Chapter 21

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 certainpresbytera, 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 restraintattempted 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 ofwhat 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].

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 callmonasteriumwas 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 betweenthe rules adopted by various congregations of monks, or imposed upon them by their patrons and founders, until the time when greater familiarity with Benedict’s regulations, and the customs of celebrated houses, produced a more general conformity.

One of the most disputed questions in Anglosaxon history is that touching the revival of monkery by Dúnstán and his partizans. Its supposed connexion with the tragical story of Eádwig, and the dismemberment of England by Eádgár, have lent it some of the attractions of romance; and by the monastic chroniclers in general, it has very naturally been looked upon as the greatest point in the progressive record of our institutions. Connected as it is with some of the most violent prejudices of our nature, political, professional and personal, it has not only obtained a large share of attention from ecclesiastical historians of all ages, but has been discussed with great eagerness, not to say acrimony, by those who differed in opinion as to the wisdom and justice of the revival itself. Yet it does not appear to me to have been brought to the degree of clearness which we should have expected from the skill and learning of those who have undertaken its elucidation. Neither the share which Dúnstán took in the great revolution, nor the extent to which Æðelwold and Oswald succeeded in their plans, are yet satisfactorily settled; and great obscurity still hangs both over the manner and the effect of the change.

Few things in history, when carefully investigated,do really prove to have been done in a hurry. Sudden revolutions are much less common than we are apt to suppose, and fewer links than we imagine are wanting in the great chain of causes and effects. Could we place ourselves above the exaggerations of partizans, who hold it a point of honour to prove certain events to be indiscriminately right or indiscriminately wrong, we should probably find that the course of human affairs had been one steady and very gradual progression; the reputation of individual men would perhaps be shorn of part of its lustre; and though we should lose some of the satisfaction of hero-worship, we might more readily admit the constant action of a superintending providence, operating without caprice through very common and every-day channels. But it would have been too much to expect an impartial account of the events which led to the reformation of the Benedictine order in England; like Luther in the fifteenth, Dúnstán must be made the principal figure in the picture of the tenth century: throughout all great social struggles the protagonist stalks before us in gigantic stature,—glorious as an archangel, or terrible and hideous as Satan.

The writers who arose shortly after the triumph of the Reformation have revelled in this fruitful theme. The abuses of monachism,—not entirely forgotten at the beginning of the seventeenth century,—its undeniable faults, and the mischief it entails upon society,—judged with the exaggeration which unhappily seems inseparable from religious polemics, produced in every part of Europe a successionof 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 eagercredulitycredulitywhich they showed when any tale, however preposterous, appeared to support their particular objects. In later times the controversy has been renewed with greater decency of language, but not less zeal. The champion of protestantism is the Rev. Mr. Soames: Dr. Lingard takes up the gauntlet on behalf of his church. It is no intention of mine to balance their conflicting views as to the character and intentions of Dúnstán and his two celebrated coadjutors; these have been too deeply tinged by the ground-colour that lies beneath the outlines. But I propose to examine the facts upon which both parties seem agreed, though each may represent them variously in accordance with a favourite theory.

It admits of no doubt whatever that monachism, and monachism under the rule of St. Benedict, had been established at an early period in this country[955];but it is equally certain that the strict rule had very generally ceased to be maintained at the timewhen 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, whoiure dominiiimposed such regulations as their vanity suggested, or their industry gleaned from the established orders of Columba, Benedict, and other credited authorities[956]. Thechapters, 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-mindednessdid 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 thedetails 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 nothingrepugnant 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 werenot 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 aReviver; and Revival was the fashion of his day. Arnold earl of Flanders[962]had lent himself with the utmost zeal to the reform of the Benedictine abbeys in his territory, and they were the models selected for imitation, or as schools of instruction, by other lands, especially England so closely connected with Flanders by commerce and the alliances of the reigning houses[963].Yet with it all, Dúnstán does not appear to have taken a very prominent part in the proceedings of the friends of monachism,—certainly not the prominent part taken by Oswald or Æðelwold, the last of whom merited the title of the “Father of Monks,” by the attention he paid to their interests. In the archbishop’s own cathedral at Canterbury, the canons were left in undisturbed possession of their property and dignity, nor were monks introduced there by archbishop Ælfríc till some years after Dúnstán’s death. And even this measure, although supported by papal authority[964], was not final: it was only in the time of Lanfranc that the monks obtained secure possession of Christchurch. Dúnstán very probably continued throughout his life to be a favourer of the Order, and merited its gratitude by giving it valuable countenance and substantial protection against violence. But he was assuredly not himself a violent disturber, casting all things divine and human into confusion for the sake of a system of monkery. His recorded conduct shows nothing of the kind. I believe his monkish and very vulgar-minded panegyrists to have done his character and memory great wrong in this respect; and that they have measured the distinguished statesman by the narrow gauge of their own intelligence and desire. Troublous no doubt were his commencements; and in the days of his misery, while his mind yet tossedand 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 measureof 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 weare 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 changedthe 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 presbytersand deacons, in part by clerics, and there is but one signature of a monk[968], though there are at least sixclericiwho 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 longbefore, to do the service for them. All at once the additionmonachusto seven of these eight names vanishes, and is replaced bypresbyterordiaconus. Henceforth the number ofclericigradually 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 acquitsome 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 moriseo temporepopulis Anglorum, ut veniente in villam clerico vel presbytero, cuncti ad eius imperium verbum audituri confluerent.” Ibid. iv. 27. The wordseo temporealso 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 theGallia 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 Frankishmansusfor the Englishmansa, 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 isdos 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,fanumBesingorum. 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.

Back to Index Next