Chapter 19

Another exemption which the bishops properly possessed, seems also to have been often neglected in this country,—that namely of personal service in the field. No doubt, all over Europe, as soon as the bishops became possessed of lands liable to thehereban, or military muster, they, like other lords, were compelled to place their armed tenants on foot, for the public service, when duly required: but their levies were mostly commanded by officers specially designated for that purpose and known under the names ofadvocati,vicedomini, orvidames; being in general nobles of power and dignity who assumed or accepted the exercise of the bishop’s royalties, the management of his estates, the administration and execution of his justice, and a remunerativeshare of his revenues and patronage. In Saxon England, however, we do not meet with these officers; and though it is probable that the bishop’sgeréfawas bound to lead his contingent under the command of the ealdorman, yet we have ample evidence that the prelates themselves did not hold their station to excuse them from taking part in the just and lawful defence of their country and religion against strange and pagan invaders[885]. Too many fell in conflict to allow of our attributing their presence on the field merely to their anxiety lest the belligerents should be without the due consolations of religion; and in other cases, upon the alarm of hostile incursions, we find the levies stated to have been led against the enemy by the duke and bishop of the district.

Attention has been called in another chapter to the fact that the bishops did not universally (or indeed usually), make their residences in the principal cities[886]. A remarkable distinction thus arose between themselves and the prelates of Gaul and Germany. The latter, strong in the support of the burgesses, and identified with the urban interests, found means to consolidate a power which they used without scruple against the king when it suited their convenience, or which enabled them to extort from him the grant of offices that virtually rendered them independent of his authority. Thiswas generally effected through the bishop’s obtaining the county, that is becoming the count, and thus exercising the palatine power in his city, as well as that which he might already possessiure episcopii, and asdefensor urbisor patron of the municipality. This, rare indeed under Charlemagne, but not uncommon in the times which preceded and followed him, can at least not be proved to have taken place in England before the Conquest[887]. There is indeed one instance which might seem at first sight to contradict this assertion, but which upon closer investigation rather confirms it. We learn that certain thieves, having attempted a sacrilegious entry into the church of St. Eádmund, and being miraculously delivered into the hands of the authorities, were put to death by the orders of Ðeódred, then bishop of London and of Eastanglia[888]. This event took place after the conquest of the last-named province by Æðelstán, who about 930 drove the Danes from it or reduced them under his own power. At that time it appears uncertain whether the conquered kingdom had been duly arrangedand settled, or whether any ealdorman had been appointed to govern it. If not, we must imagine that Ðeódred, the only constituted authority on the spot, acted at his own discretion in a case of urgency, without absolutely possessing the legal power to do so; that the act was in short one of those examples of what in modern times we understand by the term Lynch-law, that law which men are obliged to administer for themselves in the absence of the regular machinery of government. But it is further observable that, according to the terms of the legend itself, these thieves were takenin the manner, and consequently liable to capital punishment without any trial at all[889]; this justice we may suppose Ðeódred to have executed, and to its summary character we may attribute the regrets he expressed on the subject at a later time. It is also possible to account for the act by supposing that even at this early period the bishop possessed his sacu and sócn in the demesne of St. Eádmund, and that he proceeded to execute his thieves by his right as lord of the sócn: but there is no clear proof that the immunity did exist before the time of Cnut, and I therefore incline to the second explanation as the most probable. But if Ðeódred did not act in pursuance of possessing the comitial power, we may safely say that there is no evidencewhatever of any Saxon bishop having exercised it[890]. As assessor to the ealdorman, the bishop was especially charged to attend to the due levy of tithe and other church imposts; but this was clearly because he had a direct interest in the law that decreed their punctual payment, and was certain not to connive at any neglect in its execution, which the ealdorman out of favour or carelessness might possibly have been disposed to do.

But a still higher authority was placed in the hands of the bishop, derived in fact from the assumed pre-eminence of the ecclesiastical over the secular power. If thegeréfawould not do justice, and maintain the peace in the land, then the bishop was especially commanded to enforce the fines which the king and his witan had apportioned to that officer’s offence[891]. It was no doubt argued that nogeréfawould be found bold enough to incur the danger of offering violent resistance to the sacred person of the prelate; and even the ealdorman, whomight have set the king at defiance, would tremble to encounter the substantial terrors of excommunication and a laborious penance.

The high station occupied by the bishop in the social hierarchy is proved by the amount of his wergyld and of the fines assigned to offences against his honour, his person, and his property. Although the bishop and the presbyter are in fact but of one order in the church, yet the state found it convenient to place the former on much the higher scale. In the “North-people’s law” an archbishop is reckoned upon the same footing as an æðeling or prince of the blood, at fifteen thousand thrymsas, and a bishop upon the same footing as an ealdorman at eight thousand. The breach of a bishop’s surety or protection, like the ealdorman’s, rendered the offender liable to a fine of two pounds, which in the case of an archbishop rose to three[892]. He that drew weapon before a bishop or ealdorman was to be mulcted in one hundred shillings, before an archbishop, in one hundred and fifty[893]. Under Ini the violence done to a bishop’s dwelling, and the seat of his jurisdiction, was to be compensated with one hundred and twenty shillings, while the ealdorman’s was protected by a fine of only eighty: in this the episcopal dignity was placed upon a level with that of the king himself[894]. Similarly Wihtrǽdhad declared his mere word, without an oath, to be like the king’s, incontrovertible.

The ecclesiastical functions of the bishops were here the same as elsewhere. To them belonged the ordination of priests and deacons, the hallowing of chrism, the ceremonies of confirmation, the consecration of churches and churchyards, nuns and monks; they had a right to regulate the lives and conversation of their clergy, to superintend the monastic foundations, and in general to watch that every detail of the ecclesiastical establishment was duly regarded and maintained. In their peculiar synods they could frame canons of discipline, to be enforced in the several dioceses. They were the receivers-general of all ecclesiastical revenue, which they distributed to the inferior clergy under their government, according to certain specified regulations; providing out of the common fund for the due maintenance of the priests, the buildings, and minor accessories required for decent celebration of the rites of religion.[895]

But the most important of their functions was that which is technically callediurisdictio fori interni, their jurisdiction in matters of conscience, their dealing with the motives and feelings, rather than the acts of men. This—which practically they exercised through the several presbyters who were, for the general convenience, dispersed overthe face of the country,—was the true source of their power, and measure of their social influence. Positive law deals only with the actions of men, and then only when they are perfected or completed: religion regulates the inward impulses from which those actions spring, and its authority extends both before and beyond them: intention, not act, is its proper province. But the secret intentions and motives of men are known perfectly to God alone; the man himself may, and often does possess but an indistinct and fallacious notion of his own impulses; and as it is in these, rather than in the acts which are their results, that the essence of guilt lies, the Christian was taught to unbosom himself to one of more experienced and disciplined feelings;—one whose profession was to console the distracted sinner, and who, on genuine repentance, was empowered to announce the glad tidings of reconciliation with God. Confession of sins was the mode pointed out by the founder of the church, to obtain the blessings of almighty mercy; but how were the ignorant, the obstinate, or the despairing to know the right manner of such confession? How could they know in what form confession was effectually to be made to God? How could they, plunged in sin and foulness, dare to approach the source of all purity and holiness? What hope could the grovelling outcast have of being admitted to the throne of his glorious King, even for the purpose of renouncing his state of rebellion and apostasy? But the glorious King was a merciful sovereign, who had commissioned certain of hisservants, reconciled sinners themselves, to be intermediaries between his own majesty and the terror-stricken offender: they had been sent forth armed with full power to receive the submission which the guilty feared to offer to Himself in person, furnished with instructions as to the exact mode in which the satisfactory propitiation was to be made. These commissioners were the especial body of the clergy,—the successors and representatives of the Levitical Priests under the Law,—the offerers of the sacrifices,—to whom the spirit of God had been exclusively communicated in the ceremony of their ordination, and who thereby became possessors of the divine authority, to bind and loose, to forgive sins on earth and in the world to come. The clergy therefore undertook to direct the suffering and heart-broken outlaw to the throne of peace. Again, as the merely human preacher of atonement possessed of himself no means of ascertaining the genuineness of repentance, a system of penances was established which might serve as a test of the penitent’s earnestness: and too soon a miserable error grew up that, by submitting to self-inflicted punishments, the sinner might diminish the weight of the penalties which he had earned in a future state. But he might exceed or fall short of the just measure, if not duly weighed and apportioned by those who were in possession of the divine will in that respect: men had even without their own knowledge become holy and justified by their works of self-abasement and humiliation and charity: such men might exceed the necessarylimit of penance and mortification:—happily for the sinner and the saint, the priest had a code of instructions at hand by which the difficulties in all cases could be readily adjusted.

These codes of instructions, known by the names of Confessionalia, Poenitentialia, Modus imponendi Poenitentiam, and the like, were compiled by the bishops, to whom theiurisdictio fori interniwas exclusively competent, as soon as the episcopal system became firmly settled. The presbyter exercised it only as the bishop’s vicar, when it became inconvenient for the penitent to visit a distant cathedral or metropolis. The episcopal right was open to every bishop: each one might, if he dared, embody his own ideas on the subject in a code, which would derive its authority from conformity to the recognised customs of the church, the personal reputation of its author, and the general acceptance by his episcopal peers throughout the world. The differing circumstances of differing states of society required skilful adaptation of general rules; and therefore any bishop who felt in his conscience that he was qualified for the task, might bring the light of his wisdom to the consideration of this weighty matter, and make such regulations as to himself seemed good, for the management of his own diocese,—certain that, if the blessing of God rested upon his endeavours, his views would be widely circulated and adopted by his neighbours. There is perhaps no more melancholy evidence in existence of the vanity and worthlessness of human endeavours than the celebrated works which thusarose in various parts of Europe; and nothing can demonstrate more strikingly the folly and wickedness of squaring and shaping the unlimited mercy of God by the rule and measure of mere human intelligence. With the contents of these Poenitentials we have of course not here to deal; but I am bound to say that I know of no more fatal sources of antichristian error, no more miserable records of the debasement and degradation of human intellect, no more frightful proofs of the absence of genuine religion. It was the evil tendency of those barbarous early ages not to be satisfied with the simple promises of divine mercy, and faith was clouded and confused by the crowd of incongruous images which were raised between itself and its all-glorious object. At one time terrified by the consciousness of sin, at another deluded by the cheap hope of ceremonial justification, the human race eagerly rushed to multiply the means of salvation, and franticly rejoiced in the establishment of a host of mediators between themselves and their crucified Redeemer, between the frightened but unconverted sinner, and his offended Lord and Maker. The pure Word of God was not then, as it now is, accessible to every reader; and those whose duty it was to proclaim what the mass of men could not obtain access to themselves, had erred into a devious labyrinth of traditions, through which the weary wayfarer circled and circled in endless, objectless gyrations, at every turn more distant only from the goal he pursued. Pure and good were no doubt the objects sought by Cummian, andTheodore and Ælfríc, and pious the spirit in which they wrought; but the foundation of their house was upon sand, and when the rains fell and the tempests roared around it vanished in a moment from before the sight of God and man, never to be reconstructed, even until the closing of the ages.

The sources of revenue by which the bishops supported their temporal power will be considered in a subsequent chapter: it is enough that we find them to have been amply endowed with fitting means, in every part of Europe. During the Anglosaxon period, poverty and self-denial were not the characteristics of the class, however they may have distinguished certain members of the body. Nor will the philosophical enquirer see cause for regret in this: far more will he rejoice in the establishment of any system which tends to draw closer the bonds of intercourse between the clerical and lay members of the church, which leads to the identification of their worldly as well as their eternal interests, and unites them in one harmonious work of praise and thanksgiving, one active service of worship and charity and love, before the face of Him in whom they are united as one holy priesthood. It is the separation of the clergy from the laity, as a class, to which the world owes so many ages of misery and error; and to the comparative union of both orders in the church, we may perhaps attribute the general quiet which, in these respects, characterized the Anglosaxon polity. On these points of separation I shall also have something to say hereafter; but for the present onemore subject alone remains to be treated of in this chapter, the last but not least remarkable function of the episcopal authority and power. By far the most important point of the public ecclesiastical jurisdiction,—for theiurisdictio fori interniis quite another thing,—lay in the questions of marriage, which were especially reserved for the bishop’s cognizance. The prohibitions which the clergy enforced were obviously unknown to the strict Teutonic law, which permitted considerable licence in these respects. From Tacitus we learn that a sort of polygamy was not unknown on the part of the princes; it was probably looked upon as a useful mode of increasing the alliances of the tribe[896],—the only conceivable ground on which it could have been allowed by a race so strict in the observance of marriage. We do not know within what degrees the Germans permitted unions which the Roman clergy considered incestuous, but we do know that Gregory considered a relaxation of the strict rule necessary to the success of Augustine in Britain; that he gave the missionary positive instructions upon the subject, and, when blamed by his episcopal brother of Messina for this concession, justified his course by the danger which he apprehended for his plan of conversion, if the prejudices of the Saxons on so vital a point were too hastily shocked[897].From these directions of Gregory we learn not only that the marriage of first cousins was common, but—what is much more surprising—that the marriage with a father’s widow was so likewise. Nor can we doubt this, when we not only find recorded cases of its occurrence, but when we have a Teutonic king distinctly affirming it to be the legal custom of his people: in the sixth century Ermengisl king of the Varni can say, “Let Radiger my son marry his step-mother, even as our national custom permits[898];” and therefore when we find Beda speaking of a similar marriage, and declaring Eádbald to have been “fornicatione pollutus tali qualem nec inter gentes auditam Apostolus testatur,ita ut uxorem patris haberet[899],” or Asser on another such occasion saying that it was “contra Dei interdictum, et Christianorum dignitatem, nec non et contra omnium Paganorum consuetudinem,” we can only suppose that they either did not know, or that they deemed it advisable not to recognise, the ancient heathen practice.

In both the cases referred to, the obvious scandal was put a stop to by the separation of the parties[900],—Eádbald being evidently led to this step by superstitious fears, rather than submitting to an episcopal authority exercised by Laurentius. It is certainly strange in the case of Æðelbald, if there really were a separation, that we hear nothing of the interference of the Church to produce so important an event.

We learn that by degrees the time arrived at which the clergy thought themselves strong enough to insist upon a stricter observance of the canonical prohibitions, and various instances are on record where their intervention is mentioned, to separate persons too nearly connected by blood. It is probable that many more of these are intended than we actually know; for unhappily the monkish writers are over-fond of using strong expressions both of praise and blame, and not rarely flingpellex scortumandconcubinaat the heads of women who were for all that, legally speaking, very honest wives. One celebrated case has obtained a worldwide reputation,—that of Eádwig, the details of whose unhappy fate will probably for ever remain a mystery. Political calculations, and unreconciled national jealousies were in all probability the mainsprings of the events of his troublous life; but that which lends it all its romance—his separation from Ælfgyfu—was the act of a prelate determined upon upholding the ecclesiastical law of marriage. It is to be regretted that we do not know the exact degree of relationship between the royal victims. It may have been too close, in the eyes of the stricter clergy; yet we cannot close our eyes to the fact that it was long acquiesced in by the English nobles; nor, had Eádwig shown himself more pliant to the pretensions of Dúnstán, might we ever have heard of it at all. History, deprived of all its materials, will here fail to do even late justice to the sufferers; but it will not fail to stamp with its enduring brand the brutal conduct of their persecutors[901].However conscientious may have been the intentions of archbishop Oda, it is to be lamentedthat a stain of barbarous cruelty attaches to his memory, for the part he took in this transaction. Ithe found it inevitable, after two years of wedded life further to humiliate his already humbled sovereign, by insisting upon the removal of his young consort, it was not necessary to disfigure her with hot searing-irons, or on her return from exile to put her to a cruel death. The asceticism of the savage churchman seems here to have been embittered by even less worthy considerations.

The history of mediæval Europe show’s with what awful effect this tremendous power was wielded by unscrupulous popes and prelates, whenever it suited their purposes not to connive at marriages which, according to their teaching, were incestuous. But amidst the striking cases on record—the cases of kings and nobles—we look in vain for a true measure of the misery which these prohibitions must have entailed upon the humbler members of society, who possessed neither the influence to compel nor the wealth to purchase dispensations from an arbitrary and oppressive rule. The sense and feeling of mankind at once revolt against restrictions for which neither the law of God, nor the dictates of nature supply excuse, and which resting upon acomplicated calculation of affinity, were often the means of betraying the innocent and ignorant into a condition of endless wretchedness. But they were invaluable engines of extortion, and instruments of malice; they led to the intervention of the priest with the family, in the most intolerable form; they furnished weapons which could be used with almost irresistible effect against those whom nothing could reach but the tears perhaps and broken heart of a beloved companion. And therefore they were steadily upheld till the great day of retribution came, which involved so many traditions of superstition and error, so many engines of oppression and fraud, in one common and undistinguishing ruin: τὰ πρὶν δὲ πελώρια νῦν ἀϊστοῖ—things mighty indeed have perished away from the world; but thrice blessed was the day which left us free and unshackled to pursue the noblest and purest impulses of our human nature.

833. Hüllmann, ‘Origine de l’organisation de l’Eglise au Moyen Age,’ p. 30.

834. This was strongly asserted by Romanus against Cyprian, and never lost sight of by the Roman controversialists, whatever opposition it encountered in other churches. But while Rome really was the first city of the world, it was consonant to the analogy of the other episcopal relations that her prelate should claim the primacy. The founding it either on St. Peter’s peculiar principality, or on pretended decrees of the Roman emperors, was quite a different thing, and an afterthought.

835. But, as yet, no independence. Pope Paschal in 823, being accused by the Romans of participation in various homicides, Hluduuig sent his Missi,—Adalung a presbyter and abbot, and Hunfrid duke of Rhætia (or Coire) to investigate the affair. Paschal appeared before them, and cleared himself by oath. “Qui supradictus Pontifex cum iuramento purificavit se in Lateranensi patriarchio coram supradictis legatis et populo Romano, cum episcopis 34, et presbyteris et diaconibus quinque.” Thegan. Vit. Hludov. Imp. Pertz, ii. 597.

836. No sooner was Charlemagne crowned as emperor by Leo III. (Dec. 20th, 800) than he caused an oath of fidelity to be administered to all his subjects who were above the age of twelve years. See on this subject Dönniges, p. 2, etc. He thus obtained all the rights of the ancient emperors over the church and the Roman provincials, in addition to the powers as a German king, which in his vigorous hands assumed a consistency and compass unknown to his predecessors. Charlemagne required all the aid of the Pope against the great Frankish families, who might have given him a mayor of the palace, as they had given his own progenitors to the Merwingian kings. The following important passage will show in what spirit he considered the imperial authority which he had assumed, “A.D.802. Eo anno demoravit domnus Caesar Carolus apud Aquis palatium quietus cum Francis sine hoste; sed recordatus misericordiae suae de pauperibus, qui in regno suo erant et iustitias suas pleniter [h]abere non poterant, noluit de infra palatio pauperiores vassos suos transmittere ad iustitias faciendum propter munera, sed elegit in regno suo archiepiscopos et reliquos episcopos et abbates cum ducibus et comitibus, qui iam opus non [h]abebant super innocentes munera accipere, et ipsos misit per universum regnum suum, ut ecclesiis, viduis et orfanis et pauperibus, et cuncto populo iustitiam facerent. Et mense Octimbrio congregavit universalem synodum in iam nominato loco, et ibi fecit episcopis cum presbyteris seu diaconibus relegi universos canones quas sanctus synodus recepit, et decreta pontificum, et pleniter iussit eos tradi coram omnibus episcopis, presbyteris et diaconibus. Similiter in ipso synodo congregavit universos abbates et monachos qui ibi aderant, et ipsi inter se conventum faciebant, et legerunt regulam sancti patris Benedicti, et eam tradiderunt sapientes in conspectu abbatum et monachorum; et tunc iussu eius generaliter super omnes episcopos, abbates, presbyteros, diaconos seu universo clero facta est, ut unusquisque in loco suo iuxta constitutionem sanctorum patrum, sive in episcopatibus seu in monasteriis aut per universas sanctas ecclesias, ut canonici, iuxta canones viverent, et quicquid in clero aut in populo de culpis aut de negligentiis apparuerit, iuxta canonum auctoritate emendassent; et quicquid in monasteriis seu in monachis contra regulam sancti Benedicti factum fuisset, hoc ipsud iuxta ipsam regulam sancti Benedicti emendare fecissent. Sed et ipse imperator, interim quod ipsum synodum factum est, congregavit duces, comites et reliquo christiano populo cum legislatoribus, et fecit omnes leges in regno suo legi, et tradi unicuique homini legem suam, et emendare ubicumque necesse fuit, et emendatam legem scribere, et ut iudices per scriptum iudicassent, et munera non accepissent; sed omnes homines, pauperes et divites, in regno suo iustitiam habuissent.” Annal. Lauresham, xxv. Pertz, i. 38. In the theory of that great man, the imperial title was no empty name.

837.A.D.987. See Dönniges, p. 197seq.Thierry,Lettres sur l’Histoire de France, let. xii.

838. SinceA.D.924 there had been in fact no Emperor of Germany, and the empire itself might seem to have been resolved anew into its original and discordant elements. From the year 904, when the elder Theodora succeeded in placing Sergius the Third upon the papal throne, the faction of that profligate woman and her daughters had completely disposed of all the dignities of the city, and the bed of the Theodoras or Marozia was the best introduction to the Chair of St. Peter.

839. See Soames, Anglos. Church, p. 40seq., and Latin Church during Anglos. Times, p. 12seq., 19seq.On the other side, Schrödl, Das erste Jahrhundert der Englischen Kirche, p. 10seq.

840. It must not be forgotten that the Southerns shuddered at the Saxons, as the most savage and barbarous of all the Germanic tribes. However unjust the opinion might be, it was the fashionable one at Rome.

841. Gibbon, Dec. and Fall, chapter 45.

842. “The passages of the Homilies of Gregory, which represent the miserable state of the city and country, are transcribed in the Annals of Baronius,A.D.590, No. 16;A.D.595, No. 2. etc.”

843. “The inundation and plague were reported by a deacon, whom his bishop, Gregory of Tours, had despatched to Rome for some relics. The ingenious messenger embellished his tale and the river with a great dragon and a train of little serpents.” Greg. Turon. lib. x. cap. 1.

844. “Gregory of Rome (Dialog. l. ii. c. 15) relates a memorable prediction of St. Benedict. ‘Roma a gentilibus non exterminabitur sed tempestatibus, coruscis turbinibus et terrae motu in semetipsa marcescet.’ Such a prophecy melts into true history, and becomes the evidence of the fact after which it was invented.”

845. “I cannot bear to see the finest provinces of Gaul in the hands of those heretics,” cried Clovis, with all the zeal of a new convert. The clergy blessed the pious sentiment, and the orthodox barbarian was rewarded with a series of bloody victories, which mainly tended to establish the predominance of the Frank over all the other elements in Gaul.

846. If traditions could be construed into good history, Britain was abundantly provided with apostolical converters: Joseph of Arimathea, Aristobulus, one of the seventy, St. Paul himself, have all had their several supporters. Nay even St. Peter has been said to have visited this island: Ἔπειτα [ὁ Πέτρος] ... εἰς βρεττανίαν παραγίνεται· Ἔνθα δὴ χειροτριβήσας καὶ πολλὰ τῶν ἀκατοναμάτων ἐνθῶν εἰς τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ πίστιν ἐπισπασάμενος ... ἐπιμείνας τὲ τοῖς ἐν βρεττανὶᾳ ἡμέρας τινὰς, καὶ πολλοὺς τῷ λόγῳ φωτίσας τῆς χάριτος, ἐκκλησίας τε συστησάμενος, ἐπισκόπους τε καὶ πρεσβυτέρους καὶ διακόνους χειροτονήσας, δωδεκάτῳ ἔτει τοῦ Καίσαρος αὖθις εἰς Ῥώμην παραγίνεται. Menolog. Graec. xvi. Mart.

847. At Arles in 314, Sardica in 347, and Rimini in 359.

848. Not to speak of Ninian, Palladius and Patricius, we may refer to Germanus of Auxerre, who is stated to have been sent as Papal Vicar to England, to arrest the progress of Pelagianism, at the beginning of the fifth century. Schrödl asserts this in the broadest terms: “Auf Bitten der Britischen Bischöfe, und gesendet von Pabst Cölestin, besuchte der Bischof Germanus von Auxerre in der Eigenschaft eines päbstlichen Vicars, zweimal Britannien,” etc. Erste Jahrh. p. 2. Lingard is somewhat less decided: he says, “Pope Celestine, at the representation of the deacon Palladius, commissioned Germanus of Auxerre to proceed in his name to Britain,” etc. Ang. Church, i. 8. Both these authors refer to Prosper, in Chron.anno429. “Papa Coelestinus Germanum Autisiodorensem episcopumvice suamittit, et deturbatis haereticis Britannos ad Catholicam fidem dirigit.” Prosper was not only a contemporary of the facts he relates, but at a later period actually became secretary to Celestine: his authority therefore is of much weight. Still it is observable that Beda, in his relation, does not attribute the mission of Germanus to the Pope. He says, that the Britons having applied for aid to the prelates of Gaul, these held a great synod, andelectedGermanus and Lupus to proceed to England. Hist. Eccl. i. 17. Beda’s account is taken from the life of Germanus written by Constantius of Lyons, about forty years after the bishop’s death. He says as little of the Vicariate in his account of the second mission. However, even supposing Prosper, whose means of judgment were certainly the best, to be right, it only follows that Celestine dispatched Germanus as his Vicar, but not that the British prelates formally received him in that capacity. It does not seem to me that the passage contains any satisfactory proof that the Roman See enjoyed arightof appointing Vicars in England at the period in question, however it may have desired, or tried practically, to establish one.

849. Beda, II. E. i. 22.

850. “Scottos vero per Daganum episcopum in hanc, quam superius memoravimus, insulam (sc. Britanniam) et Columbanum abbatem in Gallis venientem, nihil discrepare a Brittonibus in eorum conversatione didicimus. Nam Daganus episcopus ad nos veniens, non solum cibum nobiscum, sed nec in eodem hospitio quo vescebamur, sumere voluit.” Such is the account Laurentius, Mellitus and Justus give in their epistle to the Scottish prelates themselves. Beda, Hist. Eccl. ii. 4. And the Keltic example is answered in an equally intolerant spirit by Theodore:—“Qui ordinati sunt Scottorum vel Brittonum episcopi, qui in Pascha vel tonsura catholicae non sunt adunati aecclesiae, iterum a catholico episcopo manus impositione confirmentur. Licentiam quoque non habemuseis poscentibuschrisma vel eucharistiam dare, nisi ante confessi fuerint velle nobiscum esse in unitate aecclesiae. Et qui ex eorum similiter gente, vel quicumque de baptismo suo dubitaverit, baptizetur.” Cap. Theod. Thorpe, ii. 64. See also Canones Sancti Gregorii, cap. 145. Kunstmann, Poenit. p. 141.

851. This seems to follow from the relation of what passed at Augustine’s interview with the Welsh prelates. At the same time we should judge very unwisely were we to believe missionary jealousies confined to the nineteenth century. In the distracted state of the British the bishops were almost the only possessors of a legal authority; and it is not at all probable that they would have looked with equanimity on those who came with an open proposal of subordination, even had it been unaccompanied with circumstances wounding to their self-love.

852. Kent is probably only an apparent exception. Rochester can hardly have been otherwise than the capital of a subordinate kingdom.

853. I neglect temporary changes, such as that of John at Beverley, Birinus at Dorchester, etc., and confine myself to the settled and usual location of the sees, and what appears to have been the established order of their precedence. One of the most solemn ecclesiastical acts on record, namely that of archbishop Æðelheard’s synod at Clofeshoo, in 803, by which the integrity of the see of Canterbury was restored, was signed by the following prelates in the order in which they stand, and which usually prevails in the rest of the charters:—1. Æðelheard, archbishop of Canterbury.2. Aldwulf, bishop of Lichfield.3. Werenberht, bishop of Leicester.4. Eádwulf, bishop of Sidnacester (Lincoln).5. Deneberht, bishop of Worcester.6. Wulfheard, bishop of Hereford.7. Wigberht, bishop of Sherborne.8. Ealhmund, bishop of Winchester.9. Alhheard, bishop of Elmham.10. Tidfrið, bishop of Dunwich.11. Osmund, bishop of London.12. Wermund, bishop of Rochester.13. Wihthun, bishop of Selsey.—Cod. Dipl. No. 1024.The archbishop of York, and his suffragans, it appears, did not care to attend a synod which restored his rival of Canterbury to a predominant authority in England.

1. Æðelheard, archbishop of Canterbury.2. Aldwulf, bishop of Lichfield.3. Werenberht, bishop of Leicester.4. Eádwulf, bishop of Sidnacester (Lincoln).5. Deneberht, bishop of Worcester.6. Wulfheard, bishop of Hereford.7. Wigberht, bishop of Sherborne.8. Ealhmund, bishop of Winchester.9. Alhheard, bishop of Elmham.10. Tidfrið, bishop of Dunwich.11. Osmund, bishop of London.12. Wermund, bishop of Rochester.13. Wihthun, bishop of Selsey.—Cod. Dipl. No. 1024.

1. Æðelheard, archbishop of Canterbury.

2. Aldwulf, bishop of Lichfield.

3. Werenberht, bishop of Leicester.

4. Eádwulf, bishop of Sidnacester (Lincoln).

5. Deneberht, bishop of Worcester.

6. Wulfheard, bishop of Hereford.

7. Wigberht, bishop of Sherborne.

8. Ealhmund, bishop of Winchester.

9. Alhheard, bishop of Elmham.

10. Tidfrið, bishop of Dunwich.

11. Osmund, bishop of London.

12. Wermund, bishop of Rochester.

13. Wihthun, bishop of Selsey.—Cod. Dipl. No. 1024.

The archbishop of York, and his suffragans, it appears, did not care to attend a synod which restored his rival of Canterbury to a predominant authority in England.

854. “Isque primus erat in archiepiscopis, cui omnis Anglorum aecclesia manus dare consentiret.” Beda, II. E. iv. 2.

855. Deusdedit died Nov. 28th, 664. The Saxon Chronicle and Florence assign 667 as the date of Wigheard’s mission, but this is hardly reconcilable with the facts of the case, and appears to be an erroneous calculation founded on the circumstance that the see was vacant three years, and that Theodore arrived only in 668. Some time must have elapsed from Wigheard’s departure for Rome, until the interchange of letters between Oswiú and Pope Vitalian, and the completion of the negotiations which resulted in Theodore’s appointment.

856. The want of an archbishop to give canonical ordination to bishops, seems to have forced itself upon their notice. “Hunc antistitem ordinandum Romam miserunt; quatenus accepto ipso gradu archiepiscopatus, catholicos per omnem Britanniam aecclesiis Anglorum ordinare posset antistites.” Beda, H. E. iv. 29. It was at all events a good argument, though the difficulty was one which Gaul had often arranged.

857. This event has naturally been discussed with very different views. The Roman Catholics construe it to imply a recognized right in the Roman See: the Protestants look upon it as rather a piece of skilful manœuvring on the part of the Pope. Lappenberg (i. 172) says: “The death of Wigheard was taken advantage of by the Pope to set over the Anglosaxon bishops a primate devoted to his views.” “This opportunity was not lost upon Italian subtlety. Vitalian, then Pope, determined upon trying whether the Anglosaxons would receive an archbishop nominated by himself.” Soames, Anglos. Church, p. 78. Against this, of course, Lingard has expatiated in his Hist. and Antiq. i. 75. He attributes the selection of Theodore to arequestof the two kings, and adds in a note: “That such was their request is certain. Beda calls Theodore, who was selected by Vitalian, ‘the archbishop asked for by the king’—episcopum quem petierant a Romano pontifice(Bed. iv. c. 1)—and ‘the bishop whom the country had anxiously sought’—doctorem veritatis, quem patria sedula quaesierat.Id. Op. Min. p. 142. Vitalian, in his answer to the two kings, reminds them that their letter requested him to choose a bishop for them in the case of Wigheard’s death—‘secundum vestrorum scriptorum tenorem.’ Bed. iii. 29. Certainly these passages must have escaped the eye of Mr. Soames, who boldly, and without an atom of authority for his statement, ascribes the choice of a bishop by Vitalian to Italian subtlety.” Mr. Churton in his Early English Church, p. 67, inclines also to this view, which is again combated by Soames in his Latin Church, etc. p. 80seq.; but this author with a happy skill which he sometimes manifests of not seeing disagreeable data, says nothing of the “quem petieranta Romano pontifice.” Yet in these words lies the matter of the whole dispute. It certainly does not appear from Vitalian’s letter, that any such contingency as Wigheard’s death was provided for by the kings; this is in itself extremely improbable, and the assertion is an evidence of Lingard’s rashness where the interests of his party are concerned. But is it not on the other hand very probable that more letters passed between the kings and the pope than are now recorded? that Vitalian announced Wigheard’s death, and that the kings, conscious of the difficulty of coming to any second settlement in such a state of society as their own (especially as they were but two of four very equally poised authorities), fairly asked him to solve the problem for them? I greatly doubt the strict adherence to canonical forms of election in the seventh century; and indeed throughout the history of the English church it appears that the kings dealt very much at their own pleasure in the appointment of bishops. It could hardly be otherwise with a clergy dispersed through so many heterogeneous fractions as then made up England: and if it is now much to be desired that the appointment by the central authority should spare the church the scandal which might ensue from the canonical election of bishops—strictly construed—(for acted upon strictly it never has been under any orderly and strong government, since Christianity began), it was much more necessary then, when the clergy belonged to hostile populations. That central authority was royalty, recognized wherever found.

858. Boniface found an ancient church even in Germany. Vit. Bonif. Pertz, ii. 341. He rendered it a papal one. It is no doubt difficult to imagine how it could have been originally anything else; but at all events his efforts brought it back into subjection to the Vatican. “D’abord les églises de la Grand Bretagne et de l’Allemagne, fondées par les missionaires du pape, furent toutes rattachées et subordonnées à l’épiscopat Romain. C’est surtout Saint Boniface, le fondateur de l’église Allemande, mort en 755, qui reserra cette union. Ou diminua partout les métropolitains, et les simples évêques devinrent plus indépendans par leurs rapports directs avec Rome.” Warnkönig, Hist. du Droit Belgique, p. 163. The spirit in which Boniface considered his mission, which he himself callsapostolicae sedis legatio(Vita, Pertz, ii. 342) is apparent from the correspondence with Pope Gregory III. in 731. “Denuo Romam nuntii eius venerunt, sanctumque sedis Apostolicae pontificem adlocuti sunt, eique prioris amicitiae foedera, quae misericorditer ab antecessore suo, Sancto Bonifatio eiusque familiae conlata sunt, manifestaverunt; sed et devotam eius in futurum humilitatis apostolicae sedi subiectionem narraverunt, et ut familiaritati ac communioni sancti pontificis atque totius sedis apostolicae ex hoc devote subiectus communicaret, quemadmodum edocti erant, praecabantur. Statim ergo sedis apostolicae Papa pacificum profert responsum, et suam sedisque apostolicae familiaritatis et amicitiae communionem tam sancto Bonifatio quam etiam sibi subiectis condonavit, sumptoque archiepiscopatus pallio, cum muneribus diversisque sanctorum reliquiis legatos honorifice remisit ad patriam.” Pertz, ii. 345. With such provocation, the Popes would indeed have acted an unwise part in not availing themselves of the ready service of their Anglosaxon converts!

Back to Index Next