Chapter IX: The Clergy and Monks (1)

The almost total absence of documentary evidence leaves us in great doubt as to the condition of the church in England previous to the organization brought about by Theodore. It is nevertheless probable that it followed in all essential points the course which characterized other missionary establishments. The earliest missionaries were for the most part monks; but Augustine was accompanied by clerics also[902], and in every case the conversion of a district was rapidly followed by the establishment of a cathedral or a corresponding ecclesiastical foundation. These were at first central stations, from which the assembled clergy sallied forth to visit the neighbouring villages and towns, and preach the tidings of salvation: the necessities of daily provision, the attainment of greater security for their persons, the mutual aid and consolation in the perils and difficulties of their task, all supplied motives in favour of a cœnobitical mode of life: monks and clerics were confounded together through the circumstances of the adventure in which they shared; nay the very administration of those rites by which the imagination of the heathen Saxons was so strongly worked upon, could only be conducted on a sufficiently imposing scale by an assemblage of ecclesiastics. To this must be added the protection to be derived from settling on one spot, in the immediate neighbourhood of a royal vill, and under the safeguard of the royal power: for though the residences of kings were rarely in cities, yet their proximity offered much more secure guarantees than the outlying villages and clearings in the mark; even as the general tendencies of courtly life were likely to present fewer points of opposition than the characteristic bigotry of heathen, _i. e._ rural populations. This combination of circumstances probably led at an early period to that approximation between the modes of life of monks and clerks, which at the close of the eighth century Chrodogang succeeded in enforcing in his archbishopric of Metz, but which had been attempted four centuries earlier by Eusebius of Vercelli[903]. Both the Roman and Scottish missionaries followed the same plan, which indeed appears to be the natural one, and to have been generally adopted on all similar occasions, whether in ancient Germany, in Peru or in the most modern missions of Australia or New Zealand. In Beda’s Ecclesiastical History, which in these respects no doubt was founded upon ancient and contemporary records, we frequently read of prelates leaving their monasteries (by which general name churches as well as collections of monks are designated) to preach the Gospel and administer the rite of baptism in distant villages[904]. But this system had also inconveniences of no slight character; the distance of the converts from the church, the necessity for daily superintendence and continual exhortation on the part of the preacher, the very danger and fatigue of repeated journeys into rude, uncultivated parts of the country, must have soon forced upon the clergy the necessity of providing other machinery than they as yet possessed. The multiplication of centres of instruction was the first and greatest point to be ensured; whereby a more constant intercourse between the neophyte and the missionary might be attained. This had long been secured in other countries by the appointment of single presbyters to reside in single districts, under the general direction of the bishop; or, where circumstances required it, by the settlement of several presbyters under an archipresbyter or archpriest, who was responsible for the conduct of his companions. And as the district of the bishop himself commonly went by the name of a diocese or parish, both these terms were applied to denote the smaller circuit within which the presbyter was expected to exert himself for the propagation of the faith, and the due performance of the established rites, and to perform such functions as had been entrusted to the ministers of the faithful, for the better management of the ecclesiastical affairs of the congregation. The custom of the neighbouring countries of Gaul offered sufficient evidence of the practicability of such an arrangement, which had long been in use in older established churches: we may therefore readily suppose that so beneficial a system would be adopted with all convenient speed in England. As long as the possessions of the clergy were confined to a small plot whereon their church was built, and while they depended for support upon the contributions in kind which the rude piety of their new converts bestowed, the bishops could naturally not proceed to plant these clerical colonies of their own authority: though, as soon as they became masters of vills and manors and estates of their own, they probably adopted the plan of sending single presbyters into them, partly to discharge the clerical duties of their station, partly to act as stewards, administrators or bailiffs of the property, the proceeds of which were paid over to the episcopal church, and laid out at the discretion of the bishop[905]. But the zeal of the people could here assist the benevolent objects of the clergy. The inconvenience of having a distance to traverse in order to attend the ministrations of religion, the desire to aid in the meritorious work of the conversion, the earnest hope to establish a peculiar claim upon the favour of Heaven, nay perhaps even the less worthy motives of vanity and ambition, disposed the landowner to raise a church upon his own estate for the use of himself and his surrounding tenants or friends. From a very early period this disposition was cultivated and encouraged; and the bishops relinquished the patronage of the church to the founder, reserving of course to themselves the canonical subjection and consecration of the presbyter who was ordained to the title. During the seventh century this had become common in the Frankish empire, and Theodore followed, or introduced, the same rule in this country[906]. Whether under this influence or not, we find churches to have so arisen during his government of the English sees, whose sole archbishop he was. Beda incidentally mentions the dedication by John of Beverley of churches, for Puch and Addi, two Northumbrian noblemen, and these were no doubt private foundations[907]. We still possess various regulations of Theodore, and of nearly contemporary prelates, which refer to such separate churches, proving how very general they had become, and how strictly they required to be guarded against the avarice or other unworthy motives of the founders, and the simoniacal practices both of priest and layman. In the thirty-eighth chapter of his Capitula[908] we find the following directions:—“Any presbyter who shall have obtained a parish by means of a price, is absolutely to be deposed, seeing that he is known to hold it contrary to the discipline of ecclesiastical rule. And likewise, he who shall by means of money have expelled a presbyter lawfully ordained to a church, and so have obtained it entirely for himself; which vice, so widely diffused, is to be remedied with the utmost zeal. Also it is to be forbidden both to clerks and laics, that no one shall presume to give any church whatever to a presbyter, without the licence and consent of the bishop.” These churches frequently were granted to abbeys or to the bishops themselves; and in the latter case they were served by priests especially appointed thereunto from the cathedral[909]. At this early period when tithes were not demandable as matter of right, and when the founders of these churches were already betraying a tendency to speculate in church-building, by claiming for themselves the _altare_ or produce of the voluntary oblations of the faithful, the bishops found it necessary to insist that every church should be endowed with a sufficient glebe or estate in land: the amount fixed was one hide, equivalent to the estate of a single family, which, properly managed, would support the presbyter and his attendant clerks. Archbishop Ecgberht rules[910]: “Ut unicuique aecclesiae vel una mansa integra absque alio servitio attribuatur, et presbyteri in eis constituti non de decimis neque de oblationibus fidelium nec de domibus, neque de atriis vel hortis iuxta aecclesiam positis, neque de praescripta mansa, aliquod servitium faciant, praeter aecclesiasticum: et si aliquod amplius habuerint, inde senioribus suis, secundum patriae morem, debitum servitium impendant.” And this regulation, though probably already established by custom, obtained the force of law in the Frankish empire, by a constitution of Hludwich in 816[911]. This glebe-land the bishop seems not to have been able to interfere with, so as to alienate it from the particular church, in favour of another, even when both churches were within his own subjection[912].

Footnote 902:

“Clerici extra sacros ordines constituti.” Beda, H. E. i. 27. Gregory
contemplated the marriage and separate dwelling of these persons. But
for a long time it is improbable that any such arrangement could take
place. Augustine separated his monks from the canons who had
accompanied him (the presbyters he was to obtain in the neighbouring
countries of Gaul: see Gregory’s Epistles to Theodoric and Theodbert,
and to Brunhild; Bed. Op. Min. ii. 234, 235), placing the latter in
Christchurch, Canterbury. See Lingard, Ang. Sax. Church, i. 152, 153.
But this sort of separation cannot have been always practicable. The
Scottish missionaries were not all monks. Beda, H. E. iii. 3.

Footnote 903:

Neander, Gesch. der Relig. u. Kirche, i. 322; ii. 553. Lingard, Aug.
Sax. Church, i. 150. Chrodogang’s institution is thus described by
Paulus in his Gest. Episc. Mettens. “Hic clerum adunavit, et ad instar
coenobii intra claustrorum septa conversari fecit, normamque eis
instituit, qualiter in ecclesia militare deberent; quibus annonas
vitaeque subsidia sufficienter largitus est, ut perituris vacare
negotiis non indigentes, divinis solummodo officiis excubarent.”
Pertz, ii. 268. Chrodogang’s rule is preserved in Labbé, Concil. vii.
1444. Harduin, Concil. iv. 1181. See Eichhorn, Deut. Staatsr. i. 760,
§ 179. It is in many respects similar to the rule of Benedict of
Nursia, upon which it appears to have been modelled.

Footnote 904:

“Quadam autem die dum parochiam suam circuiens, monita salutis omnibus
ruribus, casis et viculis largiretur, nec non etiam nuper baptizatis
ad accipiendam Spiritus sancti gratiam manum imponeret,” etc. Beda,
Vit. Cuthb. c. 29. This however is perhaps rather to be considered as
an episcopal visitation. But there is abundant evidence that at first
the custom was such as the text describes. It is said thus of Aidan,
the Scottish bishop in Northumberland: “Erat in villa regia non longe
ab urbe de qua praefati sumus [i. e. Bamborough]. In hac enim habens
aecclesiam et cubiculum, saepius ibidem diverti ac manere, atque inde
ad praedicandum circumquaque exire consueverat: quod ipsum et in aliis
villis regis facere solebat, utpote nil propriae possessionis, excepta
aecclesia sua et adiacentibus agellulis, habens.” Beda, H. E. iii. 17.
This was a small wooden church, and certainty never a cathedral. But
the early custom of the Scottish church in Northumberland is further
described by Beda: and one can only lament that it was not much longer
maintained: for his own words show that he is contrasting it with the
custom of his own times, nearly a century later; he says: “Quantae
autem parsimoniae, cuiusque continentiae fuerit ipse [i. e. Colman]
cum praedecessoribus suis, testabatur etiam locus ille quem regebant,
ubi abeuntibus eis, excepta aecclesia, paucissimae domus repertae
sunt; hoc est, illae solummodo, sine quibus conversatio civilis esse
nullatenus poterat. Nil pecuniarum absque pecoribus habebant. Si quid
enim pecuniae a divitibus accipiebant, mox pauperibus dabant. Nam
neque ad susceptionem potentium saeculi, vel pecunias colligi vel
domus praevideri necesse fuit, qui nunquam ad aecclesiam nisi
orationis tantum, et audiendi verbi Dei causa veniebant.... Tota enim
fuit tunc solicitudo doctoribus illis Deo serviendi, non saeculo; tota
cura cordis excolendi non ventris. Unde et in magna erat veneratione
tempore illo religionis habitus; ita ut ubicunque clericus aliquis aut
monachus adveniret, gaudentur ab omnibus tanquam Dei famulus
exciperetur: etiam si in itinere pergens inveniretur, adcurrebant, et
flexa cervice vel manu signari, vel ore illius se benedici gaudebant;
verbis quoque horum exhortatoriis diligenter auditum praebebant. Set
et diebus Dominicis ad aecclesiam, sive ad monasteria certatim, non
reficiendi corporis, sed audiendi sermonis Dei gratia confluebant: et
si quis sacerdotum in vicum forte deveniret, mox congregati in unum
vicani, verbum vitae ab illo expetere curabant. Nam neque alia ipsis
sacerdotibus aut clericis vicos adeundi, quam praedicandi, baptizandi,
infirmos visitandi, et, ut breviter dicam, animas curandi causa fuit:
qui in tantum erant ab omni avaritiae peste castigati, ut nemo
territoria ac possessiones ad construenda monasteria, nisi a
potentibus saeculi coactus acciperet. Quae consuetudo per omnia
aliquanto post haec tempora in aecclesiis Nordanhymbrorum servata
est.” Bed. H. E. iii. 26. Of Ceadda we learn that after his
consecration as bishop of York, he was accustomed, “oppida, rura,
casas, vicos, castella, propter evangelizandum, non equitando, sed
apostolorum more pedibus incedendo peragrare.” Ibid. iii. 21. About
the same period we learn from Beda, that Cuthbert used to make
circuits for the purpose of preaching: “Erat quippe moris _eo tempore_
populis Anglorum, ut veniente in villam clerico vel presbytero, cuncti
ad eius imperium verbum audituri confluerent.” Ibid. iv. 27. The words
_eo tempore_ also show that in Beda’s time this custom was no longer
observed, which is naturally explained by the existence of
parish-churches. The custom of itinerant preachers in the west of
England is also noted about the same period, viz. 680. “Cum vero
aliqui, sicut illis regionibus moris est, praesbyteri sive clerici
populares vel laicos praedicandi causa adiissent, et ad villam
domumque praefati patrisfamilias venissent,” etc. Vit. Bonifac. Pertz,
ii. 334.

Footnote 905:

If a bishop found it convenient to build a church out of his own
diocese, the ecclesiastical authority remained to the bishop in whose
diocese it was built. “Si quis episcopus in alienae civitatis
territorio aecclesiam aedificare disponit, vel pro agri sui aut
aecclesiastici utilitate, vel quacunque sui opportunitate, permissa
licentia, quia prohiberi hoc votum nefas est, non praesumat
dedicationem, quae illi omnimodis reservanda est in cuius territorio
aecclesia assurgit; reservata aedificatori episcopo hac gratia, ut
quos desiderat clericos in re sua videre, ipsos ordinet is cuius
territorium est; vel si iam ordinati sunt, ipsos habere acquiescat: et
omnis aecclesiae ipsius gubernatio ad eum, in cuius civitatis
territorio aecclesia surrexit, pertinebit. Et si quid ipsi aecclesiae
fuerit ab episcopo conditore conlatum, is in cuius territorio est,
auferendi exinde aliquid non habeat potestatem. Hoc solum aedificatori
episcopo credidimus reservandum.” Concil. Arelat. iii. cap. xxxvi.
A.D. 452.

Footnote 906:

Elmham says of Theodore:—“Hic excitavit fidelium voluntatem, ut in
civitatibus et villis aecclesias fabricarentur, parochias
distinguerent, et assensus regios his procuravit, ut siqui
sufficientes essent, super proprium fundum construere aecclesias,
eorundem perpetuo patronatu gauderent; si inter limites alterius
alicuius dominii aecclesias facerent, eiusdem fundi domini notarentur
pro patronis.” Such churches had nevertheless at first not the full
privileges of parish-churches. The twenty-first canon of the Council
of Agda decreed: “Si quis etiam extra parochias, in quibus est
legitimus ordinariusque conventus, oratorium in agro habere voluerit,
reliquis festivitatibus, ut ibi missas teneat, propter fatigationem
familiae, iusta ordinatione permittimus. Pascha vero, Natale Domini,
Epiphania, Ascensionem Domini, Pentecosten, et Natalem sancti Johannis
Baptistae, vel si qui maximi dies in festivitatibus habentur, non nisi
in civitatibus, aut in parochiis teneant. Clerici vero, si qui in
festivitatibus quas supradiximus, in oratoriis, nisi iubente aut
permittente episcopo, missas facere aut tenere voluerint, a communione
pellantur.”—Concil. Agathense, A.D. 506. cap. xxi. That there were at
this period parish-churches in Gaul, served by a single presbyter,
appears from other decisions usually attributed to this council, but
really published by the Council of Albon, held eleven years later.
They are in fact not found in the three oldest MSS. of the Concilium
Agathense. “Diacones vel presbyteri in parochia constituti de rebus
aecclesiae sibi creditis nihil audeant commutare, vendere vel donare,
quia res sacratae Deo esse noscuntur.... Quicquid parochiarum
presbyter de aecclesiastici iuris proprietate distraxerit, inane
habeatur. Presbyter, dum diocesim tenet, de his quae emerit ad
aecclesiae nomen scripturam faciat, aut ab eius quam tenuit aecclesiae
ordinatione discedat.” Concil. Epaonense. A.D. 517. As late as the
time of Eádgár a regulation was made in England as to the payment of
tithe by a landowner who happened to have a church with a churchyard
upon his estate. “If there be any thane who has a church with a
churchyard upon his bookland, let him give the third part of his tithe
to his church. But if any one have a church that has no churchyard,
let him give his priest what he will out of the nine parts,”—that is
out of what remains after the payment of his tithe to the cathedral
church. Eádg. i. § 2. Thorpe, i. 262. Probably there were many such
churches in existence, which had descended together with the estates
from the first founders, and whose owners could not agree with the
ecclesiastical authorities as to their liabilities. The right of
patronage was abused unfortunately at a very early period, both by
clerics and laymen, as we learn abundantly from the decrees of the
several provincial councils.

Footnote 907:

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

Footnote 908:

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

Footnote 909:

As early as 587, I find a grant of a parish-church to the monastery of
St. Peter at Lyons, by Gerart and his wife Gimbergia, on the ground of
their daughter being professed there: “propterea cedimus et donamus
nos vobis aliquid de rebus propriis iuris nostri ... hoc est ecclesia
de Darnas cum decimis et parochia.” Bréquigny, Dipl. Chartar. i. 83.
Bréquigny, Mabillon, and the editors of the Gallia Nova Christiana,
all concur in recognising the genuineness of this charter.

Footnote 910:

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

Footnote 911:

“Volens etiam unamquamque aecclesiam habere proprios sumptus, ne per
huiusmodi inopiam cultus negligerentur divini, inseruit praedicto
edicto, ut super singulas aecclesias mansus tribueretur unus, cum
pensatione legitima et servo et ancilla.” Vita Hludovici Imp. Pertz,
ii. 622. The tenth chapter of Hludwich’s capitulary is drawn up in the
same words as Ecgberht uses, with the sole exception of the Frankish
_mansus_ for the English _mansa_, and it is therefore probable that
both drew from some common and early source; unless indeed we suppose
that the Frankish clergy thought the English custom worthy of
imitation. The proper name for this landed foundation is _dos
aecclesiae_, or as it is called in the Langobardic law (lib. iii. tit.
i. § 46), _mansus aecclesiasticus_. The result of this dotation is
very evident in the next following chapter of the above-quoted
capitulary, by which parish-churches are obviously intended. Cap. xi.
“Statutum est ut, postquam hoc impletum fuerit, unaquaeque aecclesia
suum Presbyterum habeat, ubi id fieri facultas providente episcopo
permiserit.”

Footnote 912:

“Non licet abbati, neque episcopo, terram aecclesiae convertere ad
aliam, quamvis ambae in potestate eius sint. Si mutare vult aecclesiae
terram, cum consensu amborum sit. Si quis vult monasterium suum in
alio loco ponere, cum concilio episcopi et fratrum suorum faciat, et
dimittat in priorem locum presbyterum ad ministeria aecclesiae.”
Capit. Theodori. Thorpe, ii. 64.

-----

But although many churches may have arisen in this manner, a large proportion of which gradually found their way into the hands of bishops and abbots, and although these last may have erected churches, as the necessities of the case demanded, in the various districts over which they exercised rights of property, the greater number of parish-churches (_plebes_, _aecclesiae baptismales_, _tituli maiores_) had probably a very different origin. It had been shown that in all likelihood every Mark had its religious establishment, its _fanum_, _delubrum_, or _sacellum_, as the Latin authors call them, its _hearh_, as the Anglosaxon no doubt designated them[913]; and further, that the priest or priests attached to these heathen churches had lands—perhaps freewill offerings too—for their support. It has also been shown that a well-grounded plan of turning the _religio loci_ to account was acted upon by all the missionaries, and that wherever a substantial building was found in existence, it was taken possession of for the behoof of the new religion. Under such circumstances it would seem that nothing could be more natural than the establishment of a baptismal church in every independent mark that adopted Christianity, and that the substitution of one creed for the other not only did not require the abolition of the old machinery, but would be much facilitated by retaining it. It is in this manner then that I understand the assertions of Beda and others, that certain missionary prelates established churches _per loca_, such churches being certainly not cathedrals[914] or abbey-churches. There cannot be the least reason to doubt that parish-churches were generally established in the time of Beda, less than half a century after the period to which most of the instances in the notes refer[915]: and it is not very probable that they were all owing to private liberality. In a similar manner probably arose the numerous parish-churches which before the close of the eighth century were founded, especially by the English missionaries, on the continent of Europe[916]. Thus in the seventh century in England the ecclesiastical machinery consisted of episcopal churches served by a body of clerks or monks,—sometimes united under the same rule, and a sufficient number of whom had the necessary orders of priests, deacons and the like; probably also churches served by a number of presbyters under the guidance of an archipresbyter or archpriest[917], bearing some resemblance to our later collegiate foundations; and numerous parish-churches established on the sites of the ancient fanes in the marks, or erected by the liberality of kings, bishops and other landowners on their own manorial estates. The wealthy and powerful had also their own private chaplains, who performed the rites of religion in their oratories[918], and who even at this early period probably bore the name of handpreostas, by which in much later times they were distinguished from the túnpreostas, village or parochial priests[919].

-----

Footnote 913:

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

Footnote 914:

For example, of the Scotch missionaries about the year 635, Beda
reports as follows: “Exin coepere plures per dies de Scottorum regione
venire Brittaniam, atque illis Anglorum provinciis quibus regnavit rex
Osuuald, magna devotione verbum fidei praedicare, et credentibus
gratiam baptismi, quicumque sacerdotali erant gradu praediti,
ministrare. Construebantur ergo aecclesiae per loca, confluebant ad
audiendum verbum populi gaudentes, donabantur munere regis
possessiones, et territoria ad instituenda monasteria.” Hist. Eccl.
iii. 3. Again in Essex, between 650 and 660: “Qui, [i. e. Ced] accepto
gradu episcopatus, rediit ad provinciam, et maiori auctoritate caeptum
opus explens, fecit per loca aecclesias, presbyteros et diaconos
ordinavit, qui se in verbo fidei et ministerio baptizandi adiuvarent,
maxime in civitate quae lingua Saxonum Ythancaestir appellatur; sed et
in illa quae Tilaburh cognominatur; quorum prior locus est in ripa
Pentae amnis, secundus in ripa Tamensis; in quibus collecto examine
famulorum Christi, disciplinam vitae regularis, in quantum rudes adhuc
capere poterant, custodire docuit.” Hist. Eccl. iii. 22. About 690,
Beda says of Cúðberht, “Plures per regiones illas aecclesias, sed et
monasteria nonnulla construxit.” H. E. iv. 28. And it is difficult to
understand the passage about to be cited of anything but heathen
temples in the marks, which the zeal of the bishop of Mercia,
Gearoman, converted into Christian churches, that is separate
parish-churches. A pestilence raged in Essex: one of its kings,
Sigheri, apostatized together with all his part of the people, “and
set about restoring their deserted temples, and adoring images.” To
correct this error, Wulfheri of Mercia, the superior king, sent his
bishop Gearoman: “qui multa agens solertia ... longe lateque omnia
pervagatus, et populum et regem praefatum ad viam iustitiae reduxit:
adeo ut relictis, sive destructis fanis arisque quas fecerant,
aperirent aecclesias, ac nomen Christi, cui contradixerant, confiteri
gauderent, magis cum fide resurrectionis in illo mori, quam in
perfidiae sordibus inter idola vivere cupientes.” Hist. Eccl. iii. 30.
This was in 665.

Footnote 915:

In his Poenitential he gives a general direction as to the penance of
the parish priest who loses his chrism. He says: “Qui autem in plebe
suo [_var._ suum] chrisma perdideret, et eam invenerit, xl dies vel
iii quadragesimas poeniteat.” Bed. Poenit. xxiv. Kunstm. Poenit. p.
165.

Footnote 916:

“Cumque aecclesiarum esset non minima in Hassis et Thyringea multitudo
extructa, et singulis singuli providerentur custodes,” etc. Vit.
Bonif. Pertz, ii. 346. “Praefato itaque regni eius tempore, servus Dei
Willehadus per Wigmodiam aecclesias coepit construere, ac presbyteros
super eas ordinare, qui libere populis monita salutis, ac baptismi
conferrent gratiam.” Vit. Willehad. Pertz, ii. 381. “Aecclesias quoque
destructas restauravit, probatasque personas qui populis monita
salutis darent, singulis quibusque locis praeesse disposuit.” Ibid.
ii. 383. “Testes quoque aecclesiae quas per loca singula construxit,
testes et famulantium Dei congregationes quas aliquibus coadunavit in
locis.” Vit. Liutgari, Pertz, ii. 409. “Itaque more solito, cum omni
aviditate et sollicitudine rudibus Saxonum populis studebat in
doctrina prodesse, erutisque ydolatriae spinis, verbum Dei diligenter
per loca singula serere, aecclesias construere, et per eas singulos
ordinare presbyteros, quos verbi Dei cooperatores sibi ipsi
nutriverat.” Ibid. ii. 411. He also founded a church of canons,
“monasterium, sub regula canonica dominio famulantium,” which
afterwards became a cathedral. When Liutgar and his companions landed
on the little island of Helgoland, they destroyed the heathen temples
and built Christian churches. “Pervenientes autem ad eandem insulam,
destruxerunt omnia eiusdem Fosetis fana quae illuc fuere constructa,
et pro eis Christi fabricaverunt aecclesias.” Pertz, ii. 410. In like
manner Willibrord in Frisia established Christian churches on the
sites of the heathen fanes. “Simul et reliquias beatorum apostolorum
ac martyrum Christi ab eo sperans accipere, ut dum in gente cui
praedicaret, destructis idolis aecclesias institueret, haberet in
promptu reliquias sanctorum quas ibi introduceret; quibusque ibidem
depositis, consequenter in eorum honorem quorum essent illae, singula
quaeque loca dedicaret.” Beda, H. E. v. 11. Again, “Plures per
regiones illas aecclesias, sed et monasteria nonnulla construxit.”
Beda, H. E. v. 11. This was consonant with the wise advice of Pope
Gregory to Augustine, already cited vol. i. p. 332, note 2.

Footnote 917:

As late as the tenth century we read of an archipresbyter at the head
of a church at Ely. Hist. Eliensis, Ang. Sac. i. 603.

Footnote 918:

Æðelberht’s queen Beorhte had a chaplain, bishop Liuthart, previous to
the arrival of Augustine. Beda, H. E. i. 25. Paulinus was Æðelburge’s
chaplain before the conversion of Northumberland. Ibid, ii. 9.
Oidilwald king of Deira maintained Caelin, a brother of bishop Ced, in
his family; “qui ipsi et familae ipsius, verbum et sacramenta fidei,
erat enim presbyter, ministrare solebat.” Ibid. iii. 23. Lastly we
read of Wilfrið, that he was chaplain to Alchfrið of Northumberland,
“desiderante rege ut vir tantae eruditionis et religionis sibi
specialiter individuo comitatu sacerdos esset et doctor.” Ibid. v. 19.

Footnote 919:

The distinction is found in the Chron. Saxon, an. 870. The Saxon
handpreostas is translated in a Latin copy by _capellani clerici_; the
Saxon túnpreostas by _de villis suis presbyteri_.

-----

As early as the fifth century the fourth general council (Chalcedon, an. 451) had laid down the rule that the ecclesiastical and political establishments should be assimilated as much as possible[920]; and as the central power was represented by the metropolitans and the bishops, so the subsidiary authorities had their corresponding functionaries in the parish priests, priests of collegiate churches and their dependents. We possess a curious parallel drawn by Walafrid Strabo in the earliest years of the ninth century, on this subject. In his book De Exordiis Rerum Aecclesiasticarum (cap. 31), he thus compares the civil and ecclesiastical polities: “Porro sicut comites quidam Missos suos praeponunt popularibus, qui minores causas determinent, ipsis maiora reservent, ita quidam episcopi chorepiscopos habent. Centenarii qui et centuriones et Vicarii, qui per pagos statuti sunt, Presbyteris Plebei, qui baptismales aecclesias tenent, et minoribus praesunt Presbyteris, conferri queunt. Decuriones et Decani, qui sub ipsis vicariis quaedam minora exercent, Presbyteris titulorum possunt comparari. Sub ipsis ministris centenariorum sunt adhuc minores qui Collectarii, Quaterniones, et Duumviri possunt appellari, qui colligunt populum, et ipso numero ostendunt se decanis esse minores. Sunt autem ista vocabula ab antiquitate mutuata,” etc[921].

-----

Footnote 920:

“Si qua civitas potestate imperiali novata est aut innovatur, civiles
dispositiones et publicas aecclesiasticarum quoque parochiarum ordines
subsequantur.” Conc. Chalc. an. 451. This was an attempt to bring the
state generally into that condition which would have existed had the
church and the empire not been on terms of hostility when the church
first was founded. Had the heathen creed not stood in the way, from
the very first it is probable that the praefect of the city and the
mayor of the village would have been universally also the Episcopus
and Chorepiscopus of the community: but the χάρισμα κυβερνησέως and
χάρισμα διδασκαλίας would not then have united in the same hands. The
church assumed form and shape under pressure, and passed from a
molluscous into a vertebrated organization through its struggles to
resist persecution on the one hand and heresy on the other. When it
entered into its alliance with the state its outward constitution was
already completed. That alliance is not a metaphysical entity, but an
historical fact.

Footnote 921:

Let us arrange these offices tabularly:—

_Secular._ _Ecclesiastical._

1. Comes. 1. Episcopus.

α. Missus. α. Chorepiscopus. (The
Archdeacon or the Rural
Dean.)

2. Centenarius. Centurio, or 2. Presbyter Plebei qui
Vicarius: qui per pagos baptismalem aecclesiam
constitutus est. habet,

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

4. Collectarius. Quaternio.
Duumvir.

The count (in England Ealdorman) and bishop are on one line, and, if
we may anticipate a little for the sake of illustration, we may add
the Eorl of Cnut’s constitution on the one side, and the Metropolitan
on the other. The Missus of the count and the chorepiscopus (in
Strabo’s time yet existing, though less important than his city
brother) are on the second line; nevertheless the Missus partakes of
the comitial dignity, and the episcopal, though grudgingly, is still
vouchsafed to the chorepiscopus. Next in rank is the Centenarius or
president of the Hundred, the officer of the pagus: his equivalent is
the priest in a church where baptism is performed, the peculiar
distinctive of a parish-church. The Decurio or Decanus is on the same
footing as the German Capellanus or Kaplan, who is indeed ordained to
a title, but not with power to administer the sacraments. The Kaplan
is in truth generally attached to the parish-church—a sort of
curate,—and often succeeds to it. But how is it that the parallel can
be carried no further? Is it that the Deacon’s ordination was not
conclusive enough? Or were Collectarii and Duumviri, beadles,
tax-gatherers and bailiffs not dignified enough to compare with even
acolytes and vergers?

-----

Both in spiritual and in temporal matters, the clergymen thus dispersed over the face of the country were accountable to the bishop, whose _vicars_ they were taken to be, that is to say, in whose place (“quorum vice”) they performed their functions. The “presbyteri plebei” or parish priests had the administration of all the sacraments and rites, except those reserved to the bishop,—such for instance as confirmation, ordination, the consecration of churches, the chrism, and the like: these were denied them, but they could baptize, marry, bury, and administer the communion. And gradually, as matter of convenience, they were invested with the internal jurisdiction, as it was called,—the “iurisdictio fori interni,”—that is to say confession, penance and absolution, but solely as representatives and vicars of the bishop[922].

-----

Footnote 922:

“De poentitentibus, ut a presbyteris non reconcilientur, nisi
praecipiente episcopo.—Ex concilio Africano.—Ut poenitentibus,
secundum differentiam peccatorum, episcopi arbitrio poenitentiae
tempora decernantur, et ut presbyter, inconsulto episcopo, non
reconciliet poenitentem, nisi absentia episcopi, necessitate
cogente.... Item, Ex concilio Cartaginensi de eadem re. Aurelius
episcopus dixit: ‘Si quisquam in periculo fuerit constitutus, et se
reconciliari divinis altaribus petierit, si episcopus absens fuerit,
debet utique presbyter consulere episcopum, et sic periclitantem eius
praecepto reconciliare: quam rem debemus salubri concilio roborare.’
Ab universis episcopis dictum est: ‘Placet quod sanctitas vestra
necessaria nos instruere dignata est.’ Romani reconciliant hominem
intra absidem: Graeci nolunt. Reconciliatio penitentium in coena
Domini tantum est ab episcopo, et consummata penitentia: si vero
episcopo dificile sit, presbytero potest, necessitatis causa, praebere
potestatem, ut impleat.” Poen. Theodori. Thorpe, ii. 6. Aurelius of
Carthage died in 430.

-----

It was this gradual extension of the powers of the presbyter that destroyed the distinction between the collegiate churches served by the archpriest and his clergy, and the church in which a single presbyter administered the daily rites of religion. The word _parochia_ which at first had been properly confined to the former churches, became generally applied to the latter, when the difference between their spiritual privileges entirely vanished.

In the theory of the early church, the whole district subject to the rule of the bishop formed but one integral mass: the parochial clergy even in spirituals were but the bishop’s ministers or vicars, and in temporals they were accountable to him for every gain which accrued to the church. This he was to distribute at his own discretion; it is true that there were canons of the church which in some degree regulated his conduct, and probably the presbyters of his cathedral, his witan or council, did not neglect to offer their advice on so interesting a subject. To him it belonged to assign the funds for the support of the parochial clergy, out of the share which was commanded to be set apart for the sustenance of the ministers of the altar: to him also it belonged to apportion the share which was directed to be applied to the repairs of the fabric of the churches in his diocese; and he also had the immediate distribution of that portion which was devoted to the charitable purposes of relieving the poor and ransoming the enslaved,—a noble privilege, more valuable in rude days like those than in our civilized age it could be, even had the sacrilegious hand of time not removed it from among the jewels of the mitre.

Occasionally, no doubt, the parochial clergy, though supported by their glebe-lands, had reason to complain that the hospitality or charity of the bishop, exceeding the bounds of the canonical division, left them but an insufficient remuneration for their services: and more than one council found it useful to impress upon the prelate the claims of his less fortunate or deserving brethren[923]: but on the whole there can be little question that piety on the one hand and superstition on the other combined to supply an ample fund for the support of the clerical body; and that what with free-will offerings, grants of lands, fines, rents, tithes, compulsory contributions, and the sums paid in commutation of penance, the clergy in England were at all times provided not only with the means of comfort, but even with wealth and splendour. The sources and nature of ecclesiastical income will form the subject of a separate chapter.

-----

Footnote 923:

“Et ideo quia Carpentoracte convenientes huiusmodi ad nos querela
pervenit, quod ea quae a quibuscumque fidelibus parochiis conferuntur,
ita ab aliquibus episcopis praesumantur, ut aut parum, aut prope
nihil, aecclesiis quibus collata fuerint relinquatur; ut si aecclesia
civitatis eius cui episcopus praeest, ita est idonea, ut Christo
propitio nihil indigeat, quidquid parochiis fuerit derelictum,
clericis qui ipsis parochiis deserviunt, vel reparationibus
aecclesiarum rationabiliter dispensetur,” etc. Concil. Carpentor. an.
527.

-----

As a body the clergy in England were placed very high in the social scale: the valuable services which they rendered to their fellow-creatures,—their dignity as ministers and stewards of the mysteries of the faith,—lastly the ascetical course of life which many of them adopted, struck the imagination and secured the admiration of their rude contemporaries. At first too, they were honourably distinguished by the possession of arts and learning, which could be found in no other class; and although the most celebrated of their commentaries upon the Biblical books or the works of the Fathers, do not now excite in us any very great feelings of respect, they must have had a very different effect upon our simple progenitors. Whatever state of ignorance the body generally may have fallen into in the ninth and tenth centuries, the seventh and eighth had produced men famous in every part of Europe for the soundness and extent of their learning. To them England owed the more accurate calculations which enabled the divisions of times and seasons to be duly settled; the decency, nay even splendour, of the religious services were maintained by their skilful arrangement; painting, sculpture and architecture were made familiar through their efforts, and the best examples of these civilising arts were furnished by their churches and monasteries: it is probable that their lands in general supplied the best specimens of cultivation, and that the leisure of the cloister was often bestowed in acquiring the art of healing, so valuable in a rude state of society, liable to many ills which our more fortunate period could, with ordinary care, escape[924]. Their manuscripts yet attract our attention by the exquisite beauty of the execution; they were often skilled in music, and other pursuits which at once delight and humanise us. To them alone could resort be had for even the little instruction which the noble and wealthy coveted: they were the only schoolmasters[925]; and those who yet preserve the affectionate regard which grows up between a generous boy and him to whom he owed his earliest intellectual training, can judge with what force such motives acted in a state of society so different from our own. Moreover the intervention of the clergy in many most important affairs of life was almost incessant. Marriage—that most solemn of all the obligations which the man and the citizen can contract—was celebrated under their superintendence: without the instruments which they prepared no secure transfer of property could be made; and as arbitrators or advisers, they were resorted to for the settlement of disputed right, and the avoidance of dangerous litigation. Lastly, although during the Anglosaxon period we nowhere find them putting forward that shocking claim to consideration which afterwards became so common—the being makers of their Creator in the sacrament of the Eucharist,—we cannot doubt that their calling was supposed to confer a peculiar holiness upon them; or that the _hád_, the orders, they received, were taken to remove them from the class of common Christians into a higher and more sacred sphere.

-----

Footnote 924:

The extraordinary helplessness of early surgery is little appreciated
by us, nor are we duly grateful for the advance in that most noble
study which now secures to the lowest and poorest sufferer,
alleviations once inaccessible to the wealthiest and most powerful. An
example in point occurs to me in the case of Leopold, duke of Austria,
the captor of Coeur de Lion, in 1195. A fall from his horse produced a
compound fracture of the leg, which from the treatment it received
soon mortified. Amputation was necessary, and it was performed by the
duke himself, _holding an axe to the limb, which his chamberlain
struck with a beetle_. “Acciti mox medici apposuerunt quae expedire
credebant; in crastino vero pes ita denigratus apparuit, ut a medicis
incidendus decerneretur; et cum non inveniretur qui hoc faceret,
accitus tandem cubicularius eius, et ad hoc coactus, dum ipse dux
dolabrum manu propria tibiae apponeret, malleo vibrato, vix trina
percussione pedem eius abscidit.” Walt. Heming. i. 210. Wendov. iii.
88. We feel no surprise that death followed such treatment, even
without the excommunication under which the savage duke laboured.

Footnote 925:

We do not sufficiently prize our own advantages, and the blessings
which the mercy of God has vouchsafed to us in this respect. But let
one fact be mentioned, which ought to arrest the attention of even the
least reflecting man. In the ninth century there was not a single copy
of the Old and New Testaments to be found in the whole diocese of
Lisieux. We learn this startling fact from a letter sent by Freculf,
its bishop, to Hrabanus Maurus. “Ad haec vestrae charitatis vigilantia
intendat, quoniam nulla nobis librorum copia suppeditat, etiamsi
parvitas obtusi sensus nostri vigeret: dum in episcopio, nostrae
parvitati commisso, nec ipsos Novi Veterisque Testamenti repperi
libros, multo minus horum expositiones.” Opera Hrabani. Ed. Colvener.
ii. 1.

-----

Great privileges were accordingly given to them in a social point of view. They enjoyed a high wergyld, an increased mundbyrd, and a distinguished secular rank. The weofodþegn or servant of the altar who duly performed his important functions, was reckoned on the same footing as the secular thane, woroldþegn, who earned nobility and wealth in the service of an earthly master. The oaths of a priest or deacon were of more force than those of a free man; and it was rendered easier for them to rebut accusations by the aid of their clerical compurgators, than for the simple ceorl or even þegn, and his gegyldan.

It was nevertheless a wise provision that their privileges should not extend so far as to remove them entirely from participation in the general interests of their countrymen, or make them aliens from the obligations which the Anglosaxon state imposed upon all its members. Personal privileges they enjoyed, like other distinguished members of the body politic, as long as their conduct individually was such as to merit them; but they were not cut off entirely from the common burthens or the common advantages: and this will not unsatisfactorily explain the immunity which England long enjoyed, from struggles by which other European states—and in later periods even our own—were convulsed to their foundations. In their cathedrals and conventual churches, or scattered through the parishes over all the surface of the land, but sharing in the interests of all classes, they acted as a body of mediators between the strong and the weak, repressing the violent, consoling and upholding the sufferer, and offering even to the despairing serf the hope of a future rest from misery and subjection.

On the first establishment of conventual bodies we have seen that a complete immunity had been granted from the secular services to which all other lands were liable[926]; but that the inconvenience of this course soon led to its abandonment. It is difficult to say whether this immunity was at any time extended to the hide, “mansus aecclesiasticus,” or “dos aecclesiae” of the parish-church: it is on the contrary probable that it never was so extended; for no hint of the sort occurs in our own annals or charters; and it is well known that the church lands among the neighbouring Franks were subject, like those of the laity, to the burthens of the state[927]. From every hide which passed into clerical hands, the king could to the very last demand the _inevitable_ dues, military service, repairs of roads and fortifications; and though it is not likely that the parish priest was called upon to serve in person, it is also not likely that he was excused the payment of his quota toward the arming and support of a substitute in the field[928].

-----

Footnote 926:

Vol. i. 302.

Footnote 927:

Eichhorn, § 114. vol. i. 506.

Footnote 928:

Exemption from _munera personalia_ however was early claimed.
“Presbyteros, diaconos, etc. ... etiam personalium munerum expertes
esse volumus.” L. 6. C. de Episc. et Cleric. i. 3. Hence the king had
an interest in forbidding the ordination of a free man without his
consent. See the formulary in Marculfus, i. 10. See also the fourth
and eighth canons of the Council of Orleans, A.D. 511. and Eichhorn,
i. 484, 485. §§ 94, 96. From those we see that through ordination the
king might lose his rights over the freeman and the master over his
serf. Of the last case there cannot be the slightest doubt in England,
and I should imagine little of the first.

-----

Nor did the legislation of the Teutonic nations contemplate the withdrawal of the clergy from the authority of the secular tribunals. The sin of the clergyman might indeed be punished in the proper manner by his ecclesiastical superior: penance and censure might be inflicted by the bishop upon his delinquent brother; but the crime of the citizen was reserved for the cognizance of the state[929].

-----

Footnote 929:

The great argument of the clergy in later times,—in the twelfth
century particularly, when all over Europe the attempt was made to
exempt them from secular jurisdiction,—“that no one ought to be
punished twice for the same offence,” had apparently not yet been
thought of. The penances of the church, by which the sinner was to be
reconciled to God, were still held quite distinct from the sufferings
by which he expiated his violation of the law. Theodore alleviates,
but does not remit, the penance of those whose guilt has bent their
heads to human slavery. Theod. Poen. xvi. § 3. See this argument
stated in the quarrel between Henry II. and Becket: “In contrarium
sentiebat archiepiscopus, ut quos exauctorent episcopi a manu laicali
postmodum non punirentur, quia bis in idipsum puniri viderentur.” Rog.
Wendov. an. 1164. vol. ii. 304. But this was a two-edged argument, as
its upholders soon found, when the laity on the same grounds claimed
exemption from secular punishment for offences committed upon the
persons of the clergy; justly urging, upon the premises, that they
were excommunicated for their acts, and ought not to be subject to a
second infliction. Accordingly in 1176, we find Richard archbishop of
Canterbury attempting to explain away what Becket had so vigorously
advanced: “Nec dicatur quod aliquis bis puniatur propter hoc in
idipsum, nec enim iteratum est, quod ab uno incipitur et ab altero
consummatur,” etc. See his letter to the bishops in An. Trivet. 1176.
p. 82 _seq._ We shall readily admit that the laity ought not to have
been let loose upon the clergy; but upon the same grounds we shall
claim the subjection of the clergy to the secular tribunals for all
secular offences.

-----

This had been the custom of the Franks, even while they permitted the clergy, who belonged to the class of Roman provincials, to be judged by the Roman law[930]: it was for centuries the practice in England, and would probably so have remained had the error of the Conqueror in separating the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions not prepared the way for the troublous times of the Henries and Edwards. In the case of manslaughter, Ælfred commands that the priest shall be secularised before he is delivered for punishment to the ordinary tribunals[931]: Æðelred[932] and Cnut[933] decree that he is to be secularised, to become an outlaw and abjure the realm, and do such penance as the Pope shall prescribe; and they extend this penalty to other grievous offences besides homicide. Eádweard the elder enacts that if a man in orders steal, fight, perjure himself or be unchaste, he shall be subject to the same penalties as the laity under the same circumstances would be, and to his canonical penance besides[934]. But the plainest evidence that the clergy, even including the most dignified of their body, were held to answer before the ordinary courts, is supplied by the many provisions in the laws as to the mode of conducting their trials[935]. It could not indeed be otherwise in a country where every offence was to be tried by the people themselves.

-----

Footnote 930:

Concil. Autisiodor. an. 578. can. 43. Concil. Matiscon. an. 581. can.
7. “Quodsi quicunque index ... clericum absque causa criminali, id est
homicidio, furto aut maleficio, hoc [scil. iniuriam] facere fortasse
praesumpserit, quamdiu episcopo loci illius visum fuerit, ab
aecclesiae liminibus arceatur.”

Footnote 931:

“If a priest kill another man, let all that he had acquired at home be
given up, and let the bishop deprive him of his orders: then let him
be given up from the minster, unless the lord will compound for the
wergeld.” Ælf. § 21.

Footnote 932:

Leg. Æðelr. ix. § 26. Thorpe, i. 346.

Footnote 933:

Leg. Cnut, ii. § 41. Thorpe, i. 400.

Footnote 934:

Eád. Guð. § 3. Thorpe, i. 168. Yet immediately afterwards Eádweard
says: “If a man in orders fordo himself with capital crime, let him be
seized and held to the bishop’s doom.” Ibid. § 4.

Footnote 935:

See Leg. Wihtr. § 18, 19. Æðelr. ix. § 19-24, 27. Cnut, i. § 5; ii. §
41.

-----

But the most effectual mode of separating the clergy from the other members of the church yet remains to be considered. He that is permitted to contract marriage, to enjoy the inestimable blessings of a home, to connect himself with a family, and give the state dear pledges of his allegiance, can never cease to be a citizen of that polity in which his lot is cast. He can be no alien, no machine to be put in motion by foreign force. Accordingly, although the celibacy of the clergy is a mere point of discipline (and could therefore be dispensed with at once were it desired[936]), it has always been pertinaciously insisted upon by those whose interest it was to destroy the national feeling of the clergy in every country, and render them subservient to one centralising power. It is fitting that we enquire how far this was attempted in England, and how far the attempt succeeded.

-----

Footnote 936:

Whether it will ever be possible to surmount the difficulties which
environ this subject, may be doubted; but it cannot escape any one who
has enjoyed the intimacy of the more enlightened Roman Catholics,
whether cleric or laic, that a strong feeling exists in favour of a
change. In Bohemia and other Slavonic countries, yet in communion with
Rome, the celibacy of the clergy has ever been a stumbling-block and
stone of offence, and has done more than anything else to keep alive
old Hussite traditions. A few years ago so much danger was felt to
lurk in the question, that the Vienna censorship thought fit to
suppress portions of Palaczy’s History, which favoured the national
views. Nor has Germany, at almost any period, lacked thinkers who have
vigorously protested against a practice which they assert to have no
foundation in Holy Writ, and look upon as disastrous to the State.

-----

The perilous position of the early Christians, and especially of the clergy, rendered it at least matter of prudence that they should not contract the obligation of family bonds which must prove a serious hindrance to the performance of their duties. It is therefore easily conceivable that marriage should in the first centuries have been discouraged among the members of this particular class. There was also a tendency among the eastern Christians to engraft upon the doctrines of the faith, those peculiar metaphysical notions which seem always to have characterized the oriental modes of thought. The antagonism of spirit and matter, the degraded—nay even diabolical[937]—nature of the latter, and the duty of emancipating the spiritual portion of our being from its trammels, were quite as prominent doctrines of some Christian communities, as of the Brahman or Buddhist. The holiness of the priest would, it was thought, be contaminated by his union with a wife; and thus from a combination of circumstances which in themselves had no necessary connexion, an opinion came to prevail that a state of celibacy was the proper one for the ministers of the sacraments. It was at first recommended, and then commanded, that those who wished to devote themselves to the especial service of the church, should not contract the bond of marriage. Even the married citizen who accepted orders was admonished to separate himself from the society of his wife: and both were taught that a life of continence for the future would be an acceptable offering in the sight of God. It seems unnecessary to dilate upon the fallacy of these views, or to point out the gross and degrading materialism on which they are ultimately based. The historian, while he laments, must to the best of his power record the aberrations of human intelligence, under his inevitable conditions of place and time.

-----

Footnote 937:

Some sects believed the δημιουργός to have been the devil himself; and
as the Saviour is declared to have made the world, identified Jesus
with Satan! Others entirely denied his human nature, on the ground
that the incarnation was a materialising of spirit. The ascetic
practices of the Eastern church had a similar origin.

-----