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

415

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

416

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

417

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

418

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

419

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;

420

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

421

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

422

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

423

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].

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

424

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.

425

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

426

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

427

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].

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

428

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].

429

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].

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

431

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

432

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.

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

433

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

434

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.

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

435

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

436

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].

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

437

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].

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

438

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.

439

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.

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

440

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

441

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.

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].

442

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

443

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,

444

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

445

son-in-law richard fitzscrob[947], and of gódríc a son of the king’s chaplain gódman[948].

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.

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

446

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

447

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].

448

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

449

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,

450

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

451

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];

452

but it is equally certain that the strict rule had very generally ceased to be maintained at the time

453

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

454

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

455

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].

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

456

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

457

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

458

not scrupulously diligent in fulfilling the duties of their calling.

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].

459

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

460

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

461

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.

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

462

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

463

the constitution of a single clerical establishment, within the diocese. the reason is unknown.”

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

464

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

465

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.

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

466

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

907. beda, hist. eccl. v. 4, 5.

908. thorpe, ii. 73. kunstmann, poenit. p. 121.

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.

910. excerpt. ecgberhti, § 25. thorpe, ii. 100.

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.”

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.

913. besinga hearh, fanum besingorum. cod. dipl. no. 994.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 vicarius: qui per pagos constitutus est.

2.

presbyter plebei qui baptismalem aecclesiam 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

926. vol. i. 302.

927. eichhorn, § 114. vol. i. 506.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

932. leg. æðelr. ix. § 26. thorpe, i. 346.

933. leg. cnut, ii. § 41. thorpe, i. 400.

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.

935. see leg. wihtr. § 18, 19. æðelr. ix. § 19-24, 27. cnut, i. § 5; ii. § 41.

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.

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.

938. “placuit etiam ut si diacones aut presbyteri coniugati ad torum uxorum suorum redire voluerint,” etc. concil. agathense, an. 506. can. 9.

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.

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.

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.

942. “sanctus pontifex noster de exilio cum filio suo proprio rediens,” etc. vit. wilfr. cap. 57.

943. cod. dipl. no. 1352.

944. “wulfmǽr preóst and his bearnteám.” cod. dipl. no. 946.

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.]

946. “filius oswaldi presbyteri.” hist. rams., cap. xlv.

947. “robertum diaconem et generum eius, ricardum filium scrob.... quos plus caeteris rex diligebat.” flor. wig. an. 1052.

948. “godricum regis capellani godmanni filium, abbatem constituit.” flor. wig. an. 1053.

949. flor. wig. an. 1035. it is right to add that some mss. of florence read presbyteri, not presbyterae.

950. see vol. i. 145. “at ille qui ipsa nocte cum uxore dormierat,” etc. sim. dun. eccl. dun. cap. xlv.

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.

952. thorpe, ii. 376.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

958. “dráf út ða clerca of ða biscopríce, forðan ðæt hí noldon nán regul healdan.” chron. sax. an. 963.

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.

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.

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.

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.

963. “baudouin le chauve, iie 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.

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.

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.

966. eadmer, vit. oswald, p. 202. ang. sac. i. 542. hist. rames. p. 400.

967. cod. dipl. nos. 674-678.

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.

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.”

970. cod. dipl. no. 553.

971. ibid. no. 586.

972. ibid. no. 615.