawn up in the

same words as Ecgberht uses, with the sole exception of the Frankish

_mansus_ for the English _mansa_, and it is therefore probable that

both drew from some common and early source; unless indeed we suppose

that the Frankish clergy thought the English custom worthy of

imitation. The proper name for this landed foundation is _dos

aecclesiae_, or as it is called in the Langobardic law (lib. iii. tit.

i. § 46), _mansus aecclesiasticus_. The result of this dotation is

very evident in the next following chapter of the above-quoted

capitulary, by which parish-churches are obviously intended. Cap. xi.

“Statutum est ut, postquam hoc impletum fuerit, unaquaeque aecclesia

suum Presbyterum habeat, ubi id fieri facultas providente episcopo

permiserit.”

Footnote 912:

“Non licet abbati, neque episcopo, terram aecclesiae convertere ad

aliam, quamvis ambae in potestate eius sint. Si mutare vult aecclesiae

terram, cum consensu amborum sit. Si quis vult monasterium suum in

alio loco ponere, cum concilio episcopi et fratrum suorum faciat, et

dimittat in priorem locum presbyterum ad ministeria aecclesiae.”

Capit. Theodori. Thorpe, ii. 64.

-----

But although many churches may have arisen in this manner, a large

proportion of which gradually found their way into the hands of bishops

and abbots, and although these last may have erected churches, as the

necessities of the case demanded, in the various districts over which

they exercised rights of property, the greater number of parish-churches

(_plebes_, _aecclesiae baptismales_, _tituli maiores_) had probably a

very different origin. It had been shown that in all likelihood every

Mark had its religious establishment, its _fanum_, _delubrum_, or

_sacellum_, as the Latin authors call them, its _hearh_, as the

Anglosaxon no doubt designated them[913]; and further, that the priest

or priests attached to these heathen churches had lands—perhaps freewill

offerings too—for their support. It has also been shown that a

well-grounded plan of turning the _religio loci_ to account was acted

upon by all the missionaries, and that wherever a substantial building

was found in existence, it was taken possession of for the behoof of the

new religion. Under such circumstances it would seem that nothing could

be more natural than the establishment of a baptismal church in every

independent mark that adopted Christianity, and that the substitution of

one creed for the other not only did not require the abolition of the

old machinery, but would be much facilitated by retaining it. It is in

this manner then that I understand the assertions of Beda and others,

that certain missionary prelates established churches _per loca_, such

churches being certainly not cathedrals[914] or abbey-churches. There

cannot be the least reason to doubt that parish-churches were generally

established in the time of Beda, less than half a century after the

period to which most of the instances in the notes refer[915]: and it is

not very probable that they were all owing to private liberality. In a

similar manner probably arose the numerous parish-churches which before

the close of the eighth century were founded, especially by the English

missionaries, on the continent of Europe[916]. Thus in the seventh

century in England the ecclesiastical machinery consisted of episcopal

churches served by a body of clerks or monks,—sometimes united under the

same rule, and a sufficient number of whom had the necessary orders of

priests, deacons and the like; probably also churches served by a number

of presbyters under the guidance of an archipresbyter or

archpriest[917], bearing some resemblance to our later collegiate

foundations; and numerous parish-churches established on the sites of

the ancient fanes in the marks, or erected by the liberality of kings,

bishops and other landowners on their own manorial estates. The wealthy

and powerful had also their own private chaplains, who performed the

rites of religion in their oratories[918], and who even at this early

period probably bore the name of handpreostas, by which in much later

times they were distinguished from the túnpreostas, village or parochial

priests[919].

-----

Footnote 913:

Besinga hearh, _fanum_ Besingorum. Cod. Dipl. No. 994.

Footnote 914:

For example, of the Scotch missionaries about the year 635, Beda

reports as follows: “Exin coepere plures per dies de Scottorum regione

venire Brittaniam, atque illis Anglorum provinciis quibus regnavit rex

Osuuald, magna devotione verbum fidei praedicare, et credentibus

gratiam baptismi, quicumque sacerdotali erant gradu praediti,

ministrare. Construebantur ergo aecclesiae per loca, confluebant ad

audiendum verbum populi gaudentes, donabantur munere regis

possessiones, et territoria ad instituenda monasteria.” Hist. Eccl.

iii. 3. Again in Essex, between 650 and 660: “Qui, [i. e. Ced] accepto

gradu episcopatus, rediit ad provinciam, et maiori auctoritate caeptum

opus explens, fecit per loca aecclesias, presbyteros et diaconos

ordinavit, qui se in verbo fidei et ministerio baptizandi adiuvarent,

maxime in civitate quae lingua Saxonum Ythancaestir appellatur; sed et

in illa quae Tilaburh cognominatur; quorum prior locus est in ripa

Pentae amnis, secundus in ripa Tamensis; in quibus collecto examine

famulorum Christi, disciplinam vitae regularis, in quantum rudes adhuc

capere poterant, custodire docuit.” Hist. Eccl. iii. 22. About 690,

Beda says of Cúðberht, “Plures per regiones illas aecclesias, sed et

monasteria nonnulla construxit.” H. E. iv. 28. And it is difficult to

understand the passage about to be cited of anything but heathen

temples in the marks, which the zeal of the bishop of Mercia,

Gearoman, converted into Christian churches, that is separate

parish-churches. A pestilence raged in Essex: one of its kings,

Sigheri, apostatized together with all his part of the people, “and

set about restoring their deserted temples, and adoring images.” To

correct this error, Wulfheri of Mercia, the superior king, sent his

bishop Gearoman: “qui multa agens solertia ... longe lateque omnia

pervagatus, et populum et regem praefatum ad viam iustitiae reduxit:

adeo ut relictis, sive destructis fanis arisque quas fecerant,

aperirent aecclesias, ac nomen Christi, cui contradixerant, confiteri

gauderent, magis cum fide resurrectionis in illo mori, quam in

perfidiae sordibus inter idola vivere cupientes.” Hist. Eccl. iii. 30.

This was in 665.

Footnote 915:

In his Poenitential he gives a general direction as to the penance of

the parish priest who loses his chrism. He says: “Qui autem in plebe

suo [_var._ suum] chrisma perdideret, et eam invenerit, xl dies vel

iii quadragesimas poeniteat.” Bed. Poenit. xxiv. Kunstm. Poenit. p.

165.

Footnote 916:

“Cumque aecclesiarum esset non minima in Hassis et Thyringea multitudo

extructa, et singulis singuli providerentur custodes,” etc. Vit.

Bonif. Pertz, ii. 346. “Praefato itaque regni eius tempore, servus Dei

Willehadus per Wigmodiam aecclesias coepit construere, ac presbyteros

super eas ordinare, qui libere populis monita salutis, ac baptismi

conferrent gratiam.” Vit. Willehad. Pertz, ii. 381. “Aecclesias quoque

destructas restauravit, probatasque personas qui populis monita

salutis darent, singulis quibusque locis praeesse disposuit.” Ibid.

ii. 383. “Testes quoque aecclesiae quas per loca singula construxit,

testes et famulantium Dei congregationes quas aliquibus coadunavit in

locis.” Vit. Liutgari, Pertz, ii. 409. “Itaque more solito, cum omni

aviditate et sollicitudine rudibus Saxonum populis studebat in

doctrina prodesse, erutisque ydolatriae spinis, verbum Dei diligenter

per loca singula serere, aecclesias construere, et per eas singulos

ordinare presbyteros, quos verbi Dei cooperatores sibi ipsi

nutriverat.” Ibid. ii. 411. He also founded a church of canons,

“monasterium, sub regula canonica dominio famulantium,” which

afterwards became a cathedral. When Liutgar and his companions landed

on the little island of Helgoland, they destroyed the heathen temples

and built Christian churches. “Pervenientes autem ad eandem insulam,

destruxerunt omnia eiusdem Fosetis fana quae illuc fuere constructa,

et pro eis Christi fabricaverunt aecclesias.” Pertz, ii. 410. In like

manner Willibrord in Frisia established Christian churches on the

sites of the heathen fanes. “Simul et reliquias beatorum apostolorum

ac martyrum Christi ab eo sperans accipere, ut dum in gente cui

praedicaret, destructis idolis aecclesias institueret, haberet in

promptu reliquias sanctorum quas ibi introduceret; quibusque ibidem

depositis, consequenter in eorum honorem quorum essent illae, singula

quaeque loca dedicaret.” Beda, H. E. v. 11. Again, “Plures per

regiones illas aecclesias, sed et monasteria nonnulla construxit.”

Beda, H. E. v. 11. This was consonant with the wise advice of Pope

Gregory to Augustine, already cited vol. i. p. 332, note 2.

Footnote 917:

As late as the tenth century we read of an archipresbyter at the head

of a church at Ely. Hist. Eliensis, Ang. Sac. i. 603.

Footnote 918:

Æðelberht’s queen Beorhte had a chaplain, bishop Liuthart, previous to

the arrival of Augustine. Beda, H. E. i. 25. Paulinus was Æðelburge’s

chaplain before the conversion of Northumberland. Ibid, ii. 9.

Oidilwald king of Deira maintained Caelin, a brother of bishop Ced, in

his family; “qui ipsi et familae ipsius, verbum et sacramenta fidei,

erat enim presbyter, ministrare solebat.” Ibid. iii. 23. Lastly we

read of Wilfrið, that he was chaplain to Alchfrið of Northumberland,

“desiderante rege ut vir tantae eruditionis et religionis sibi

specialiter individuo comitatu sacerdos esset et doctor.” Ibid. v. 19.

Footnote 919:

The distinction is found in the Chron. Saxon, an. 870. The Saxon

handpreostas is translated in a Latin copy by _capellani clerici_; the

Saxon túnpreostas by _de villis suis presbyteri_.

-----

As early as the fifth century the fourth general council (Chalcedon, an.

451) had laid down the rule that the ecclesiastical and political

establishments should be assimilated as much as possible[920]; and as

the central power was represented by the metropolitans and the bishops,

so the subsidiary authorities had their corresponding functionaries in

the parish priests, priests of collegiate churches and their dependents.

We possess a curious parallel drawn by Walafrid Strabo in the earliest

years of the ninth century, on this subject. In his book De Exordiis

Rerum Aecclesiasticarum (cap. 31), he thus compares the civil and

ecclesiastical polities: “Porro sicut comites quidam Missos suos

praeponunt popularibus, qui minores causas determinent, ipsis maiora

reservent, ita quidam episcopi chorepiscopos habent. Centenarii qui et

centuriones et Vicarii, qui per pagos statuti sunt, Presbyteris Plebei,

qui baptismales aecclesias tenent, et minoribus praesunt Presbyteris,

conferri queunt. Decuriones et Decani, qui sub ipsis vicariis quaedam

minora exercent, Presbyteris titulorum possunt comparari. Sub ipsis

ministris centenariorum sunt adhuc minores qui Collectarii,

Quaterniones, et Duumviri possunt appellari, qui colligunt populum, et

ipso numero ostendunt se decanis esse minores. Sunt autem ista vocabula

ab antiquitate mutuata,” etc[921].

-----

Footnote 920:

“Si qua civitas potestate imperiali novata est aut innovatur, civiles

dispositiones et publicas aecclesiasticarum quoque parochiarum ordines

subsequantur.” Conc. Chalc. an. 451. This was an attempt to bring the

state generally into that condition which would have existed had the

church and the empire not been on terms of hostility when the church

first was founded. Had the heathen creed not stood in the way, from

the very first it is probable that the praefect of the city and the

mayor of the village would have been universally also the Episcopus

and Chorepiscopus of the community: but the χάρισμα κυβερνησέως and

χάρισμα διδασκαλίας would not then have united in the same hands. The

church assumed form and shape under pressure, and passed from a

molluscous into a vertebrated organization through its struggles to

resist persecution on the one hand and heresy on the other. When it

entered into its alliance with the state its outward constitution was

already completed. That alliance is not a metaphysical entity, but an

historical fact.

Footnote 921:

Let us arrange these offices tabularly:—

_Secular._ _Ecclesiastical._

1. Comes. 1. Episcopus.

α. Missus. α. Chorepiscopus. (The

Archdeacon or the Rural

Dean.)

2. Centenarius. Centurio, or 2. Presbyter Plebei qui

Vicarius: qui per pagos baptismalem aecclesiam

constitutus est. habet,

3. Decurio et Decanus. 3. Minor Presbyter tituli.

4. Collectarius. Quaternio.

Duumvir.

The count (in England Ealdorman) and bishop are on one line, and, if

we may anticipate a little for the sake of illustration, we may add

the Eorl of Cnut’s constitution on the one side, and the Metropolitan

on the other. The Missus of the count and the chorepiscopus (in

Strabo’s time yet existing, though less important than his city

brother) are on the second line; nevertheless the Missus partakes of

the comitial dignity, and the episcopal, though grudgingly, is still

vouchsafed to the chorepiscopus. Next in rank is the Centenarius or

president of the Hundred, the officer of the pagus: his equivalent is

the priest in a church where baptism is performed, the peculiar

distinctive of a parish-church. The Decurio or Decanus is on the same

footing as the German Capellanus or Kaplan, who is indeed ordained to

a title, but not with power to administer the sacraments. The Kaplan

is in truth generally attached to the parish-church—a sort of

curate,—and often succeeds to it. But how is it that the parallel can

be carried no further? Is it that the Deacon’s ordination was not

conclusive enough? Or were Collectarii and Duumviri, beadles,

tax-gatherers and bailiffs not dignified enough to compare with even

acolytes and vergers?

-----

Both in spiritual and in temporal matters, the clergymen thus dispersed

over the face of the country were accountable to the bishop, whose

_vicars_ they were taken to be, that is to say, in whose place (“quorum

vice”) they performed their functions. The “presbyteri plebei” or parish

priests had the administration of all the sacraments and rites, except

those reserved to the bishop,—such for instance as confirmation,

ordination, the consecration of churches, the chrism, and the like:

these were denied them, but they could baptize, marry, bury, and

administer the communion. And gradually, as matter of convenience, they

were invested with the internal jurisdiction, as it was called,—the

“iurisdictio fori interni,”—that is to say confession, penance and

absolution, but solely as representatives and vicars of the bishop[922].

-----

Footnote 922:

“De poentitentibus, ut a presbyteris non reconcilientur, nisi

praecipiente episcopo.—Ex concilio Africano.—Ut poenitentibus,

secundum differentiam peccatorum, episcopi arbitrio poenitentiae

tempora decernantur, et ut presbyter, inconsulto episcopo, non

reconciliet poenitentem, nisi absentia episcopi, necessitate

cogente.... Item, Ex concilio Cartaginensi de eadem re. Aurelius

episcopus dixit: ‘Si quisquam in periculo fuerit constitutus, et se

reconciliari divinis altaribus petierit, si episcopus absens fuerit,

debet utique presbyter consulere episcopum, et sic periclitantem eius

praecepto reconciliare: quam rem debemus salubri concilio roborare.’

Ab universis episcopis dictum est: ‘Placet quod sanctitas vestra

necessaria nos instruere dignata est.’ Romani reconciliant hominem

intra absidem: Graeci nolunt. Reconciliatio penitentium in coena

Domini tantum est ab episcopo, et consummata penitentia: si vero

episcopo dificile sit, presbytero potest, necessitatis causa, praebere

potestatem, ut impleat.” Poen. Theodori. Thorpe, ii. 6. Aurelius of

Carthage died in 430.

-----

It was this gradual extension of the powers of the presbyter that

destroyed the distinction between the collegiate churches served by the

archpriest and his clergy, and the church in which a single presbyter

administered the daily rites of religion. The word _parochia_ which at

first had been properly confined to the former churches, became

generally applied to the latter, when the difference between their

spiritual privileges entirely vanished.

In the theory of the early church, the whole district subject to the

rule of the bishop formed but one integral mass: the parochial clergy

even in spirituals were but the bishop’s ministers or vicars, and in

temporals they were accountable to him for every gain which accrued to

the church. This he was to distribute at his own discretion; it is true

that there were canons of the church which in some degree regulated his

conduct, and probably the presbyters of his cathedral, his witan or

council, did not neglect to offer their advice on so interesting a

subject. To him it belonged to assign the funds for the support of the

parochial clergy, out of the share which was commanded to be set apart

for the sustenance of the ministers of the altar: to him also it

belonged to apportion the share which was directed to be applied to the

repairs of the fabric of the churches in his diocese; and he also had

the immediate distribution of that portion which was devoted to the

charitable purposes of relieving the poor and ransoming the enslaved,—a

noble privilege, more valuable in rude days like those than in our

civilized age it could be, even had the sacrilegious hand of time not

removed it from among the jewels of the mitre.

Occasionally, no doubt, the parochial clergy, though supported by their

glebe-lands, had reason to complain that the hospitality or charity of

the bishop, exceeding the bounds of the canonical division, left them

but an insufficient remuneration for their services: and more than one

council found it useful to impress upon the prelate the claims of his

less fortunate or deserving brethren[923]: but on the whole there can be

little question that piety on the one hand and superstition on the other

combined to supply an ample fund for the support of the clerical body;

and that what with free-will offerings, grants of lands, fines, rents,

tithes, compulsory contributions, and the sums paid in commutation of

penance, the clergy in England were at all times provided not only with

the means of comfort, but even with wealth and splendour. The sources

and nature of ecclesiastical income will form the subject of a separate

chapter.

-----

Footnote 923:

“Et ideo quia Carpentoracte convenientes huiusmodi ad nos querela

pervenit, quod ea quae a quibuscumque fidelibus parochiis conferuntur,

ita ab aliquibus episcopis praesumantur, ut aut parum, aut prope

nihil, aecclesiis quibus collata fuerint relinquatur; ut si aecclesia

civitatis eius cui episcopus praeest, ita est idonea, ut Christo

propitio nihil indigeat, quidquid parochiis fuerit derelictum,

clericis qui ipsis parochiis deserviunt, vel reparationibus

aecclesiarum rationabiliter dispensetur,” etc. Concil. Carpentor. an.

527.

-----

As a body the clergy in England were placed very high in the social

scale: the valuable services which they rendered to their

fellow-creatures,—their dignity as ministers and stewards of the

mysteries of the faith,—lastly the ascetical course of life which many

of them adopted, struck the imagination and secured the admiration of

their rude contemporaries. At first too, they were honourably

distinguished by the possession of arts and learning, which could be

found in no other class; and although the most celebrated of their

commentaries upon the Biblical books or the works of the Fathers, do not

now excite in us any very great feelings of respect, they must have had

a very different effect upon our simple progenitors. Whatever state of

ignorance the body generally may have fallen into in the ninth and tenth

centuries, the seventh and eighth had produced men famous in every part

of Europe for the soundness and extent of their learning. To them

England owed the more accurate calculations which enabled the divisions

of times and seasons to be duly settled; the decency, nay even

splendour, of the religious services were maintained by their skilful

arrangement; painting, sculpture and architecture were made familiar

through their efforts, and the best examples of these civilising arts

were furnished by their churches and monasteries: it is probable that

their lands in general supplied the best specimens of cultivation, and

that the leisure of the cloister was often bestowed in acquiring the art

of healing, so valuable in a rude state of society, liable to many ills

which our more fortunate period could, with ordinary care, escape[924].

Their manuscripts yet attract our attention by the exquisite beauty of

the execution; they were often skilled in music, and other pursuits

which at once delight and humanise us. To them alone could resort be had

for even the little instruction which the noble and wealthy coveted:

they were the only schoolmasters[925]; and those who yet preserve the

affectionate regard which grows up between a generous boy and him to

whom he owed his earliest intellectual training, can judge with what

force such motives acted in a state of society so different from our

own. Moreover the intervention of the clergy in many most important

affairs of life was almost incessant. Marriage—that most solemn of all

the obligations which the man and the citizen can contract—was

celebrated under their superintendence: without the instruments which

they prepared no secure transfer of property could be made; and as

arbitrators or advisers, they were resorted to for the settlement of

disputed right, and the avoidance of dangerous litigation. Lastly,

although during the Anglosaxon period we nowhere find them putting

forward that shocking claim to consideration which afterwards became so

common—the being makers of their Creator in the sacrament of the

Eucharist,—we cannot doubt that their calling was supposed to confer a

peculiar holiness upon them; or that the _hád_, the orders, they

received, were taken to remove them from the class of common Christians

into a higher and more sacred sphere.

-----

Footnote 924:

The extraordinary helplessness of early surgery is little appreciated

by us, nor are we duly grateful for the advance in that most noble

study which now secures to the lowest and poorest sufferer,

alleviations once inaccessible to the wealthiest and most powerful. An

example in point occurs to me in the case of Leopold, duke of Austria,

the captor of Coeur de Lion, in 1195. A fall from his horse produced a

compound fracture of the leg, which from the treatment it received

soon mortified. Amputation was necessary, and it was performed by the

duke himself, _holding an axe to the limb, which his chamberlain

struck with a beetle_. “Acciti mox medici apposuerunt quae expedire

credebant; in crastino vero pes ita denigratus apparuit, ut a medicis

incidendus decerneretur; et cum non inveniretur qui hoc faceret,

accitus tandem cubicularius eius, et ad hoc coactus, dum ipse dux

dolabrum manu propria tibiae apponeret, malleo vibrato, vix trina

percussione pedem eius abscidit.” Walt. Heming. i. 210. Wendov. iii.

88. We feel no surprise that death followed such treatment, even

without the excommunication under which the savage duke laboured.

Footnote 925:

We do not sufficiently prize our own advantages, and the blessings

which the mercy of God has vouchsafed to us in this respect. But let

one fact be mentioned, which ought to arrest the attention of even the

least reflecting man. In the ninth century there was not a single copy

of the Old and New Testaments to be found in the whole diocese of

Lisieux. We learn this startling fact from a letter sent by Freculf,

its bishop, to Hrabanus Maurus. “Ad haec vestrae charitatis vigilantia

intendat, quoniam nulla nobis librorum copia suppeditat, etiamsi

parvitas obtusi sensus nostri vigeret: dum in episcopio, nostrae

parvitati commisso, nec ipsos Novi Veterisque Testamenti repperi

libros, multo minus horum expositiones.” Opera Hrabani. Ed. Colvener.

ii. 1.

-----

Great privileges were accordingly given to them in a social point of

view. They enjoyed a high wergyld, an increased mundbyrd, and a

distinguished secular rank. The weofodþegn or servant of the altar who

duly performed his important functions, was reckoned on the same footing

as the secular thane, woroldþegn, who earned nobility and wealth in the

service of an earthly master. The oaths of a priest or deacon were of

more force than those of a free man; and it was rendered easier for them

to rebut accusations by the aid of their clerical compurgators, than for

the simple ceorl or even þegn, and his gegyldan.

It was nevertheless a wise provision that their privileges should not

extend so far as to remove them entirely from participation in the

general interests of their countrymen, or make them aliens from the

obligations which the Anglosaxon state imposed upon all its members.

Personal privileges they enjoyed, like other distinguished members of

the body politic, as long as their conduct individually was such as to

merit them; but they were not cut off entirely from the common burthens

or the common advantages: and this will not unsatisfactorily explain the

immunity which England long enjoyed, from struggles by which other

European states—and in later periods even our own—were convulsed to

their foundations. In their cathedrals and conventual churches, or

scattered through the parishes over all the surface of the land, but

sharing in the interests of all classes, they acted as a body of

mediators between the strong and the weak, repressing the violent,

consoling and upholding the sufferer, and offering even to the

despairing serf the hope of a future rest from misery and subjection.

On the first establishment of conventual bodies we have seen that a

complete immunity had been granted from the secular services to which

all other lands were liable[926]; but that the inconvenience of this

course soon led to its abandonment. It is difficult to say whether this

immunity was at any time extended to the hide, “mansus aecclesiasticus,”

or “dos aecclesiae” of the parish-church: it is on the contrary probable

that it never was so extended; for no hint of the sort occurs in our own

annals or charters; and it is well known that the church lands among the

neighbouring Franks were subject, like those of the laity, to the

burthens of the state[927]. From every hide which passed into clerical

hands, the king could to the very last demand the _inevitable_ dues,

military service, repairs of roads and fortifications; and though it is

not likely that the parish priest was called upon to serve in person, it

is also not likely that he was excused the payment of his quota toward

the arming and support of a substitute in the field[928].

-----

Footnote 926:

Vol. i. 302.

Footnote 927:

Eichhorn, § 114. vol. i. 506.

Footnote 928:

Exemption from _munera personalia_ however was early claimed.

“Presbyteros, diaconos, etc. ... etiam personalium munerum expertes

esse volumus.” L. 6. C. de Episc. et Cleric. i. 3. Hence the king had

an interest in forbidding the ordination of a free man without his

consent. See the formulary in Marculfus, i. 10. See also the fourth

and eighth canons of the Council of Orleans, A.D. 511. and Eichhorn,

i. 484, 485. §§ 94, 96. From those we see that through ordination the

king might lose his rights over the freeman and the master over his

serf. Of the last case there cannot be the slightest doubt in England,

and I should imagine little of the first.

-----

Nor did the legislation of the Teutonic nations contemplate the

withdrawal of the clergy from the authority of the secular tribunals.

The sin of the clergyman might indeed be punished in the proper manner

by his ecclesiastical superior: penance and censure might be inflicted

by the bishop upon his delinquent brother; but the crime of the citizen

was reserved for the cognizance of the state[929].

-----

Footnote 929:

The great argument of the clergy in later times,—in the twelfth

century particularly, when all over Europe the attempt was made to

exempt them from secular jurisdiction,—“that no one ought to be

punished twice for the same offence,” had apparently not yet been

thought of. The penances of the church, by which the sinner was to be

reconciled to God, were still held quite distinct from the sufferings

by which he expiated his violation of the law. Theodore alleviates,

but does not remit, the penance of those whose guilt has bent their

heads to human slavery. Theod. Poen. xvi. § 3. See this argument

stated in the quarrel between Henry II. and Becket: “In contrarium

sentiebat archiepiscopus, ut quos exauctorent episcopi a manu laicali

postmodum non punirentur, quia bis in idipsum puniri viderentur.” Rog.

Wendov. an. 1164. vol. ii. 304. But this was a two-edged argument, as

its upholders soon found, when the laity on the same grounds claimed

exemption from secular punishment for offences committed upon the

persons of the clergy; justly urging, upon the premises, that they

were excommunicated for their acts, and ought not to be subject to a

second infliction. Accordingly in 1176, we find Richard archbishop of

Canterbury attempting to explain away what Becket had so vigorously

advanced: “Nec dicatur quod aliquis bis puniatur propter hoc in

idipsum, nec enim iteratum est, quod ab uno incipitur et ab altero

consummatur,” etc. See his letter to the bishops in An. Trivet. 1176.

p. 82 _seq._ We shall readily admit that the laity ought not to have

been let loose upon the clergy; but upon the same grounds we shall

claim the subjection of the clergy to the secular tribunals for all

secular offences.

-----

This had been the custom of the Franks, even while they permitted the

clergy, who belonged to the class of Roman provincials, to be judged by

the Roman law[930]: it was for centuries the practice in England, and

would probably so have remained had the error of the Conqueror in

separating the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions not prepared the

way for the troublous times of the Henries and Edwards. In the case of

manslaughter, Ælfred commands that the priest shall be secularised

before he is delivered for punishment to the ordinary tribunals[931]:

Æðelred[932] and Cnut[933] decree that he is to be secularised, to

become an outlaw and abjure the realm, and do such penance as the Pope

shall prescribe; and they extend this penalty to other grievous offences

besides homicide. Eádweard the elder enacts that if a man in orders

steal, fight, perjure himself or be unchaste, he shall be subject to the

same penalties as the laity under the same circumstances would be, and

to his canonical penance besides[934]. But the plainest evidence that

the clergy, even including the most dignified of their body, were held

to answer before the ordinary courts, is supplied by the many provisions

in the laws as to the mode of conducting their trials[935]. It could not

indeed be otherwise in a country where every offence was to be tried by

the people themselves.

-----

Footnote 930:

Concil. Autisiodor. an. 578. can. 43. Concil. Matiscon. an. 581. can.

7. “Quodsi quicunque index ... clericum absque causa criminali, id est

homicidio, furto aut maleficio, hoc [scil. iniuriam] facere fortasse

praesumpserit, quamdiu episcopo loci illius visum fuerit, ab

aecclesiae liminibus arceatur.”

Footnote 931:

“If a priest kill another man, let all that he had acquired at home be

given up, and let the bishop deprive him of his orders: then let him

be given up from the minster, unless the lord will compound for the

wergeld.” Ælf. § 21.

Footnote 932:

Leg. Æðelr. ix. § 26. Thorpe, i. 346.

Footnote 933:

Leg. Cnut, ii. § 41. Thorpe, i. 400.

Footnote 934:

Eád. Guð. § 3. Thorpe, i. 168. Yet immediately afterwards Eádweard

says: “If a man in orders fordo himself with capital crime, let him be

seized and held to the bishop’s doom.” Ibid. § 4.

Footnote 935:

See Leg. Wihtr. § 18, 19. Æðelr. ix. § 19-24, 27. Cnut, i. § 5; ii. §

41.

-----

But the most effectual mode of separating the clergy from the other

members of the church yet remains to be considered. He that is permitted

to contract marriage, to enjoy the inestimable blessings of a home, to

connect himself with a family, and give the state dear pledges of his

allegiance, can never cease to be a citizen of that polity in which his

lot is cast. He can be no alien, no machine to be put in motion by

foreign force. Accordingly, although the celibacy of the clergy is a

mere point of discipline (and could therefore be dispensed with at once

were it desired[936]), it has always been pertinaciously insisted upon

by those whose interest it was to destroy the national feeling of the

clergy in every country, and render them subservient to one centralising

power. It is fitting that we enquire how far this was attempted in

England, and how far the attempt succeeded.

-----

Footnote 936:

Whether it will ever be possible to surmount the difficulties which

environ this subject, may be doubted; but it cannot escape any one who

has enjoyed the intimacy of the more enlightened Roman Catholics,

whether cleric or laic, that a strong feeling exists in favour of a

change. In Bohemia and other Slavonic countries, yet in communion with

Rome, the celibacy of the clergy has ever been a stumbling-block and

stone of offence, and has done more than anything else to keep alive

old Hussite traditions. A few years ago so much danger was felt to

lurk in the question, that the Vienna censorship thought fit to

suppress portions of Palaczy’s History, which favoured the national

views. Nor has Germany, at almost any period, lacked thinkers who have

vigorously protested against a practice which they assert to have no

foundation in Holy Writ, and look upon as disastrous to the State.

-----

The perilous position of the early Christians, and especially of the

clergy, rendered it at least matter of prudence that they should not

contract the obligation of family bonds which must prove a serious

hindrance to the performance of their duties. It is therefore easily

conceivable that marriage should in the first centuries have been

discouraged among the members of this particular class. There was also a

tendency among the eastern Christians to engraft upon the doctrines of

the faith, those peculiar metaphysical notions which seem always to have

characterized the oriental modes of thought. The antagonism of spirit

and matter, the degraded—nay even diabolical[937]—nature of the latter,

and the duty of emancipating the spiritual portion of our being from its

trammels, were quite as prominent doctrines of some Christian

communities, as of the Brahman or Buddhist. The holiness of the priest

would, it was thought, be contaminated by his union with a wife; and

thus from a combination of circumstances which in themselves had no

necessary connexion, an opinion came to prevail that a state of celibacy

was the proper one for the ministers of the sacraments. It was at first

recommended, and then commanded, that those who wished to devote

themselves to the especial service of the church, should not contract

the bond of marriage. Even the married citizen who accepted orders was

admonished to separate himself from the society of his wife: and both

were taught that a life of continence for the future would be an

acceptable offering in the sight of God. It seems unnecessary to dilate

upon the fallacy of these views, or to point out the gross and degrading

materialism on which they are ultimately based. The historian, while he

laments, must to the best of his power record the aberrations of human

intelligence, under his inevitable conditions of place and time.

-----

Footnote 937:

Some sects believed the δημιουργός to have been the devil himself; and

as the Saviour is declared to have made the world, identified Jesus

with Satan! Others entirely denied his human nature, on the ground

that the incarnation was a materialising of spirit. The ascetic

practices of the Eastern church had a similar origin.

-----

It is uncertain at what period this restriction was first attempted to

be enforced in the Western Church, but there are early councils which

notice the existence of a strong feeling on the subject[938]. In the

year 376 a Gallic synod excommunicated those who should refuse the

ministrations of a priest on the ground of his marriage[939]. But this

can only prove that at the time there were married priests, whether

living in continence or not, and that certain persons were scandalized

at them. I cannot admit, as some authors have done, that the Council

intended to make such marriages legal; on the contrary, it seems to me

that the intention of the canon is merely to assert the validity of the

sacraments, however unworthy might be the person by whom they were

administered[940]. But restrictions which wound the natural feelings of

men are vain: popes and councils may decree, but they cannot enforce

obedience, and it seems to me that on this particular subject they never

entirely succeeded in carrying out their views. All they did was to

convert a holy and a blessed connexion into one of much lower character,

and to throw the doors wide open to immorality and scandal. The efforts

of Boniface in Germany were particularly directed to this point[941],

and his biographer tells us on more than one occasion of his success in

destroying the influence of married priests. But it may be questioned

whether the same result attended the efforts of the Roman missionaries

in England. It seems to me, on the contrary, that we have an almost

unbroken chain of evidence to show that, in spite of the exhortations of

the bishops, and the legislation of the witan, those at least of the

clergy who were not bound to cœnobitical order, did contract

marriage, and openly rear the families which were its issue. From Eddius

we learn that Wilfrið bishop of York, one of the staunchest supporters

of Romish views, had a son[942]; he does not indeed say that this son

was born in wedlock, nor does any author directly mention Wilfrið’s

marriage: but we may adopt this view of the matter, as the less

scandalous of two alternatives, and as rendered probable by the absence

of all accusations which might have been brought against the bishop on

this score by any one of his numerous enemies. In a charter of

emancipation we find among the witnesses, Ælfsige the priest and his

son[943]: by another document a lady grants a church hereditarily to

Wulfmǽr the priest and his offspring, as long as he shall have any in

orders[944], where a succession of married clergymen is obviously

contemplated. Again we read of Godwine at Worðig bishop Ælfsige’s

son[945], and of the son of Oswald a presbyter[946]. Under Eádweard the

Confessor we are told of Robert the deacon and his son-in-law Richard

Fitzscrob[947], and of Gódríc a son of the king’s chaplain Gódman[948].

-----

Footnote 938:

“Placuit etiam ut si diacones aut presbyteri coniugati ad torum uxorum

suorum redire voluerint,” etc. Concil. Agathense, an. 506. Can. 9.

Footnote 939:

“Si quis secernat se a presbytero qui uxorem duxit, tanquam non

oporteat, illo liturgiam peragente, de oblatione percipere, anathema

sit.” Concil. Gangrense, an. 376. Can. 4. This provision was retained

by Burkhart of Worms in his collection of canons made in the eleventh

century. See Dönniges, Deut. Staatsr. p. 507. Schmidt, Gesch. der

Deutschen, IV Band, lib. 4. cap. 13.

Footnote 940:

This was at least the feeling in the eleventh century. Wendover speaks

in the following terms of the Council of Rome, celebrated by Gregory

the Seventh in 1074:—“Iste papa in synodo generali simoniacos

excommunicavit, uxoratos sacerdotes a divino removit officio, et

laicis missas eorum audire interdixit, novo exemplo et, ut multis

visum est, inconsiderato iudicio, contra sanctorum patrum sententiam,

qui scripserunt, quod sacramenta quae in aecclesia fiunt, baptisma,

chrisma, corpus Christi et sanguis, Spiritu invisibiliter cooperante,

eorundem sacramentorum effectum [habeant], seu per bonos, seu per

malos intra Dei aecclesiam dispensentur; tamen quia Spiritus Sanctus

mystice illa vivificat, nec bonorum meritis amplificantur, nec

peccatis malorum attenuantur. Ex qua re tam grave oritur scandalum, ut

nullius haeresis tempore sancta aecclesia graviori sit schismate

discissa, his pro iustitia, illis contra iustitiam agentibus; porro

paucis continentiam observantibus: aliquibus eam causa lucri ac

iactantiae simulantibus, multis incontinentiam periurio multipliciori

adulterio cumulantibus: ad haec, opportunitate laicis insurgentibus

contra sacros ordines, et se ab omni aecclesiastica subiectione

excutientibus, laici sacra mysteria temerant et de his disputant,

infantes baptizant, sordido aurium humore pro sacro chrismate utentes

et oleo, in extremo vitae viaticum Dominicum et usitatum aecclesiae

obsequium sepulturae a presbyteris uxoratis accipere parvipendunt;

decimas etiam presbyteris debitas igne cremant, corpus Domini a

presbyteris uxoratis consecratum pedibus saepe conculcant, sanguinem

Domini voluntarie frequenter in terram effundunt.” Wend. ii. 13. See

the Acts of this Council in Hardouin, vi. col. 1521 _seq._ In the

following year, 1075, the abbot of Pontoise was insulted and beaten in

a council held at Paris, for defending this decree of Gregory.

Footnote 941:

Boniface appears to have been quite as earnest in the eighth as

Dunstan was in the tenth century. We are told of him in Thuringia,

that in accordance with the instructions of the Apostolical Pontiff,

“senatores plebis totiusque populi principes verbis spiritalibus

affatus est; eosque ad veram agnitionis viam et intelligentiae lucem

provocavit, quam olim ante maxima siquidem ex parte pravis seducti

doctoribus perdiderunt; sed et sacerdotes ac presbiteros, quorum alii

religioso Dei se omnipotentis cultu incoluerunt, alii quidem

fornicaria contaminati pollutione castimoniae continentiam, quam

sacris servientes altaribus servare debuerunt, amiserant, sermonibus

evangelicis, quantum potuit, a malitiae pravitate ad canonicae

constitutionis rectitudinem correxit, ammonuit, atque instruxit.”

Pertz, ii. 341. “Quoniam cessante religiosorum ducum dominatu,

cessavit etiam in eis Christianitatis et religionis intentio, et falsi

seducentes populum introducti sunt fratres, qui sub nomine religionis

maximam haereticae pravitatis introduxerunt sectam. Ex quibus est

Torhtwine et Berhthere, Eanberhct et Hunræd, fornicatores et adulteri,

quos iuxta apostolum Dominus iudicavit Deus.” Pertz, ii. 344. These

seem all to have been Anglosaxons.

“Et recedens, non solum invitatus Baguariorum ab Odilone duce, sed et

spontaneus, visitavit incolas; mansitque apud eos diebus multis,

praedicans et evangelizans verbum Dei; veraeque fidei ac religionis

sacramenta renovavit, et destructores aecclesiarum populique

perversores abigebat. Quorum alii pridem falso se episcopatus gradu

praetulerunt, alii etiam presbyteratus se officio deputabant, alii

haec atque alia innumerabilia fingentes, magna ex parte populum

seduxerunt. Sed quia sanctus vir iam Deo ab infantia deditus, iniuriam

Domini sui non ferens, supradictum ducem cunctumque vulgus ab iniusta

haereticae falsitatis secta et fornicaria sacerdotum deceptione

coercuit; et provinciam Baguariorum, Odilone duce consentiente, in

quattuor divisit parochias, quattuorque his praesidere fecit

episcopos, quos ordinatione scilicet facta, in episcopatus gradum

sublevant.” Pertz, ii. 346.

“Domino Deo opitulante, ac suggerente sancto Bonifatio archiepiscopo,

religionis christianae confirmatum est testamentum, et orthodoxorum

patrum synodalia sunt in Francis correcta instituta, cunctaque canonum

auctoritate emendata atque expiata, et tam laicorum iniusta

concubinarum copula partim, exhortante sancto viro separata est, quam

etiam clericorum nefanda cum uxoribus coniunctio seiuncta ac

segregata.” Pertz, ii. 346. The anonymous author of the life of

Boniface tells of a bishop Gerold, who held the see of Mayence: he had

a son who succeeded him in the bishopric. Pertz, ii. 354.

Footnote 942:

“Sanctus Pontifex noster de exilio cum filio suo proprio rediens,”

etc. Vit. Wilfr. cap. 57.

Footnote 943:

Cod. Dipl. No. 1352.

Footnote 944:

“Wulfmǽr preóst and his bearnteám.” Cod. Dipl. No. 946.

Footnote 945:

“Godwine æt Worðige, Ælfsiges bisceopes sunu.” Chron. Sax. an. 1001.

This however was not confined to England: we hear of more than one

Frankish bishop having children: for example, “Anchisus dux egregius,

filius Arnulfi, episcopi Mettensis.” Ann. Xantens. an. 647. Pertz, ii.

219. See also Paul. Gest. Ep. Mettens. Pertz, ii. 264. [See also T. F.

Klitsche, “Geschichte des Cölibats,” etc. Augsb. 1830; J. A. Zaccaria.

Storia Polemica del Sagro celibato, Roma, 1774; and Suppl. to Engl.

Cyclop., Arts and Sciences, _art._ Celibacy.]

Footnote 946:

“Filius Oswaldi presbyteri.” Hist. Rams., cap. xlv.

Footnote 947:

“Robertum diaconem et generum eius, Ricardum filium Scrob.... quos

plus caeteris rex diligebat.” Flor. Wig. an. 1052.

Footnote 948:

“Godricum regis capellani Godmanni filium, abbatem constituit.” Flor.

Wig. an. 1053.

-----

It may no doubt be argued that in some of these instances the children

may have been the issue of marriages contracted before the father

entered into orders; but it is obvious that this was not the case with

all of them, nor is there any proof that any were so. On the other hand

we have evidence of married priests which it would be difficult to

reject. Florence speaks of the newly born son of a certain _presbytera_,

or priest’s wife[949]: I have already cited a passage from Simeon of

Durham which distinctly mentions a married presbyter[950], about the

year 1045: and the History of Ely records the wife and family of an

archipresbyter in that town[951]. Lastly we are told over and over again

that one principal cause for the removal of the canons or prebendaries

from the cathedrals and collegiate churches by Æðelwold and Oswald was

the contravention of their rule by marriage.

-----

Footnote 949:

Flor. Wig. an. 1035. It is right to add that some MSS. of Florence

read _presbyteri_, not _presbyterae_.

Footnote 950:

See vol. i. 145. “At ille qui ipsa nocte cum uxore dormierat,” etc.

Sim. Dun. Eccl. Dun. cap. xlv.

Footnote 951:

“Mox ingens pestis arripuit domum illius sacerdotis; quae conjugem

eius ac liberos eius cita morte percussit, totamque progeniem funditus

extirpavit.” Hist. Eliens. Anglia Sacra, i. 603.

-----

The frequent allusion to this subject by the kings in various

enactments, serve to show very clearly that the clergy would not submit

to the restraint attempted to be enforced upon them. But we have a still

more conclusive evidence in the words of an episcopal charge delivered

by archbishop Ælfric. He says, “Beloved, we cannot now compel you by

force to observe chastity, but we admonish you to observe it, as the

ministers of Christ ought, and as did those holy men whom we have

already mentioned, and who spent all their lives in chastity[952].” It

is thus very clear that the clergy paid little regard to such

admonishments, unsupported by secular penalties. In this, as perhaps in

some other cases, the good sense and sound feeling of the nation

struggled successfully against the authority of the Papal See. In fact,

though spirituality were the pretext, a most abominable slavery to

materialism lies at the root of all the grounds on which the Roman

prelates founded the justification of their course. That they had

ulterior objects in view may easily be surmised, though these may have

been but dimly described and hesitatingly confessed, until Gregory the

Seventh boldly and openly avowed them. Had the Roman church ventured to

argue that the clergy ought to be separated entirely from the nation and

the state, nay from humanity itself, for certain definite purposes and

ends, it would at least have deserved the praise of candour; and much

might have been alleged in favour of this view while the clergy were

still strictly missionaries exposed to the perils and uncertainties of a

daily struggle. But, in an absurd idolatry of what was miscalled

chastity, to proscribe the noblest condition and some of the highest

functions of man, was to set up a rule essentially false, and literally

hold out a premium to immorality; and so the more reflecting even of the

clergy themselves admitted[953]. Whatever may have been the desire of

the prelates, we may be certain that not only in England, but generally

throughout the North of Europe, the clergy did enter into

quasi-marriages; and as late as the thirteenth century, the priests in

Norway replied to Gregory the Ninth by setting up the fact of

uninterrupted custom[954].

-----

Footnote 952:

Thorpe, ii. 376.

Footnote 953:

In 1102 archbishop Anselm excommunicated married priests, _sacerdotes

concubinarios_; Wendover, who records this act, expresses a doubt

about its prudence. “Hoc autem bonum quibusdam visum est, et quibusdam

periculosum, ne, dum munditias viribus maiores expeterent, in

immunditias labarentur.” Wend. ii. 171. The results at this day in

Ireland are well known, and the case is very similar in the Roman

Catholic part of Hungary. See Paget, Hungary and Transylvania, i. 114.

Shortly before the Reformation, the inconveniences arising from this

state of things were felt to be so intolerable, yet the danger to

society from a strict enforcement of the rule so great, that in some

parts of Europe the bishop licensed their priests so take concubines,

at a settled tariff, and further raised a sum upon each child born.

Erasmus relates that one bishop had admitted to him the issuing of no

less than twelve thousand such licenses in one year. In his diocese

the tax was probably light, the peasants sturdy, and the female

population more than ordinarily chaste. It was not unusual for the

English kings to compel the priests to redeem their _focariae_ or

concubines, which amounts to much the same thing. This occurred in the

years 1129 and 1208. See Wendover, ii. 210; iii. 223.

Footnote 954:

Gregory writes thus upon the subject to Sigurdr, archbishop of

Nidaros: “Sicut ex parte tua fuit propositum coram nobis tam in

diocesi quam in provincia Nidrosensi abusus detestandae consuetudinis

inolevit, quod videlicet sacerdotes inibi existentes matrimonia

contrahunt, et utuntur tanquam laici sic contractis. Et licet tu iuxta

officii tui debitum id curaveris artius inhibere, multi tamen

praetendentes excusationes frivolas in peccatis, scilicet quod felicis

recordationis Hadrianus papa praedecessor noster, tunc episcopus

Albanensis, dum in partibus illis legationis officio fungeretur, hoc

fieri permisisset, quanquam super hoc nullum ipsius documentum

ostendant, perire potius eligunt quam parere, longam super hoc

nichilominus consuetudinem allegando. Cum igitur diuturnitas temporis

peccatum non minuat sed augmentet, mandamus quatenus, si ita est,

abusum huiusmodi studeas extirpare, et in rebelles, si qui fuerint,

censuram aecclesiasticam exercere. Datum Viterbii, xvii Kal. Junii,

anno undecimo.” This is A.D. 1237. Diplom. Norweg. No. 19, vol. i.

pag. 15.

-----

In addition to the clergy who either in their conventual or parochial

churches administered the rites of religion to their flocks, very

considerable monastic establishments existed from an early period in

England. It is true that not every church which our historians call

_monasterium_ was really a monastic foundation, but many of them

undoubtedly were so; and it is likely that they supplied no small number

of presbyters and bishops to the service of the church. The rule of St.

Benedict was well established throughout the West long before Augustine

set foot in Britain; and although monks are not necessarily clergymen,

it is probable that many of the body in this country took holy orders.

Like the clergy the monks were subject to the control of the bishop, and

the abbots received consecration from the diocesan. Till a late period

in fact, there is little reason to suppose that any English monastery

succeeded in obtaining exemption from episcopal visitation: though on

the other hand it is probable that monasteries founded by powerful and

wealthy laymen did contrive practically to establish a considerable

independence. This is the more conceivable, because we cannot doubt that

a great difference did from the first exist between the rules adopted by

various congregations of monks, or imposed upon them by their patrons

and founders, until the time when greater familiarity with Benedict’s

regulations, and the customs of celebrated houses, produced a more

general conformity.

One of the most disputed questions in Anglosaxon history is that

touching the revival of monkery by Dúnstán and his partizans. Its

supposed connexion with the tragical story of Eádwig, and the

dismemberment of England by Eádgár, have lent it some of the attractions

of romance; and by the monastic chroniclers in general, it has very

naturally been looked upon as the greatest point in the progressive

record of our institutions. Connected as it is with some of the most

violent prejudices of our nature, political, professional and personal,

it has not only obtained a large share of attention from ecclesiastical

historians of all ages, but has been discussed with great eagerness, not

to say acrimony, by those who differed in opinion as to the wisdom and

justice of the revival itself. Yet it does not appear to me to have been

brought to the degree of clearness which we should have expected from

the skill and learning of those who have undertaken its elucidation.

Neither the share which Dúnstán took in the great revolution, nor the

extent to which Æðelwold and Oswald succeeded in their plans, are yet

satisfactorily settled; and great obscurity still hangs both over the

manner and the effect of the change.

Few things in history, when carefully investigated, do really prove to

have been done in a hurry. Sudden revolutions are much less common than

we are apt to suppose, and fewer links than we imagine are wanting in

the great chain of causes and effects. Could we place ourselves above

the exaggerations of partizans, who hold it a point of honour to prove

certain events to be indiscriminately right or indiscriminately wrong,

we should probably find that the course of human affairs had been one

steady and very gradual progression; the reputation of individual men

would perhaps be shorn of part of its lustre; and though we should lose

some of the satisfaction of hero-worship, we might more readily admit

the constant action of a superintending providence, operating without

caprice through very common and every-day channels. But it would have

been too much to expect an impartial account of the events which led to

the reformation of the Benedictine order in England; like Luther in the

fifteenth, Dúnstán must be made the principal figure in the picture of

the tenth century: throughout all great social struggles the protagonist

stalks before us in gigantic stature,—glorious as an archangel, or

terrible and hideous as Satan.

The writers who arose shortly after the triumph of the Reformation have

revelled in this fruitful theme. The abuses of monachism,—not entirely

forgotten at the beginning of the seventeenth century,—its undeniable

faults, and the mischief it entails upon society,—judged with the

exaggeration which unhappily seems inseparable from religious polemics,

produced in every part of Europe a succession of violent and headlong

attacks upon the institution and its patrons, which we can now more

readily understand than excuse. But just as little can the calm,

impartial judgment of the historian ratify the indiscriminate praise

which was lavished by the Roman Catholics upon all whom the zeal of

Protestants condemned, the misrepresentations of fact by which they

attempted to fortify their opinions, or the eager credulity which they

showed when any tale, however preposterous, appeared to support their

particular objects. In later times the controversy has been renewed with

greater decency of language, but not less zeal. The champion of

protestantism is the Rev. Mr. Soames: Dr. Lingard takes up the gauntlet

on behalf of his church. It is no intention of mine to balance their

conflicting views as to the character and intentions of Dúnstán and his

two celebrated coadjutors; these have been too deeply tinged by the

ground-colour that lies beneath the outlines. But I propose to examine

the facts upon which both parties seem agreed, though each may represent

them variously in accordance with a favourite theory.

It admits of no doubt whatever that monachism, and monachism under the

rule of St. Benedict, had been established at an early period in this

country[955]; but it is equally certain that the strict rule had very

generally ceased to be maintained at the time when Dúnstán undertook its

restoration. Many of the conventual churches had never been connected

with monks at all; while among the various abbeys which the piety or

avarice of individuals had founded, there were probably numerous

instances where no rule had ever prevailed, but the caprice of the

founders, who _iure dominii_ imposed such regulations as their vanity

suggested, or their industry gleaned from the established orders of

Columba, Benedict, and other credited authorities[956]. The chapters,

whatever their origin, had in process of time slid into that easy and

serene state of secular canons, which we can still contemplate in the

venerable precincts of cathedral closes. The celibacy of the clergy had

not been maintained: and even in the collegiate churches the presbyter

and prebendaries had permitted themselves to take wives, which could

never have been contemplated even by those who would have looked with

indulgence upon that connexion on the part of parish priests. Moreover

in many places, wealthy ease, power, a dignified and somewhat

irresponsible position had produced their natural effect upon the

canons, some of whom were connected with the best families of the state;

so that, in spite of all the deductions which must be made for

exaggeration on the part of the monkish writers, we cannot deny that

many instances of profligacy and worldly-mindedness did very probably

disgrace the clerical profession. It would be strange indeed if what has

taken place in every other age and country should have been unexampled

only among the Anglosaxons of the ninth and tenth centuries, or that

their monks and clergy should have enjoyed a monopoly of purity,

holiness and devotion to duty[957].

Footnote 955:

Mr. Soames (Anglosax. Church, p. 179, third edit.) says that Dúnstán’s

monastery at Glastonbury was the first establishment of the kind ever

known in England, and Dúnstán the first of English Benedictine abbots.

Nothing can possibly be more inexact than this assertion. Biscop’s

foundation at Wearmouth was a Benedictine one. In an address to his

monks, he himself is represented to say:—“Ideo multum cavetote,

fratres, semper, ne secundum genus unquam, ne deforis aliunde vobis

Patrem quaeratis; sed iuxta quod Regula magni quondam abbatis

Benedicti, iuxta quod privilegii nostri continent decreta, in conventa

vestrae congregationis communi consilio perquiratis, qui secundum

vitae meritum et sapientiae doctrinam aptior ad tale ministerium

perficiendum digniorque probetur; et quemcunque omnes unanimae

charitatis inquisitione optimum cognoscentes eligeretis, hunc vobis,

accito episcopo, rogetis abbatem consueta benedictione formari.” Beda,

Vit. Bened. § 12. (Opera Minora, ii. 151.) The same author tells us of

abbot Céolfrið:—“Multa diu secum mente versans, utilius decrevit, dato

Fratribus praecepto, ut iuxta sui statuta privilegii, iuxtaque Regulam

sancti abbatis Benedicti, de suis sibi ipsi Patrem, qui aptior esset,

eligerent, etc.” Vit. Bened. § 16. (Op. Min. ii. 156.) The author of

the anonymous life of St. Cúðberht, which is earlier than that of

Beda, says of Cúðberht at Lindisfarne:—“Vivens ibi quoque secundum

sanctam Scripturam, contemplativam vitam in actuali agens, et nobis

regularem vitam primus componens constituit, quam usque hodie cum

Regula Benedicti observamus.” Anon. Cúðb. § 25. (Bed. Op. Min. ii.

271.) At a still later period, viz. the close of the seventh century,

we learn that the monastery of Hnutscilling or Nursling in Hampshire

was a Benedictine one, and St. Boniface a Benedictine monk. His

contemporary biographer Willibald says:—“Maxime suo sub regulari

videlicet disciplina abbati, monachica subditus obedientia praebebat,

ut labore manuum cottidiano et disciplinali officiorum amministratione

incessanter secundum praefinitam beati Patris Benedicti rectae

constitutionis formam insisteret,” etc. Vit. Bonif. Pertz, ii. 336.

One can hardly imagine how Mr. Soames should suffer himself to be

misled by the exaggerations of Dúnstán’s monkish biographers: they are

of a piece with their whole story. That the rule had become very much

relaxed even in the Benedictine abbeys of this country is not to be

doubted: the same thing took place on the continent. Many had perished

in the Danish invasions; many had passed insensibly into the hands of

secular canons: and it is not at all improbable that in the middle of

the tenth century there was not a genuine Benedictine society left in

England. But this will certainly not justify the assertions of

Bridferð or Adelard, that Dúnstán was the first of English Benedictine

monks or abbots. “Et hoc praedicto modo saluberrimam sancti Benedicti

sequens institutionem, primus abbas Anglicae nationis enituit,”

(Bridferð. MS. Cott. Cleop. B. xii. fol. 72.)—“Monachorum ibi scholam

primo primus instituere coepit,”—(Adel. in Angl. Sacra, ii. 101

_note_) are at the least grave mistakes: one desires to believe that

they are not something worse; but they warn us to be extremely

cautious how we admit the authority of their writers as to any facts

they may please to record.

Footnote 956:

On this point Beda speaks most explicitly: “Sunt loca innumera, ut

novimus omnes, in monasteriorum ascripto vocabulum, sed nihil prorsus

monasticae conversationis habentia.” Ep. Ecgb. § 10. “Quod enim turpe

est dicere, tot sub nomine monasteriorum loca hi, qui monachicae vitae

prorsus sunt expertes, in suam ditionem acceperunt, sicut ipse melius

nosti,” etc. Ibid. § 11. “At alii graviore adhuc flagitio, quum sint

ipsi laici et nullius vitae regularis vel usu exerciti, vel amore

praediti, data regibus pecunia, emunt sibi sub praetextu monasteriorum

construendorum territoria, in quibus suae liberius vacent libidini, et

haec insuper in ius sibi haereditarium edictis regalibus faciunt

ascribi, ipsas quoque litteras privilegiorum suorum, quasi veraciter

Deo dignas, pontificum, abbatum et potestatum seculi, obtinent

subscriptione confirmari. Sicque usurpatis sibi agellulis sive vicis,

liberi exinde a divino simul et humano servitio, suis tantum inibi

desideriis laici monachis imperantes deserviunt; immo non monachos ibi

congregant, sed quoscunque ob culpam inobedientiae veris expulsos

monasteriis alicubi forte oberrantes invenerint, aut evocare

monasteriis ipsi valuerint; vel certe quos ipsi de suis satellitibus

ad suscipiendam tonsuram, promissa sibi obedientia monachica, invitare

quiverint. Horum distortis cohortibus suas, quas instruxere, cellas

implent, multumque informi atque inaudito spectaculo, idem ipsi viri

modo coniugis ac liberorum procreandorum curam gerunt, modo

exsurgentes do cubilibus, quid intra septa onasteriorum geri debeat

sedula intentione pertractant.... Sic per annos circiter triginta, hoc

est ex quo Aldfrid rex humanis rebus ablatus est, provincia nostra

vesano illo errore dementata est, ut nullus pene exinde praefectorum

extiterit, qui non huiusmodi sibi monasterium in diebus suae

praefecturae comparaverit, suamque simul coniugem pari reatu nocivi

mercatus astrinxerit; ac praevalente pessima consuetudine, ministri

quoque regis ac famuli idem facere sategerint. Atque ita ordine

perverso innumeri sunt inventi, qui se abbates pariter et praefectos,

sive ministros, aut famulos regis appellant; qui, etsi aliquid vitae

monasterialis ediscere laici, non experiendo sed audiendo, potuerint,

a persona tamen illa ac professione, quae hanc docere debeat, sunt

funditus exsortes; et quidem tales repente, ut nosti, tonsuram pro suo

libitu accipiunt, suo examine de laicis non monachi sed abbates

efficiuntur.” Ibid. § 12, 13. (Bed. Op. Min. ii. 216, 218 _seq._) On

these and other grounds Beda earnestly impresses upon Ecgberht the

duty of founding the twelve bishoprics contemplated by Gregory in the

province of York, in order to multiply the means of ecclesiastical

supervision. But if this was the condition of the Northumbrian

monasteries in the year 734, the period of Northumbria’s greatest

literary eminence, what may we conclude to have been the condition of

similar establishments in less instructed parts of England, especially

after a century of cruel wars had relaxed all the bonds of civilized

society? We may not greatly admire monachism, or believe it useful to

a state; but we can hardly blame those, who, finding the institution

in existence, desire to make the men who are attached to it worthy and

not unworthy members of their profession.

Footnote 957:

In the often-cited letter to Ecgberht, Beda gives but a bad character

to some among the prelates of his time. He says: “Quod non ita loquor,

quasi te aliter facere sciam, sed quia de quibusdam episcopis fama

vulgatum est, quod ipsi ita Christo serviant, ut nullos secum alicuius

religionis aut continentiae viros habeant; sed potius illos qui risui,

iocis, fabulis, commessationibus, et ebrietatibus, caeterisque vitae

remissioris illecebris subigantur, et qui magis quotidie ventrem

dapibus quam mentem sacrificiis coelestibus pascant.” § 4 (Op Min. ii.

209, 210).

-----

As we have seen already, it was only towards the end of the eighth

century that Chrodogang introduced a cœnobitical mode of life in the

cathedral of his archdiocese. Long before this time the great majority

of our churches had been founded; and among them some may possibly from

the first have been served by clergymen resident in their own detached

houses, and who merely met at stated hours to perform their duties in

the choir, living at other times apart upon their præbenda or allowances

from the general fund. But some of the cathedrals had been founded in

connexion with abbeys; and it is probable that a majority of these great

establishments were provided with some Rule of life, and demanded a

cœnobitical though not strictly monastic habit. This is too

frequently alluded to by the prelates of the seventh century, not to be

admitted. But whatever may have been the details in different

establishments, we may be certain that residence, temperance, soberness,

chastity, and a strict attendance upon the divine services were required

by the Rule of every society. Unfortunately these are restrictions and

duties which experience proves to have been sometimes neglected; nor can

we find any great improbability in the assertion of the Saxon Chronicle,

that the canons of Winchester would hold no rule at all[958]; or in the

accusations brought against them in the Annals of Winchester[959], and

in Wulfstán’s Life of Æðelwold[960], of violating every one of their

obligations. I do not see any reason to doubt the justice of the charge

made against some of their body by the last-named author, of having

deserted the wives they had taken, and living in open and scandalous

disregard of morality as well as canonical restraint. Wulfstán very

likely made the most of his facts, but it is to be remembered that he

was an eye-witness; and it is improbable that he should have been

indebted exclusively to his invention for charges so boldly made, so

capable of being readily brought to the test, and containing in truth

nothing repugnant to our experience of human nature. The canons of

Winchester, many of whom were highly connected, wealthy beyond those of

most other foundations, and established in the immediate vicinity of the

royal court, may possibly have been more than ordinarily neglectful of

their duties[961]; and they do appear in fact to have been treated in a

much more summary way than the prebendaries of other cathedrals; yet

perhaps not with strict justice, unless it can be shown that Winchester

was ever a monastic establishment, which, previous to Æðelwold, I do not

remember it to have been. Lingard who would have gratefully accepted any

evidence against the canons in the other cathedrals, confines himself to

Winchester; yet it strikes one as some confirmation of the general

charge, even against their brethren at Worcester, that among the

signatures to their charters so few are those of deacons and presbyters,

till long after Oswald’s appointment to the see. This, although the

silence of their adversaries allows us to acquit them of the

irregularities laid to the charge of the canons at Winchester, may lead

us to infer that they were not scrupulously diligent in fulfilling the

duties of their calling.

-----

Footnote 958:

“Dráf út ða clerca of ða biscopríce, forðan ðæt hí noldon nán Regul

healdan.” Chron. Sax. an. 963.

Footnote 959:

“Clerici illi, nominetenus Canonici, frequentationem chori, labores

vigiliarum, et ministerium altaris vicariis suis utcumque sustentatis

relinquentes, et ab aecclesiae conspectu plerumque absentes septennio,

quidquid de praebendis percipiebant, locis et modis sibi placitis

absumebant. Nuda fuit aecclesia intus et extra.” An. Wint. p. 289.

Footnote 960:

“Erant Canonici nefandis scelerum moribus implicati, elatione et

insolentia, atque luxuria praeventi, adeo ut nonnulli eorum

dedignarentur missas suo ordine celebrare, repudiantes uxores quas

illicite duxerant, et alias accipientes, gulae et ebrietati iugiter

dediti.” Vit. Æðelw. p. 614.

Footnote 961:

The description of a secular clerk given by the anonymous author of

the Gesta Abbatum Fontanellensium, written in the ninth century, was

probably not exaggerated. He says of Wido, a relative of Charles

Martel, “Erat de saecularibus clericis, gladioque quem semispatium

vocant semper accinctus, sagoque pro cappa utebatur, parumque

aecclesiasticae disciplinae imperiis parebat. Nam copiam canum

multiplicem semper habebat, cum qua venationi quotidie insistebat,

sagittatorque praecipuus in arcubus ligneis ad aves feriendas erat,

hisque operibus magis quam aecclesiasticae disciplinae studiis se

exercebat.” It does not surprise us to learn that this prelate was

also “ignarus litterarum.” Pertz, i. 284, 285.

-----

We cannot feel the least surprise that Dúnstán desired to reform the

state of the church. The peculiar circumstances of his early years, even

the severe mental struggles which preceded and explain his adoption of

the monastic career, were eminently calculated to train him for a

_Reviver_; and Revival was the fashion of his day. Arnold earl of

Flanders[962] had lent himself with the utmost zeal to the reform of the

Benedictine abbeys in his territory, and they were the models selected

for imitation, or as schools of instruction, by other lands, especially

England so closely connected with Flanders by commerce and the alliances

of the reigning houses[963]. Yet with it all, Dúnstán does not appear to

have taken a very prominent part in the proceedings of the friends of

monachism,—certainly not the prominent part taken by Oswald or Æðelwold,

the last of whom merited the title of the “Father of Monks,” by the

attention he paid to their interests. In the archbishop’s own cathedral

at Canterbury, the canons were left in undisturbed possession of their

property and dignity, nor were monks introduced there by archbishop

Ælfríc till some years after Dúnstán’s death. And even this measure,

although supported by papal authority[964], was not final: it was only

in the time of Lanfranc that the monks obtained secure possession of

Christchurch. Dúnstán very probably continued throughout his life to be

a favourer of the Order, and merited its gratitude by giving it valuable

countenance and substantial protection against violence. But he was

assuredly not himself a violent disturber, casting all things divine and

human into confusion for the sake of a system of monkery. His recorded

conduct shows nothing of the kind. I believe his monkish and very

vulgar-minded panegyrists to have done his character and memory great

wrong in this respect; and that they have measured the distinguished

statesman by the narrow gauge of their own intelligence and desire.

Troublous no doubt were his commencements; and in the days of his

misery, while his mind yet tossed and struggled among the awful abysses

of an unfathomed sea in the fierce conflicts of his ascetic retirement,

where the broken heart sought rest and found it not, he may have given

credence himself to what he considered supernatural visitations

vouchsafed, and powers committed, to him. But when time had somewhat

healed his wounds, when the first difficulties of his political life

were surmounted, and he ruled England,—nominally as the minister of

Eádgár, really as the leader of a very powerful party among the

aristocracy,—there can be little doubt that the spirit of compromise,

which always has been the secret of our public life, produced its

necessary effect upon himself. Dúnstán was neither Richelieu nor

Mazarin, but the servant of a king who wielded very limited powers; he

had first attained his throne through a revolt, the pretext for which

was his brother’s bad government, and its justification,—the consequent

right of the people to depose him. Whatever may have been the

archbishop’s private leaning, he appears to have conducted himself with

great discretion, and to have very skilfully maintained the peace

between the two embittered factions; he perhaps encouraged Eádgár to

manifest his partiality for monachism by the construction or reform of

abbeys; he probably supported Oswald and Æðelwold by his advice, and by

preventing them from being illegally interfered with in the course of

their lawful actions; but as prime minister of England, he maintained

the peace as well for one as for the other, and there is no evidence

that any measure of violence or spoliation took place by his connivance

or consent. Neither the nation, nor the noble families whose scions

found a comfortable provision and sufficient support in the prebends,

would have looked calmly upon the unprovoked destruction of rights

sanctioned by prescription. But there is indeed no reason to believe

that violent measures were resorted to in any of the establishments, to

bring about the changes desired. Even in Winchester, where more

compulsion seems to have been used than anywhere else, the evicted

canons were provided with pensions. I strongly suspect that in fact they

did retain during their lives the prebends which could not legally be

taken from them, though they might be expelled from the cathedral

service and the collegiate buildings; and that this is what the monkish

writers veil under the report that pensions were assigned them.

-----

Footnote 962:

Arnold died in 904, but his reforms began twenty years earlier.

However, between the years 912 and 942, Berno, and his still more

celebrated successor Odo, abbots of Cluny, had introduced a reform of

the Benedictine rule in a great number of monasteries. Flodoardus

calls Odo: “Dominus Odo, venerabilis abbas, multorum restaurator

monasteriorum, sanctaeque Regulae reparator.” See Pagi. Baron, ad an.

942. This example was not lost upon Dúnstán.

Footnote 963:

“Baudouin le chauve, II^e comte de Flandre, s’empara, en 900, des deux

abbayes de St. Vaast et St. Bertin.... Dès l’année 944,

Arnould-le-vieux, rentré en possession de St. Vaast, entreprit la

réforme de ces abbayes, par les soins de St. Gérard de Brognes, qu’il

nomma abbé de St. Bertin. Il le chargea ensuite (probablement vers

950) de celle des abbayes de St. Pierre et de St. Bavon à Gand, qu’il

avait également sous son pouvoir: Womare en fut nommé abbé. Ces

reformes, sans doute d’après la règle de Cluny, créé en 910 [read 912

not 910], s’étendirent d’après la chronique de St. Bertin (Thes.

Anecd. iii. 552, 553), à dix-huit abbayes de l’ordre de Saint Benoit

(Chron. de Jean de Thielrode, édit. de M. Vanlokeren, p. 127). Les

moines qui refusèrent de s’y soumettre, furent expulsés de leurs

monastères: quelques-uns émigrèrent en Angleterre ou ailleurs.”

Warnkönig, Hist. Fland. ii. 338 _seq._ In 956 Dúnstán flying from

England, found hospitality and rest in one of these reformed houses,

that of Blandinium or St. Peter, at Ghent.

Footnote 964:

Chron. Sax. an. 995. Probably it never had been monastic from the very

time of Augustine: and the setting up a claim on the part of the

monks, derived from Augustine himself, was totally inadmissible.

-----

Dr. Lingard has very justly observed that Oswald, with all his zeal,

made no change whatever in his cathedral of York, which archdiocese he

at one time held together with Worcester; and that, generally speaking,

the new monasteries were either reared upon perfectly new ground, or on

ancient foundations then entirely reduced to ruins[965]. With regard to

Worcester, he says:—“Of Oswald we are told that he introduced monks in

the place of clergymen into seven churches within his bishopric; but

there is reason to believe that some of the seven were new foundations,

and that in some of the others the change was effected with the full

consent of the canons themselves. In his cathedral he succeeded by the

following artifice. Having erected in its vicinity a new church to the

honour of the Virgin Mary, he entrusted it to the care of a community of

monks, and frequented it himself for the solemn celebration of mass. The

presence of the bishop attracted that of the people; the ancient clergy

saw their church gradually abandoned; and after some delay, Wensine,

their dean, a man advanced in years and of unblemished character, took

the monastic habit, and was advanced three years later to the office of

prior. The influence of his example and the honour of his promotion,

held out a strong temptation to his brethren; till at last the number of

canons was so diminished by repeated desertions, that the most wealthy

of the churches of Mercia became without dispute or violence, by the

very act of its old possessors, a monastery of Benedictine monks[966].

In what manner Oswald proceeded with the other churches we are ignorant;

but in 971 he became archbishop of York, and though he held that high

dignity during twenty years, we do not read that he introduced a single

colony of monks or changed the constitution of a single clerical

establishment, within the diocese. The reason is unknown.”

-----

Footnote 965:

Hist. and Ant. Ang. Church, ii. 290, 294. This was certainly the case

with several of Æðelwold’s monasteries; and I regret to think that

many of the Saxon charters which pretend to the greatest antiquity

were forged on occasion of this revival, to enlarge the basis of the

restored foundations.

Footnote 966:

Eadmer, Vit. Oswald, p. 202. Ang. Sac. i. 542. Hist. Rames. p. 400.

-----

It might not unfairly be suggested either that the rights of the canons

were too well established to be shaken, or that experience had changed

his own mind as to the necessity of the alteration. High station, active

engagement with the details of business, increasing age, and a natural

mutual respect which grows with better acquaintance, may have convinced

Oswald that his youthful zeal had a little outrun discretion, and that

the canons in his province and diocese were not so utterly devoid of

claims to consideration as he once had imagined in his reforming

fervour. But the reader of Anglosaxon history will not fail to have

observed that the measured and in general fair tone of Dr. Lingard

differs very widely from that of early monkish chroniclers, and that he

himself attributes to Oswald a much less active interference than is

asserted by many protestant historians. That he is right I do not for a

moment doubt; for not only are the accounts of Oswald’s biographers

inconsistent with one another, and improbable, but we have very strong

evidence that the eviction of the canons from Worcester was not

completed in Oswald’s lifetime. We possess no fewer than seventy-eight

charters granted by his chapter, and these comprise several signed in

990 and 991, the years immediately preceding that in which he died[967]:

these charters are signed in part by presbyters and deacons, in part by

clerics, and there is but one signature of a monk[968], though there are

at least six _clerici_ who subscribe. Although from an examination of

the charters I entertain no doubt that several, if not all, the

presbyters and deacons were monks, still it is clear that a number of

the canons still retained their influence over the property of the

chapter till within a few months of Oswald’s decease. This prelate came

to his see in 960, and according to many accounts immediately replaced

the canons of Worcester by monks: all agree that he lost no time about

it, and Florence[969], himself a monk of that place, fixes his triumph

in the year 969. Consistently with this we have a grant of that

year[970], in which Wynsige the monk, and all the monks at Worcester are

named: we have a similar statement[971] in another document of 974: and

in subsequent charters monks are named. A good example occurs in a grant

of the year 977, to which are appended the names of eight monks[972]:

but coupled with these are also the names of sixteen clerics, exclusive

of a presbyter and deacon of old standing, whom the chapter had probably

caused to be ordained long before, to do the service for them. All at

once the addition _monachus_ to seven of these eight names vanishes, and

is replaced by _presbyter_ or _diaconus_. Henceforth the number of

_clerici_ gradually diminishes, but, as we have seen, is not entirely

gone in 991, the year before Oswald’s death. I do not believe that the

bishop had any power to expel the canons, and that he was compelled to

let them remain where they were until they died: but he perhaps could

prevent any but monks from being received in their places, and it is to

be presumed that he could refuse to admit any but monks to priests’ and

deacons’ orders. This, we may gather from the charters, was the plan he

pursued; and when we consider the dignity and power possessed by the

Anglosaxon priesthood, we shall confess that it was one which threw

every advantage into the scale of monachism.

-----

Footnote 967:

Cod. Dipl. Nos. 674-678.

Footnote 968:

In Nos. 675, 678. In the other charters where this Leófwine occurs, he

is even called _clericus_, unless it were another person of the same

name.

Footnote 969:

An. 969. “S. Oswaldus, sui voti compos effectus, clericos Wigorniensis

aecclesiae monachilem habitum suscipere renuentes de monasterio

expulit; consentientes vero, hoc anno, ipso teste monachizavit, cisque

Ramesiensium coenobitam Wynsinum, magnae religionis virum, loco decani

praefecit.”

Footnote 970:

Cod. Dipl. No. 553.

Footnote 971:

Ibid. No. 586.

Footnote 972:

Ibid. No. 615.

-----

Had we similar means of enquiry, it is very probable that we should come

to the same conclusion with regard to other establishments from which

the canons are said to have been forcibly driven. However enough seems

to have been said, to prove that we must be very careful how we trust to

the random assertions of partizans either on one side or the other. Let

us be ready to condemn ecclesiastical tyranny and arrogance, wherever it

is proved to have disgraced the clerical profession; but let us not

forget that it is our duty to judge charitably. In the case which we

have now considered, I think we shall be disposed to acquit some men,

whose names fill a conspicuous place in Saxon history, of the violence

and folly which their own over-zealous partizans have laid to their

charge, and which have been used in modern times to embitter the

separation unfortunately existing between two great bodies of

Christians.