Chapter VIII: The Bishop (2)

The avarice of the Roman See was thus fed fat: but the inconveniences
were felt to be so intolerable, that in 1031 Cnut made them the
subject of an especial remonstrance to the Pope. In his letter to the
Witan of England he says, writing from Rome:—“Conquestus sum iterum
coram domino papa et mihi valde displicere causabar, quod mei
archiepiscopi in tantum angariabantur immensitate pecuniarum quae ab
eis expetebatur, dum pro pallio accipiendo, secundum morem,
apostolicam sedem peterent; decretumque est ne ita deinceps fieret.”
Epist. Cnut. apud Flor. Wig. 1031. The question is not whether the
Roman See had a right to make a demand, but whether—usurpation or
not—it was acquiesced in and admitted by the Anglosaxon church; and on
that point there can be no dispute.

-----

Although these facts will not suffice to establish that sort of dependence _de iure_, which zealous Papal partizans have asserted as the normal condition of the English church, they do indisputably prove that the example, advice and authority of the See of Rome were very highly regarded among our forefathers. It was impossible that it should be otherwise; and there is not the slightest doubt that—despite the Keltic clergy—the Anglosaxon church looked with affection and respect to Rome as the source of its own being. Respect and high regard were paid to Rome in Gaul long before Theodore; but not such submission as our countrymen, less acquainted no doubt with their danger, were zealous to pay. Indeed, when we consider the position of the Roman See towards the North of Europe, during the interval from the commencement of the seventh till that of the ninth century, we can scarcely escape from the conclusion that England was the great basis of papal operations, and the ποῦ στῶ from which Rome moved her world. In the ninth century a continental author calls the English “maxime familiares apostolicae sedis[860],” and in the tenth century it was unquestionably England that made the greatest progress, even if it did not take the initiative with regard to the revival of monachism and the great question of clerical celibacy. In short, throughout, the most energetic and successful missionaries of Rome were Englishmen.

-----

Footnote 860:

“Unde remur, aliquos venerabiles viros aut de Britannia, id est gente
Anglorum, qui maxime familiares apostolicae sedis semper existunt,”
etc. Gest. Abb. Fontanellens. Pertz, ii. 289.

-----

But England nevertheless retained in some sense a national church. Many circumstances combined to ensure a very considerable amount of independence in this country. On the continent of Europe the prelates and clergy whom the invasions of the barbarians found established in the cities were, in fact, Roman provincials; and this character continued for a very long time to modify their relations toward the conquerors: in Britain, either Christianity was never widely and generally spread, or it retreated before the steady advance of the pagan Saxons. It is remarkable that we nowhere hear of the existence of Christian churches before Augustine, except in the territory exclusively British, and in the household of Æðelberht’s Frankish queen, the latter an exception of little moment.

But no sooner do the first missionary prelates vanish from the scene, than we find them replaced by Saxons belonging to the noblest and most powerful families, and thus connecting the clergy with the state by that most close and intimate tie which forms the strongest and least objectionable security for both. Berhtwald, the eighth archbishop of Canterbury, was a very near relative of the Mercian king Æðelred; Aldhelm was closely connected with the royal family of Wessex; and even down to the Conquest we find the scions of the royal and noble houses occupying distinguished stations in the ministry of the Church. It is obvious how much this near and intimate association with the national aristocracy must have tended to diminish the evils of a separate institution, having some kind of dependence upon a foreign centre; and when to this it is added that the principal clergy, as ministers of state and members of the Witena gemót, had a clear and distinct interest in the maintenance of good government, and a personal share in its administration, we can easily understand why the clergy were, generally speaking, kept better within bounds in England than in other contemporaneous states[861]. Guilty of extravagancies the clergy were here, no doubt, as elsewhere; but on the whole their position was not unfavourable to the harmonious working of the state; and the history of the Anglosaxons is perhaps as little deformed as any by the ambition and power, and selfish class-interests of the clergy[862]. On the other hand it cannot be denied that in England, as in other countries, the laity are under the greatest obligations to them, partly for rescuing some branches of learning from total neglect, and partly for the counterpoise which their authority presented to the rude and forcible government of a military aristocracy. Ridiculous as it would be to affirm that their influence was never exerted for mischievous purposes, or that this institution was always free from the imperfections and evils which belong to all human institutions, it would be still more unworthy of the dignity of history to affect to undervalue the services which they rendered to society. If in the pursuit of private and corporate advantages they occasionally seemed likely to prefer the separate to the general good, they did no more than all bodies of men have done,—no more than is necessary to ensure the active co-operation of all bodies of men in any one line of conduct. But, whatever their class-interests may from time to time have led them to do, let it be remembered that they existed as a permanent mediating authority between the rich and the poor, the strong and the weak, and that, to their eternal honour, they fully comprehended and performed the duties of this most noble position. To none but themselves would it have been permitted to stay the strong hand of power, to mitigate the just severity of the law, to hold out a glimmering of hope to the serf, to find a place in this world and a provision for the destitute, whose existence the state did not even recognize. That the church of Christ does not necessarily and indispensably imply that form of ministration or constitution called Episcopal, is certain; but on the other hand let us not listen too readily to the doctrine which represents episcopacy as inconsistent with Christianity. To put it only on the lowest grounds, there is great convenience in it; and though there are no peculiar priests under the Christian dispensation, it is very useful that there should be persons specially appointed and educated to perform functions necessary to the moral and religious training of the people, and superior officers charged with the inspection over those persons. It would be difficult for the State to ascertain the condition of its members, as regards the most important of all considerations,—their moral capability of obedience to the law,—without such a body of recognized ministers and recognized inspectors. Accordingly the Anglosaxon State at once recognized the Bishops as State officers.

-----

Footnote 861:

Every wise and powerful government has treated with deserved
disregard the complaint that the “Spouse of Christ” was in bondage.
In this respect our own country has generally been honourably
distinguished. Boniface—himself an Englishman, papal beyond all his
contemporaries—laments that no church is in greater bondage than the
English,—a noble testimony to the nationality of the institution,
the common sense of the people, and the vigour of the State.

Footnote 862:

Though monks are not strictly speaking the clergy, so many prelates
and presbyters were bound by monastic vows in this country, that I
might be supposed to have fallen into confusion here, and forgotten
the troubles of Eádwig’s reign. But it will be seen hereafter that I
attach little credit to the exaggerations of the monkish authors
respecting those events, and believe their clients to have done much
less mischief than they themselves have recorded, or than their modern
antagonists have credited.

-----

The circumstances under which the establishment of Christianity took place naturally threw a great power of superintendence and interference into the hands of the kings: from the beginning we find them taking a very active part both in the formation of sees, the appointment of bishops, and other public measures touching the government of the church and—within this—the relation of the clergy to the state. The privileges and rights conceded to the clerical body were granted by the king and his witan, and enjoyed under their guarantee; and down to the last moment of the Anglosaxon monarchy we find the episcopal elections or appointments to have been controlled by them. Indeed as the clergy, the people and the state may be said to have been duly represented by the Witena gemót, an episcopal election made by them appears to possess in all respects the genuine character of a canonical election: and in times when there were no parliamentary struggles to make single votes valuable, there seems no reason whatever to question that this mode was found satisfactory. The loose manner in which the early writers mention the appointment of the bishops, hardly permits us to draw any very definite conclusions; yet it would seem natural that, where the whole missionary work depended upon the goodwill of the king, the latter, with or without his council, would exercise a paramount authority in all matters of detail. Accordingly, though we do meet with instances in which the free election of prelates may be assumed, we do far more frequently find them both appointed and displaced by the mere act of the royal will[863]. The case of Wessex in the seventh century is instructive. Ægilberht, a Frank, had succeeded Birinus, the first missionary bishop; but, from some cause or other, he lost the favour of the king[864], who proposed to divide his diocese, which was too large in fact for one prelate, and to appoint Wini, a native Westsaxon, to the second see. Ægilberht then withdrew from England in disgust, and the king committed the undivided bishopric to Wini: but on some subsequent misunderstanding, this bishop was expelled from Wessex, and afterwards _purchased_ the see of London from Wulfhari, king of the Mercians. Coinwalh then applied for and obtained another bishop from Gaul in the person of Liuthari or Lothaire, Ægilberht’s nephew. Equally great irregularities seem to have been admitted in respect to the Northumbrian sees in the time of Wilfrið; and indeed throughout the Anglosaxon history it appears that the ruling powers, that is the king and the witan, did in fact succeed in retaining the nomination of the bishops in their own hands[865]. I have already mentioned instances of episcopal nominations by the witena gemót[866], and called attention to the significant fact of so many royal chaplains promoted to sees[867]. It is difficult no doubt to withstand a royal recommendation, and though in the case of the Anglosaxon prelates this does not always seem to have ensured the canonical virtues, it perhaps very sufficiently supplied their want. After the appointment or election had thus been made, it was usual for the bishop elect to make his profession of faith to his metropolitan; then to receive episcopal consecration from him, assisted by such of his suffragans as he thought fit. He then most likely received seizin of the temporalities in the usual way by royal writ. The following is the instrument issued in 1060, for the temporalities of the see of Hereford, on the appointment of Walther, queen Eádgyfu’s Lorraine chaplain. “Eadwardus rex saluto Haroldum comitem et Osbearnum, et omnes meos ministros in Herefordensi comitatu amicabiliter. Et ego notifico vobis quod ego concessi Waltero episcopo istum episcopatum hic vobiscum, et omnia universa illa quae ad ipsum cum iusticia pertinent infra portum et extra, cum saca et cum socna, tam plene et tam plane sicut ipsum aliquis episcopus ante ipsum prius habuit in omnibus rebus. Et si illic sit aliqua terra extra dimissa quae illuc intus cum iustitia pertinet, ego volo quod ipsa reveniat in ipsum episcopatum, vel ille homo ipsam dimittat eidem in suo praetio, si quis ipsam cum eo invenire possit. Et ego nolo ullum hominem licentiare quod ei de manibus rapiat aliquam suam rem quam ipse iuste habere debet, et ego ei sic concessi[868].”

-----

Footnote 863:

See on this subject Lingard, Anglos. Church, i. 89 _seq._ His view
seems upon the whole satisfactory, and conformable to truth.

Footnote 864:

Lingard attributes this to the intrigues of Wini, whose simoniacal
bargain for the see of London does certainly not give a favourable
impression of his character. “The influence of the stranger was
secretly undermined by the intrigues of Wini, a Saxon ecclesiastic,
who possessed the advantage of conversing with the king in his native
tongue.” Anglos. Church, i. 90. But Beda says nothing of this: he
merely hints that Coinwalh was disgusted with the difficulties which
arose from Ægilberht’s ignorance of the Anglosaxon language. The whole
transaction is thus related in the Hist. Eccl. iii. 7:—“Cum vero
restitutus esset in regnum Coinwalch, venit in provinciam de Hibernia
pontifex quidam nomine Agilberctus, natione quidem Gallus, sed tunc
legendarum gratia Scripturarum in Hibernia non parvo tempore
demoratus, coniunxitque se regi, sponte ministerium praedicandi
adsumens: cuius eruditionem atque industriam videns rex rogavit eum,
accepta ibi sede episcopali, suae genti manere pontificem. Qui
precibus eius adnuens, multis annis eidem genti sacerdotali iure
praefuit. Tandem rex, qui Saxonum tantum linguam noverat, pertaesus
barbarae loquelae, subintroduxit in provinciam alium suae linguae
episcopum vocabulo Uini, et ipsum in Gallia ordinatum: dividensque in
duas parochias provinciam, huic in civitate Venta, quae a gente
Saxonum Uintancestir appellatur, sedem episcopalem tribuit; unde
offensus graviter Agilberctus, quod hoc ipso inconsulto ageret rex,
rediit Galliam, et accepto episcopatu Parisiacae civitatis, ibidem
senex et plenus dierum obiit. Non multis autem annis post abcessum
eius a Britannia transactis, pulsus est Uini ab eodem rege de
episcopatu; qui secedens ad regem Merciorum, vocabulo Uulfheri, emit
pretio ab eodem sedem Lundoniae civitatis, eiusque episcopus usque ad
vitae suae terminum mansit.” Wessex then remained for some time
without a bishop, till Coinwalh sent to Ægilberht and invited him to
return. The Frankish prelate replied that he could not desert his
church and see, but recommended his nephew Lothaire, as a proper
person to be ordained to Wessex: and he was accordingly consecrated by
Theodore: “Quo honorifice a populo et a rege suscepto, rogaverunt
Theodorum, tunc archiepiscopum Doruvernensis ecclesiae, ipsum sibi
antistitem consecrari.” Hist. Eccl. iii. 27. See also Will. Malm. de
Gest. Pontif. lib. ii.

Footnote 865:

Throughout every difficulty the English kings never lost sight of this
part of their prerogative, often as they were deceived in its
exercise. A writer of the twelfth century very justly calls it “the
custom of the realm.” “Cum autem _iuxta regni consuetudinem_, in
electionibus faciendis potissimas et potentissimas habeat partes,”
etc. Pet. Blesensis, Ep. de Henrico II. An. Trivet. 1154. p. 35.

Footnote 866:

Page 221 of this volume.

Footnote 867:

Page 115 of this volume.

Footnote 868:

Cod. Dipl. No. 833.

-----

As this is obviously, indeed professedly, a Latin translation, I subjoin copies of the similar writs issued on the occasion of Gisa’s appointment to the see of Wells[869].

-----

Footnote 869:

Gisa was a chaplain of the king, and also of Lotharingen or Lorraine.

-----

“✠ Eadward king grét Harold erl and Aylnóð abbot and Godwine schýre réuen and alle míne þeynes on Sumerseten frendlíche; and ich kýðe eów ðæt ich habbe geunnen Gisan mínan préste ðes biscopríche hér mid eów and alre ðare þinge ðás ðe ðǽr mid richte tógebyrað, on wóde and on felde, mid saca and mid sócna, binnon porte and bútan, swó ful and swó forð swó Duduc biscop oð ány biscop hit firmest him tóforen hauede on ællem þingan. And gif hér áni land sý out of ðám biscopríche gedon, ich wille ðæt hit cume in ongeæn óðer ðæt man hit ofgo on hire gemóð swó man wið him bet finde mage. And ich bidde eóu allen ðæt ge him fulstan tó dríuan Godes gerichte lóck huer hit neod sý and he eówwer fultumes biðurfe. And ich nelle nánne man geðefien ðæt him úram honde teó ánige ðáre þinge ðás ðe ich him unnen habben[870].”

-----

Footnote 870:

The same in Latin. “✠ Eádwardus rex Haroldo comiti, Ailnodo abbati,
Godwino vicecomiti, et omnibus ballivis suis Somersetae, salutem!
Sciatis nos dedisse Gisoni presbytero nostro episcopatum hunc apud vos
cum omnibus pertinentiis, in bosco et plano, et saca et socna, in
villis et extra, ita plene et libere in omnibus sicut episcopus
Dudocus aut aliqui praedecessorum suorum habuerunt; et si quid inde
contra iustitiam fuerit sublatum, volumus quod revocetur, vel quod
aliter ei satisfaciat. Rogamus etiam vos ut auxiliari eidem velitis ad
Christianitatem sustinandam si necesse habuerit, nolumus autem ut
ullus hominum ei auferat aliquid eorum quae ei contulimus.” Cod. Dipl.
No. 835.

-----

“✠ Eadward king grét Harold erl, and Aylnóð abbot, and Godwine and ealle míne þeines on Sumerseten frendlíche; ich queðe eóu ðæt ich wille ðæt Gyse biscop beó ðisses biscopríches wrðe heerinne mid eóu. And álch ðáre þinge ðe ðás ðár mid richte tógebyrað binnan porte and bután, mid saca and mid sócna, swó uol and swó uorð swó hit éni biscop him tóuoren formest haueð on ealle þing. And ich bidde eóu alle ðæt ge him beón on fultome Cristendóm tó sprekene, lóc whar hit þarf sý and eówer fultumes beðurfe eal swó ich getrowwen tó eów habben ðat ge him on fultume beón willen. And gif what sý mid unlage out of ðán biscopríche geydón sý hit londe óðer an oððer þinge ðár fulstan him uor mínan luuen ðæt hit in ongeyn cume swó swó ge for Gode witen ðat hit richt sý. God eú ealle gehealde[871].”

-----

Footnote 871:

The same in Latin. “✠ Eádwardus rex Haroldo comiti, Ailnodo abbati,
Godwino, et omnibus ballivis suis Sumersetac, salutem! Significamus
vobis nos velle quod episcopus Giso episcopatum apud vos possideat cum
omnibus dictum episcopatum in villis et extra de iure contingentibus,
cum saca et socna, adeo plene et libere per omnia sicut ullus
episcoporum praedecessorum suorum unquam habebat. Rogamus etiam vos ut
coadiutores ipsius esse velitis ad fidem praedicandam et
Christianitatem sustinendam pro loco et tempore, sicut de vobis
fideliter confidimus vos velle id ipsum. Et si quid de dicto
episcopatu sive in terris sive in aliis rebus contra iustitiam fuerit
sublatum, adiuvetis eum pro amore nostro ad restitutionem, prout
iustum fuerit habendam. Conservet vos Dominus.” Cod. Dipl. No. 838.

-----

The metropolitans themselves were to receive consecration from one another, in order that the expense and trouble of going to Rome might be avoided: but during the abeyance of the archiepiscopate of York, the prelate elect of Canterbury appears to have been sometimes consecrated in Gaul, sometimes by a conclave of suffragan bishops at home: thus in 731 Tátwine was consecrated at Canterbury by Daniel, Ingwald, Aldwine and Aldwulf, the respective bishops of Winchester, London, Worcester and Rochester[872]; and Pope Gregory the Third either made or acknowledged this consecration to be valid by the transmission of a pall in 733. We have no evidence by whom the consecrations were performed, in many cases, but it is probable that the old rule was adhered to as much as possible. In 1020, Æðelnóð was consecrated to Canterbury by archbishop Wulfstán: the ceremony took place at Canterbury on the 13th of November[873] in that year: and since in many cases the ordination of archbishops is mentioned without any details, but yet as preliminary to their going to Rome for their palls, it is likely that the chroniclers tacitly assumed the custom of reciprocal functions in Canterbury and York to be too well known to require description.

-----

Footnote 872:

Flor. Wig. an. 731.

Footnote 873:

Chron. Sax. an. 1020.

-----

When the nomination or election by the king and his witan had taken place, it is probable that a royal mandate was sent to the metropolitan, to perform the ceremony of consecration. We have yet the instrument by which Wulfstán of York certifies to Cnut the performance of this duty in the case of archbishop Æðelnóð[874]: the archbishop says:—“Wulfstán the archbishop greets Cnut his lord, and Ælfgyfu the lady, humbly: and I notify to you both, dear ones, that we have done as notice came from you to us respecting bishop Æðelwold, namely that we have now consecrated him.” He then prays that the new prelate may have all the rights and dues granted to him, which have been usual, and enjoyed by his predecessors: which perhaps is to be understood as a formal demand that the temporalities may be properly conferred upon him. There can be no manner of doubt as to the meaning of the word _swutelung_, which I have rendered by _notice_, and Lingard by _order_[875]: it is a legal notification, and the technical word in a writ is _swutelian_. But I do not believe that Cnut was any more imperative in this matter than his predecessors had been. An Anglosaxon archbishop would never have found it a very safe thing to neglect a royal command by ancient right[876].

-----

Footnote 874:

Cod. Dipl. No. 1314. “✠ Wulfstán arcebisceop grét Cnut cyning his
hlaford, and Ælfgyfe ða hlǽfdian eádmódlíce; and ic cýðe inc leóf ðæt
we habbað gedón swá swá ús swutelung fram eów com æt ðám biscop
Æðelnóðe, ðæt we habbað hine nú gebletsod. Nú bidde ic for Godes lufon
and for eallan Godes hálgan ðæt gewitan on Gode ðam æðe and on ðám
hálgan háde, ðæt he mote beón ðǽre þinga wyrðe ðe óðre beforan wǽron,
Dúnstán ðe gód wæs, and mænig óðer; ðæt ðes mote beón eall swá rihta
and gerysna wyrðe ðæt inc byð bám þearflíc for Gode, and eác
gerysenlíc for worolde.”

Footnote 875:

Hist. and Antiq. i. 94. His whole account is well worth attention.

Footnote 876:

We have but one instrument:—granted. But what proportion have we of
instruments respecting matters which are entirely beyond doubt?
Supposing a royal mandate of consecration had issued on the election
of every bishop, between 802, when Ecgberht came to the throne, and
1066, there would have been once in existence 36 archiepiscopal and
224 episcopal writs, or a total of 260. But during the same period, in
the 32 counties south of the Humber there would have been held 25,344
shiremoots or county-courts. I will deduct one half of this number to
meet all conceivable accidents. Of the 12,672, of which beyond a doubt
records once existed, we still possess _three_ or at the utmost _four_
instruments: but do we on that account doubt that shiremoots were
held? When we look at these ratios of 1 : 260 and 4 : 12,672, we find
the authority for the writ of consecration more than ten times as
great as that for the existence of shiremoots.

-----

The bishops were in fact officers of the administration, and whatever importance their ecclesiastical functions may have possessed, their civil character was not of less moment. It is abundantly obvious that men of such a class, possessing nearly a monopoly of what learning existed, would be necessarily called to assist in the national councils, and would be very generally employed in the diplomatic intercourse with foreign countries: few persons of equal rank would have been competent to conduct a negotiation carried on in writing: and there is no doubt that their high position in the universal institution of the church rendered them at that period the fittest persons to manage those affairs which concerned the general family of nations. Moreover a close alliance always existed in England between the aristocracy and the clergy: faithful service of the altar, like faithful service of the state, gave rank and dignity and privileges; and the ecclesiastical authority and influence of the bishop, as well as his habits of business, and general aptitude to advance the interests of the crown, frequently designated him to discharge the somewhat indefinite, but weighty, duties of what we now call a prime minister. Administration is in truth of such far greater importance than constitution, that we can readily see how greatly the social welfare of England did in reality depend upon this class, to whom so much of administrative detail was committed: and it was truly fortunate for the country that the clerical profession was one that a gentleman could devote himself to without disparagement, and therefore embraced so many distinguished members of the ruling class.

The civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions were, it is well known, not separated in England until after the Conquest. William the Norman was the first to establish that most questionable division, the consequences of which were often so bitterly felt by his successors. Previous to his reign the bishop had been the assessor of the ealdorman in the scírgemót or county-court, and ecclesiastical causes, except such as were reserved for the decision of the episcopal synods, were subjected, like those of the laity, to the judgment of the scírþegnas or shire-thanes: thus even probate of wills was given in the county-court. This participation of bishops in the administration of justice, useful and necessary in the early ages of Christianity, was very probably derived from the functions of their heathen predecessors, the priests of the ancient gods. The old Germanic _placita_ were held, as is well known, under the presidency of the priests, and these were courts of law as well as courts of parliament. In fact there is no reason whatever to doubt that, long before the introduction of Christianity, the public pleadings were opened with religious ceremonies, and that the course of procedure was regulated by religious ideas[877]. The gods were present,—to secure the peaceful administration of justice, to sanction the finding of the freemen, to give a holy character to the act of _doing right_ between man and man,—to terrify the perjurer and the criminal,—perhaps to justify the extreme penalty of the law in extreme cases; for it is probable that to the gods alone could the life of a great wrongdoer be offered, as an atonement to the Law, of which God is the root and guardian. The institution of the ordeal by which it was superstitiously supposed that the Almighty would reveal the hidden truth or falsehood of men, further tended to connect, first the pagan and afterwards the Christian priesthood with the administration of justice. In that most solemn appeal to the omniscience and justice of God, the clergy necessarily took the prominent part; and although we cannot believe that they always resisted the temptation offered by that most strange juggle, it may charitably be asserted that their intervention not rarely saved the innocent from the penal consequences of an uncertain and painful test.

-----

Footnote 877:

“Omnis itaque concionis illius multitudo ex diversis partibus coacta,
primo suorum proavorum servare contendit instituta, numinibus
videlicet suis vota solvens ac sacrificia.” Hucbald. Vit. Lebwini,
cap. xii.

-----

I have remarked in an earlier chapter[878] upon the union of the sacerdotal with the judicial power: at a very early stage of human society, the functions of the priest and the judge seem in general to have been inseparable; nor were they separated in fact upon the introduction of Christianity. In the very commencement of our æra, when the church really did exist as a brotherhood under the guidance of the first disciples, it was most natural that all contentions between members of the body should be settled by the arbitration of the whole church, or such as represented it. Litigation before the ordinary tribunals of the state, even could such have been resorted to by Christians, was little consonant with the doctrine of charity which was to prevail among the members of one mystical body, founded on almighty Love. Accordingly St. Paul himself[879] expressly forbids the disciples to carry their contentions before the secular authorities, implying that it is their duty to bring them to the consideration of their fellow-believers, that they may be amicably settled, in the spirit of forbearance and Christian moderation. And as persecution gradually threatened the terrified community, this course became unavoidable: it was impossible for the Christian to submit to the pagan forms of the tribunals, yet to refuse these was to proclaim the adoption of a proscribed and illegal association. The establishment of a hierarchy among the Christians themselves supplied some remedy for this difficulty, and it was soon decided that the disputes of the brotherhood were to be brought before the presbyter or bishop as a judge,—a course which in itself was natural in countries where the Romans had permitted the existence of some authority in the national tribunals, and had not insisted upon dragging every cause before their own officers. The peculiar situation of the Christians themselves as citizens of a new state—viz. the religious state—tended to consolidate this system. Christianity took cognizance of motives, of acts entirely beyond the reach of mere human law, and the community claimed a right to judge of the internal as well as the external state of its members. Immorality, not cognizable by any positive law, was a proper subject for the animadversion of a body whose duty it was to exclude from communion all who pertinaciously refused to perform the duties of their profession. It was thus that a twofold jurisdiction became lodged in the church,—and in the bishop or presbyter, as its representative in each particular locality,—long before the reception of Christianity among the _religiones licitae_ transformed the customs of an obscure sect into recognised laws of the empire. But no sooner had the terms of the great alliance been arranged, than the state hastened to give the imperial sanction to what had hitherto been merely the bye-laws of a sodality: and the decisions of a council, if confirmed by the assent of the emperor, were at once raised to the rank of imperial laws. Thus the council of Carthage in 397 had threatened with excommunication any clergyman who should pursue another before the secular tribunals; and this decree, repeated in 451 by the fourth general Council—that of Chalcedon—had received the sanction of Marcianus, and become part of the law of the Roman empire. The jurisdiction of the bishops in the affairs of the clergy was thus rendered legal; but it was at a later period extended so as to include a much wider sphere. Justinian not only commanded all causes in which monks were concerned to be referred to the bishop of the diocese, but made him the only legal channel of proceedings even in cases where laymen had claims against the clergy[880].

-----

Footnote 878:

Volume i. page 146.

Footnote 879:

1 Corinthians vi. 1-7.

Footnote 880:

Novel. § 83.

-----

Arbitration by the bishop had thus grown up into a custom, at first absolutely necessary, and afterwards always desirable, in a society like the Christian. Accordingly Constantine permitted all contentions to be so settled. But it was a rule of Roman law that there could lie no appeal whatever from a voluntary arbitration; and in pursuance of this rule, in the year 408, Arcadius and Honorius decreed that the sentences of bishops should be without appeal[881]. In this manner was the ecclesiastical jurisdiction founded in the Greek and Roman empires.

-----

Footnote 881:

Dönniges, Deut. Staatsr. p. 48 _seq._

-----

Happily for ourselves, this could not be admitted without modification in the Germanic states. Had it indeed been so, every trace of independence would long since have perished, and the whole civilized world have found itself subject to the principles and regulations of an effete scheme of jurisprudence. The antagonism of the Germanic customary right it was that saved us from the consequences which must have followed the universal prevalence of maxims elaborated by another race, and sprung out of a different social condition. It was the conflict of the Roman and Ecclesiastical laws with those of the Teutonic victors that produced that modified system of relations, under which, by the blessing of Providence, civilization has been maintained, the general well-being of mankind advanced, and human society firmly established throughout Europe, on a basis susceptible of progressive, perhaps illimitable improvement. Useful as a counter-check to the somewhat disruptive system of the Germans, the Roman and Ecclesiastical laws have yet never been able to destroy the nationality, or abridge the freedom, of our races; while they have tended to give consistency and method to our own customs, and to reduce into form and harmony what, but for them, might have been liable to fall asunder from its own internal vigour. Like the centripetal and centrifugal forces, they have balanced one another, and held our social state together as one majestic and consistent whole.

The method of doing justice between man and man, which was the very foundation-stone of the Teutonic polity, was in direct opposition to the doctrines of Roman jurists and the practice of the church. Justice went out from among the people themselves, not from the king or the bishop. The people spoke both as to fact and law, the ancient customary law; nor did they at any time allow their relations as Christians to abrogate the older rights they had possessed as citizens, where the exercise of these was clearly compatible with the recognition of the former. In respect to their religion, they duly submitted to the ecclesiastical authority, made confession, performed penance, and hearkened to advice tendered by qualified functionaries; but they nevertheless still met in their folk- and shire-moots to hold plea, declare folk-right, and superintend its execution by their national officers. Not even to the clergy themselves did they accord an immunity from the universal duties of freemen: and although they may have been disposed to acquiesce in the claim to be quit of personal military service, they never excused suit and service to the popular courts. Only when the relation of a cleric to his superior was that of an unfree man to his lord, did the state release him from this duty, or rather did the state hold him unworthy of this privilege.

The existence of such a body as the English clergy could not possibly be ignored. As organized agents of a system which professed to exercise a right of rule over the most secret desires and motives of men,—as students distinguished by their knowledge, or remarkable for their piety,—as landlords, in the enjoyment of great wealth, and chiefs of numerous dependents,—lastly as advisers and ministers of the ruling class, or intermediaries in the intercourse with foreign states,—they formed a power whose claims to attention could not be neglected. But their social position itself was that which brought them continually in relation with the other aggregates of freemen, and they were therefore called upon to take their place with other landowners, lords, or ministerials in the popular councils.

With all their attachment to the customary law and the national franchises, the Anglosaxons never lost sight of the fact that Christianity had introduced new social relations: they were ready to admit that there was now a godcund or _divine_ as well as woroldcund or _secular_ right; and in the exposition of the former they were willing to follow the guidance of those who professed to make it their especial study. Moreover the system of Anglosaxon jurisprudence depended very much upon the trustworthy character of witnesses, and the ordination of the clergy was justly taken to have imposed upon them the obligation of a peculiar truthfulness. The testimony of members of their class became therefore a very important thing in the sight of the _moot-thanes_ who might have disputed points to settle, or who, in mixed causes, might shrink from doing wrong to the venerable body by too strict an application of the principles by which themselves were bound. Lastly, as there was a merciful tendency among the people to have disputes settled by arbitration and on equitable grounds, rather than by the strict rules of law, the clergy, whose jurisdiction extended to the motives of Christians rather than the mere acts of citizens, were valuable intermediaries between contending parties. The dignity of the class—the _honor clericalis_—was cheerfully recognised, the wisdom and goodness of the body acknowledged, and the propriety of being to a great degree guided by the experience and enlightenment of their leaders, readily conceded. Accordingly the bishop became an inseparable assessor of the Frankish count and of the Anglosaxon ealdorman in their respective courts[882].

-----

Footnote 882:

See Leg. Eádg. ii. § 5. Cnut, ii. § 18.

-----

The duties of a bishop as the officer of a state, and contradistinguished from his merely ecclesiastical functions, were to assist in the administration of justice between man and man, to guard against perjury, and to superintend the administration of the ordeals; further to take care that no fraud was committed by means of unjust measures, to which end he was made the guardian of the standards, and the judge of what work might be demanded from the serf; above all, to watch over the maintenance of the peace, and the upholding of divine as well as secular law[883]. The canons of the church did indeed prohibit the presence of bishops on trials which might involve the penalties of death or mutilation; and even the Constitutions of Clarendon, the object of which was to place the clergy on their proper and ancient footing towards the other members of the church and state, recognised this exemption[884]: but there is little reason to suppose that it was regarded by the Anglosaxons; indeed the popular courts had no power to pass sentences of so deep a dye, until long after the custom of the bishop’s presence therein had been established too firmly to be questioned. It was otherwise among the Franks, and we may perhaps attribute this to the strong nationality of the Frankish clergy, which indisposed them to claim their canonical immunity.

-----

Footnote 883:

The ‘Institutes of Ecclesiastical Polity’ are very explicit upon these
points. They say:—“To a bishop belongs every direction, both in divine
and worldly things. He shall, in the first place, inform men in
orders, so that each of them may know what it properly behoves him to
do, and also what they have to enjoin to secular men. He shall ever be
[busied] about reconciliation and peace, as he best may. He shall
zealously appease strifes and effect peace, with those temporal judges
who love right. He shall in accusations direct the _lád_, so that no
man may wrong another, either in oath or ordeal. He shall not consent
to any injustice, or wrong measure, or false weight; but it is fitting
that every legal right (both ‘burhriht’ and ‘landriht’) go by his
counsel and with his witness: and let every burgmeasure, and every
balance for weighing be, by his direction and furthering, very exact;
lest any man should wrong another, and thereby altogether too greatly
sin.... It behoves all Christian men to love righteousness, and shun
unrighteousness; and especially men in orders should ever exalt
righteousness, and suppress unrighteousness: therefore should bishops,
together with temporal judges, so direct judgments, that, as far as in
them lies, they never permit any injustice to spring up there.... By
the confessor’s direction, and by his own measure, it is justly
fitting that the thralls work for their lords over all the district in
which he shrives. And it is right that there be not one measuring-rod
longer than another, but all regulated by the confessor’s measure; and
let every measure in his shrift-district, and every weight, be, by his
direction, very rightly regulated: and if there be any dispute, let
the bishop arbitrate.” Thorpe, ii. 312 _seq._

Footnote 884:

“Archiepiscopi, episcopi et universae personae regni, qui de rege
tenent in capite, habeant possessiones suas de rege sicut baroniam, et
inde respondeant iusticiariis et ministris regis, et sequantur et
facient omnes consuetudines regias; et sicut caeteri barones, debent
interesse iudiciis curiae regis quousque perveniatur ad diminutionem
membrorum vel ad mortem.” Rog. Wend. _anno_ 1164. Coxe, ii. 301.

-----

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 the _hereban_, 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 of _advocati_, _vicedomini_, or _vidames_; 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 remunerative share of his revenues and patronage. In Saxon England, however, we do not meet with these officers; and though it is probable that the bishop’s geréfa was 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.

-----

Footnote 885:

As late as 43 Edw. III. A.D. 1369, on an alarm of invasion, orders
were given to arm and array the clergy, as well as laity. Rym. Foed.
vi. 631.

-----

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. This was 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 possess _iure episcopii_, and as _defensor urbis_ or 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 arranged and 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 taken _in 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 evidence whatever 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.

-----

Footnote 886:

The Normans adopted a different custom. Many of the cathedrals were
transferred from obscure sites to the cities which they now adorn, by
the first Norman bishops.

Footnote 887:

After the Conquest it did take place: Walcher bishop of Durham was
made also count of the same in 1075, upon the capture of Earl Wælþeóf.
Hist. Dunelm. Eccl. lviii. (lib. iii. cap. xxiii. p. 208). As late as
the time of Richard the First, we find a successor of Walcher, Hugo de
Pusac, purchasing the same county of the king, _anno_ 1189. Ric.
Divisiens. p. 8. One year later, Baldwin archbishop of Canterbury
suspended Hugo, bishop of Coventry, because “contra dignitatem
episcopalis ordinis, officium sibi vicecomitatus usurpaverat.” Rog.
Wend. an. 1190. Coxe, iii. 18.

Footnote 888:

“Hic fecit suspendi latrones volentes infregisse aecclesiam Sancti
Eadmundi, qui tamen erant miraculose impediti.” Chron. de Passione S.
Edmundi, cited by Wharton. Ep. et Dec. Lond. p. 29. See also Will.
Malm. Gest. Pont. lib. ii.

Footnote 889:

William of Malmesbury seems to allude to this point, when he says of
St. Eádmund: “Latrunculos, noctu sacram aedem expilare aggressos,
invisis loris in ipsis conatibus irretivit; formoso admodum
spectaculo, quod praeda praedones tenuit, ut nec coepto desistere, nec
inchoata valerent perficere.” Gest. Reg. i. 366, § 213.

Footnote 890:

By the law of Eádweard the Confessor, “cyricbryce” belonged to the
bishop. “Si quis sanctae aecclesiae pacem fregerit, episcoporum tum
est iusticia.” Leg. Eád. Conf. § vi. But this seems a different thing
altogether, and to be a violation of the “grið” only.

-----

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 the geréfa would 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 no geréfa would be found bold enough to incur the danger of offering violent resistance to the sacred person of the prelate; and even the ealdorman, who might have set the king at defiance, would tremble to encounter the substantial terrors of excommunication and a laborious penance.

-----

Footnote 891:

“But if any of my reeves will not do this, and care less about it than
we have decreed, then let him pay my _oferhyrnes_ [that is the fine
for _disobedience_], and I will find another, who will. And let the
bishop exact the _oferhyrnes_ of the reeve in whose district it may
be.” Leg. Æðelst. i. § 26. Thorpe, i. 212. Again: “And let the judge
that giveth wrong judgment to another, pay to the king a _bót_ of one
hundred and twenty shillings; unless he will venture to prove on oath
that he knew no better. And let him forfeit his thaneship for ever,
unless he can redeem it from the king, as he may be willing to permit.
And let the bishop of the shire exact the _bót_ into the king’s hand.”
Leg. Eádg. ii. § 3. Thorpe, i. 266.

-----

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 Wihtrǽd had declared his mere word, without an oath, to be like the king’s, incontrovertible.

-----

Footnote 892:

Leg. Ælfr. § 3. Cnut, ii. § 59. Thorpe, i. 62, 408. In this last
passage, as in the North-people’s law of wergyld, the archbishop’s and
æðeling’s borh and mundbryce are reckoned alike at three pounds. So
also Ll. Æðelr. vii. § 11. Thorpe, i. 330.

Footnote 893:

Leg. Ælf. § 15. Æðelr. vii. § 12. Thorpe i. 70, 332.

Footnote 894:

Leg. Ini, § 45. Thorpe, i. 130. This overrated estimate is corrected
by Ælfred, who settles the sums thus: king, one hundred and twenty
scill.; archbishop, ninety scill.; bishop and ealdorman, sixty scill.
Leg. Ælf. § 40. Thorpe, i. 88.

-----

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]

-----

Footnote 895:

Leg. Wihtr. § 16. Thorpe, i. 40.

-----