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 missionary3 establishments. The earliest missionaries4 were for the most part monks7; but Augustine was accompanied by clerics also[902], and in every case the conversion8 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 clergy9 sallied forth10 to visit the neighbouring villages and towns, and preach the tidings of salvation12: the necessities of daily provision, the attainment13 of greater security
415
for their persons, the mutual14 aid and consolation15 in the perils16 and difficulties of their task, all supplied motives17 in favour of a cœnobitical mode of life: monks and clerics were confounded together through the circumstances of the adventure in which they shared; nay18 the very administration of those rites20 by which the imagination of the heathen Saxons was so strongly worked upon, could only be conducted on a sufficiently21 imposing22 scale by an assemblage of ecclesiastics24. To this must be added the protection to be derived25 from settling on one spot, in the immediate26 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 proximity27 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 opposition28 than the characteristic bigotry29 of heathen, i. e. rural populations. This combination of circumstances probably led at an early period to that approximation between the modes of life of monks and clerks, which at the close of the eighth century Chrodogang succeeded in enforcing in his archbishopric of Metz, but which had been attempted four centuries earlier by Eusebius of Vercelli[903]. Both the Roman and Scottish missionaries
416
followed the same plan, which indeed appears to be the natural one, and to have been generally adopted on all similar occasions, whether in ancient Germany, in Peru or in the most modern missions of Australia or New Zealand. In Beda’s Ecclesiastical History, which in these respects no doubt was founded upon ancient and contemporary records, we frequently read of prelates leaving their monasteries32 (by which general name churches as well as collections of monks are designated) to preach the Gospel and administer the rite19 of baptism in distant villages[904]. But this system had also
417
inconveniences of no slight character; the distance of the converts from the church, the necessity for daily superintendence and continual exhortation33 on the part of the preacher, the very danger and fatigue34 of repeated journeys into rude, uncultivated parts of the country, must have soon forced upon
418
the clergy the necessity of providing other machinery35 than they as yet possessed36. The multiplication37 of centres of instruction was the first and greatest point to be ensured; whereby a more constant intercourse39 between the neophyte40 and the missionary might be attained41. 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 bishop30; 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 applied42 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 entrusted43 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 piety44 of their new converts bestowed45, the
419
bishops46 could naturally not proceed to plant these clerical colonies of their own authority: though, as soon as they became masters of vills and manors47 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 stewards48, administrators49 or bailiffs of the property, the proceeds of which were paid over to the episcopal church, and laid out at the discretion50 of the bishop[905]. But the zeal31 of the people could here assist the benevolent51 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 meritorious52 work of the conversion, the earnest hope to establish a peculiar53 claim upon the favour of Heaven, nay perhaps even the less worthy54 motives of vanity and ambition, disposed the landowner to raise a church upon his own estate for the use of himself and his surrounding tenants55 or friends. From a very early period this disposition56 was cultivated and encouraged;
420
and the bishops relinquished57 the patronage58 of the church to the founder59, reserving of course to themselves the canonical60 subjection and consecration61 of the presbyter who was ordained62 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 dedication63 by John of Beverley of churches, for Puch and Addi, two Northumbrian noblemen, and these were no doubt
421
private foundations[907]. We still possess various regulations of Theodore, and of nearly contemporary prelates, which refer to such separate churches, proving how very general they had become, and how strictly64 they required to be guarded against the avarice65 or other unworthy motives of the founders66, and the simoniacal practices both of priest and layman67. 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 deposed68, 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 lawfully71 ordained to a church, and so have obtained it entirely72 for himself; which vice73, so widely diffused74, is to be remedied with the utmost zeal. Also it is to be forbidden both to clerks and laics, that no one shall presume to give any church whatever to
422
a presbyter, without the licence and consent of the bishop.” These churches frequently were granted to abbeys or to the bishops themselves; and in the latter case they were served by priests especially appointed thereunto from the cathedral[909]. At this early period when tithes75 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 fixed77 was one hide, equivalent to the estate of a single family, which, properly managed, would support the presbyter and his attendant clerks. Archbishop Ecgberht rules[910]: “Ut unicuique aecclesiae vel una mansa integra absque alio servitio attribuatur, et presbyteri in eis constituti non de decimis neque de oblationibus fidelium nec de domibus, neque de atriis vel hortis iuxta aecclesiam positis, neque de praescripta mansa, aliquod servitium faciant, praeter aecclesiasticum: et si aliquod amplius habuerint, inde senioribus suis, secundum patriae morem, debitum servitium impendant.” And this regulation, though probably already established
423
by custom, obtained the force of law in the Frankish empire, by a constitution of Hludwich in 816[911]. This glebe-land the bishop seems not to have been able to interfere78 with, so as to alienate79 it from the particular church, in favour of another, even when both churches were within his own subjection[912].
But although many churches may have arisen in this manner, a large proportion of which gradually found their way into the hands of bishops and abbots, and although these last may have erected80 churches, as the necessities of the case demanded, in the various districts over which they exercised rights of property, the greater number of parish-churches (plebes, aecclesiae baptismales, tituli maiores) had probably a very different origin. It
424
had been shown that in all likelihood every Mark had its religious establishment, its fanum, delubrum, or sacellum, as the Latin authors call them, its hearh, as the Anglosaxon no doubt designated them[913]; and further, that the priest or priests attached to these heathen churches had lands—perhaps freewill offerings too—for their support. It has also been shown that a well-grounded plan of turning the religio loci to account was acted upon by all the missionaries, and that wherever a substantial building was found in existence, it was taken possession of for the behoof of the new religion. Under such circumstances it would seem that nothing could be more natural than the establishment of a baptismal church in every independent mark that adopted Christianity, and that the substitution of one creed82 for the other not only did not require the abolition83 of the old machinery, but would be much facilitated by retaining it. It is in this manner then that I understand the assertions of Beda and others, that certain missionary prelates established churches per loca, such churches being certainly not cathedrals[914] or abbey-churches.
425
There cannot be the least reason to doubt that parish-churches were generally established in the time of Beda, less than half a century after the period to which most of the instances in the notes refer[915]: and it is not very probable that they were all owing to private liberality. In a similar manner probably arose the numerous parish-churches which before the close of the eighth century were founded, especially by the English missionaries, on the continent of Europe[916]. Thus in the seventh
426
century in England the ecclesiastical machinery consisted of episcopal churches served by a body of clerks or monks,—sometimes united under the same rule, and a sufficient number of whom had the necessary orders of priests, deacons and the like; probably also churches served by a number of presbyters under the guidance of an archipresbyter or archpriest[917], bearing some resemblance to our later collegiate foundations; and numerous parish-churches established on the sites of the ancient fanes in the marks, or erected by the liberality of kings, bishops and other landowners on
427
their own manorial84 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 distinguished85 from the túnpreostas, village or parochial priests[919].
As early as the fifth century the fourth general council (Chalcedon, an. 451) had laid down the rule that the ecclesiastical and political establishments should be assimilated as much as possible[920]; and as the central power was represented by the
428
metropolitans87 and the bishops, so the subsidiary authorities had their corresponding functionaries89 in the parish priests, priests of collegiate churches and their dependents. We possess a curious parallel drawn90 by Walafrid Strabo in the earliest years of the ninth century, on this subject. In his book De Exordiis Rerum Aecclesiasticarum (cap. 31), he thus compares the civil and ecclesiastical polities: “Porro sicut comites quidam Missos suos praeponunt popularibus, qui minores causas determinent, ipsis maiora reservent, ita quidam episcopi chorepiscopos habent. Centenarii qui et centuriones et Vicarii, qui per pagos statuti sunt, Presbyteris Plebei, qui baptismales aecclesias tenent, et minoribus praesunt Presbyteris, conferri queunt. Decuriones et Decani, qui sub ipsis vicariis quaedam minora exercent, Presbyteris titulorum possunt comparari. Sub ipsis ministris centenariorum sunt adhuc minores qui Collectarii, Quaterniones, et Duumviri possunt appellari, qui colligunt populum, et ipso numero ostendunt se decanis esse minores. Sunt autem ista vocabula ab antiquitate mutuata,” etc[921].
429
Both in spiritual and in temporal matters, the clergymen thus dispersed93 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 (“quorum94 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 confirmation95, ordination96, 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 jurisdiction97, as it was called,—the “iurisdictio fori interni,”—that is to say confession98, penance99 and absolution, but solely100 as representatives and vicars of the bishop[922].
430
It was this gradual extension of the powers of the presbyter that destroyed the distinction between the collegiate churches served by the archpriest and his clergy, and the church in which a single presbyter administered the daily rites of religion. The word parochia which at first had been properly confined to the former churches, became generally applied to the latter, when the difference between their spiritual privileges entirely vanished.
In the theory of the early church, the whole district subject to the rule of the bishop formed but one integral mass: the parochial clergy even in spirituals were but the bishop’s ministers or vicars, and in temporals they were accountable to him for every gain which accrued101 to the church. This he was to distribute at his own discretion; it is true that there were canons of the church which in some degree regulated his conduct, and probably the presbyters of his cathedral, his witan or council, did not neglect to offer their advice on so interesting a subject. To him it belonged to assign the funds for the support of the parochial clergy, out of the
431
share which was commanded to be set apart for the sustenance102 of the ministers of the altar: to him also it belonged to apportion103 the share which was directed to be applied to the repairs of the fabric104 of the churches in his diocese; and he also had the immediate distribution of that portion which was devoted105 to the charitable purposes of relieving the poor and ransoming106 the enslaved,—a noble privilege, more valuable in rude days like those than in our civilized107 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 insufficient108 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 superstition109 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, compulsory110
432
contributions, and the sums paid in commutation of penance, the clergy in England were at all times provided not only with the means of comfort, but even with wealth and splendour. The sources and nature of ecclesiastical income will form the subject of a separate chapter.
As a body the clergy in England were placed very high in the social scale: the valuable services which they rendered to their fellow-creatures,—their dignity as ministers and stewards of the mysteries of the faith,—lastly the ascetical course of life which many of them adopted, struck the imagination and secured the admiration112 of their rude contemporaries. At first too, they were honourably113 distinguished by the possession of arts and learning, which could be found in no other class; and although the most celebrated114 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 progenitors115. 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 decency116, nay even splendour, of the religious services were maintained by their skilful117 arrangement; painting, sculpture and architecture were made familiar through their efforts, and the best examples of these civilising arts were
433
furnished by their churches and monasteries: it is probable that their lands in general supplied the best specimens118 of cultivation119, and that the leisure of the cloister120 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 exquisite121 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 coveted122: they were the only schoolmasters[925]; and those who yet preserve the affectionate regard which grows up between a generous boy and him to whom he owed his earliest intellectual
434
training, can judge with what force such motives acted in a state of society so different from our own. Moreover the intervention123 of the clergy in many most important affairs of life was almost incessant124. 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 advisers125, 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 makers126 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 Christians127 into a higher and more sacred sphere.
Great privileges were accordingly given to them in a social point of view. They enjoyed a high wergyld, an increased mundbyrd, and a distinguished secular128 rank. The weofodþegn or servant of the altar who duly performed his important
435
functions, was reckoned on the same footing as the secular thane, woroldþegn, who earned nobility and wealth in the service of an earthly master. The oaths of a priest or deacon were of more force than those of a free man; and it was rendered easier for them to rebut129 accusations130 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 participation131 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 politic86, 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 immunity132 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 scattered133 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 misery134 and subjection.
On the first establishment of conventual bodies
436
we have seen that a complete immunity had been granted from the secular services to which all other lands were liable[926]; but that the inconvenience of this course soon led to its abandonment. It is difficult to say whether this immunity was at any time extended to the hide, “mansus aecclesiasticus,” or “dos aecclesiae” of the parish-church: it is on the contrary probable that it never was so extended; for no hint of the sort occurs in our own annals or charters; and it is well known that the church lands among the neighbouring Franks were subject, like those of the laity135, to the burthens of the state[927]. From every hide which passed into clerical hands, the king could to the very last demand the inevitable136 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 quota137 toward the arming and support of a substitute in the field[928].
Nor did the legislation of the Teutonic nations contemplate138 the withdrawal139 of the clergy from the authority of the secular tribunals. The sin of the
437
clergyman might indeed be punished in the proper manner by his ecclesiastical superior: penance and censure140 might be inflicted141 by the bishop upon his delinquent142 brother; but the crime of the citizen was reserved for the cognizance of the state[929].
This had been the custom of the Franks, even while they permitted the clergy, who belonged to the class of Roman provincials144, to be judged by the Roman law[930]: it was for centuries the practice
438
in England, and would probably so have remained had the error of the Conqueror145 in separating the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions146 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 outlaw147 and abjure148 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 enacts149 that if a man in orders steal, fight, perjure150 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 dignified152 of their body, were held to answer before the ordinary courts, is supplied by the many provisions in the laws as to the mode of conducting their trials[935]. It could not indeed be otherwise in a country where every offence was to be tried by the people themselves.
439
But the most effectual mode of separating the clergy from the other members of the church yet remains153 to be considered. He that is permitted to contract marriage, to enjoy the inestimable blessings154 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 celibacy155 of the clergy is a mere156 point of discipline (and could therefore be dispensed157 with at once were it desired[936]), it has always been pertinaciously158 insisted upon by those whose interest it was to destroy the national feeling of the clergy in every country, and render them subservient159 to one centralising power. It is fitting that we enquire160 how far this was attempted in England, and how far the attempt succeeded.
The perilous161 position of the early Christians, and especially of the clergy, rendered it at least matter of prudence162 that they should not contract the obligation of family bonds which must prove a serious
440
hindrance163 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 doctrines164 of the faith, those peculiar metaphysical notions which seem always to have characterized the oriental modes of thought. The antagonism165 of spirit and matter, the degraded—nay even diabolical[937]—nature of the latter, and the duty of emancipating166 the spiritual portion of our being from its trammels, were quite as prominent doctrines of some Christian81 communities, as of the Brahman or Buddhist167. 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 admonished169 to separate himself from the society of his wife: and both were taught that a life of continence for the future would be an acceptable offering in the sight of God. It seems unnecessary to
441
dilate170 upon the fallacy of these views, or to point out the gross and degrading materialism171 on which they are ultimately based. The historian, while he laments172, must to the best of his power record the aberrations174 of human intelligence, under his inevitable conditions of place and time.
It is uncertain at what period this restriction175 was first attempted to be enforced in the Western Church, but there are early councils which notice the existence of a strong feeling on the subject[938]. In the year 376 a Gallic synod excommunicated those who should refuse the ministrations of a priest on the ground of his marriage[939]. But this can only prove that at the time there were married priests, whether living in continence or not, and that certain persons were scandalized at them. I cannot admit, as some authors have done, that the Council intended to make such marriages legal; on the contrary, it seems to me that the intention of the canon is merely to assert the validity of the sacraments, however unworthy might be the person by whom they were administered[940].
442
But restrictions176 which wound the natural feelings of men are vain: popes and councils may decree, but they cannot enforce obedience177, and it seems to me that on this particular subject they never entirely succeeded in carrying out their views. All they did was to convert a holy and a blessed connexion into one of much lower character, and to throw the doors wide open to immorality178 and scandal. The efforts of Boniface in Germany were particularly directed to this point[941], and his biographer
443
tells us on more than one occasion of his success in destroying the influence of married priests. But it may be questioned whether the same result attended the efforts of the Roman missionaries in England. It seems to me, on the contrary, that we have an almost unbroken chain of evidence to show that, in spite of the exhortations179 of the bishops,
444
and the legislation of the witan, those at least of the clergy who were not bound to cœnobitical order, did contract marriage, and openly rear the families which were its issue. From Eddius we learn that Wilfrið bishop of York, one of the staunchest supporters of Romish views, had a son[942]; he does not indeed say that this son was born in wedlock180, nor does any author directly mention Wilfrið’s marriage: but we may adopt this view of the matter, as the less scandalous of two alternatives, and as rendered probable by the absence of all accusations which might have been brought against the bishop on this score by any one of his numerous enemies. In a charter of emancipation181 we find among the witnesses, Ælfsige the priest and his son[943]: by another document a lady grants a church hereditarily182 to Wulfmǽr the priest and his offspring, as long as he shall have any in orders[944], where a succession of married clergymen is obviously contemplated183. Again we read of Godwine at Worðig bishop Ælfsige’s son[945], and of the son of Oswald a presbyter[946]. Under Eádweard the Confessor we are told of Robert the deacon and his
445
son-in-law Richard Fitzscrob[947], and of Gódríc a son of the king’s chaplain Gódman[948].
It may no doubt be argued that in some of these instances the children may have been the issue of marriages contracted before the father entered into orders; but it is obvious that this was not the case with all of them, nor is there any proof that any were so. On the other hand we have evidence of married priests which it would be difficult to reject. Florence speaks of the newly born son of a certain presbytera, or priest’s wife[949]: I have already cited a passage from Simeon of Durham which distinctly mentions a married presbyter[950], about the year 1045: and the History of Ely records the wife and family of an archipresbyter in that town[951]. Lastly we are told over and over again that one principal cause for the removal of the canons or prebendaries from the cathedrals and collegiate churches by Æðelwold and Oswald was the contravention of their rule by marriage.
The frequent allusion184 to this subject by the kings in various enactments185, serve to show very clearly that the clergy would not submit to the restraint
446
attempted to be enforced upon them. But we have a still more conclusive186 evidence in the words of an episcopal charge delivered by archbishop Ælfric. He says, “Beloved, we cannot now compel you by force to observe chastity, but we admonish168 you to observe it, as the ministers of Christ ought, and as did those holy men whom we have already mentioned, and who spent all their lives in chastity[952].” It is thus very clear that the clergy paid little regard to such admonishments, unsupported by secular penalties. In this, as perhaps in some other cases, the good sense and sound feeling of the nation struggled successfully against the authority of the Papal See. In fact, though spirituality were the pretext187, a most abominable188 slavery to materialism lies at the root of all the grounds on which the Roman prelates founded the justification189 of their course. That they had ulterior objects in view may easily be surmised190, though these may have been but dimly described and hesitatingly confessed, until Gregory the Seventh boldly and openly avowed191 them. Had the Roman church ventured to argue that the clergy ought to be separated entirely from the nation and the state, nay from humanity itself, for certain definite purposes and ends, it would at least have deserved the praise of candour; and much might have been alleged192 in favour of this view while the clergy were still strictly missionaries exposed to the perils and uncertainties193 of a daily struggle. But, in an absurd idolatry of
447
what was miscalled chastity, to proscribe194 the noblest condition and some of the highest functions of man, was to set up a rule essentially195 false, and literally196 hold out a premium197 to immorality; and so the more reflecting even of the clergy themselves admitted[953]. Whatever may have been the desire of the prelates, we may be certain that not only in England, but generally throughout the North of Europe, the clergy did enter into quasi-marriages; and as late as the thirteenth century, the priests in Norway replied to Gregory the Ninth by setting up the fact of uninterrupted custom[954].
448
In addition to the clergy who either in their conventual or parochial churches administered the rites of religion to their flocks, very considerable monastic establishments existed from an early period in England. It is true that not every church which our historians call monasterium was really a monastic foundation, but many of them undoubtedly198 were so; and it is likely that they supplied no small number of presbyters and bishops to the service of the church. The rule of St. Benedict was well established throughout the West long before Augustine set foot in Britain; and although monks are not necessarily clergymen, it is probable that many of the body in this country took holy orders. Like the clergy the monks were subject to the control of the bishop, and the abbots received consecration from the diocesan. Till a late period in fact, there is little reason to suppose that any English monastery199 succeeded in obtaining exemption200 from episcopal visitation: though on the other hand it is probable that monasteries founded by powerful and wealthy laymen202 did contrive203 practically to establish a considerable independence. This is the more conceivable, because we cannot doubt that a great difference did from the first exist between
449
the rules adopted by various congregations of monks, or imposed upon them by their patrons and founders, until the time when greater familiarity with Benedict’s regulations, and the customs of celebrated houses, produced a more general conformity204.
One of the most disputed questions in Anglosaxon history is that touching205 the revival206 of monkery by Dúnstán and his partizans. Its supposed connexion with the tragical207 story of Eádwig, and the dismemberment of England by Eádgár, have lent it some of the attractions of romance; and by the monastic chroniclers in general, it has very naturally been looked upon as the greatest point in the progressive record of our institutions. Connected as it is with some of the most violent prejudices of our nature, political, professional and personal, it has not only obtained a large share of attention from ecclesiastical historians of all ages, but has been discussed with great eagerness, not to say acrimony, by those who differed in opinion as to the wisdom and justice of the revival itself. Yet it does not appear to me to have been brought to the degree of clearness which we should have expected from the skill and learning of those who have undertaken its elucidation209. Neither the share which Dúnstán took in the great revolution, nor the extent to which Æðelwold and Oswald succeeded in their plans, are yet satisfactorily settled; and great obscurity still hangs both over the manner and the effect of the change.
Few things in history, when carefully investigated,
450
do really prove to have been done in a hurry. Sudden revolutions are much less common than we are apt to suppose, and fewer links than we imagine are wanting in the great chain of causes and effects. Could we place ourselves above the exaggerations of partizans, who hold it a point of honour to prove certain events to be indiscriminately right or indiscriminately wrong, we should probably find that the course of human affairs had been one steady and very gradual progression; the reputation of individual men would perhaps be shorn of part of its lustre210; and though we should lose some of the satisfaction of hero-worship, we might more readily admit the constant action of a superintending providence211, operating without caprice through very common and every-day channels. But it would have been too much to expect an impartial212 account of the events which led to the reformation of the Benedictine order in England; like Luther in the fifteenth, Dúnstán must be made the principal figure in the picture of the tenth century: throughout all great social struggles the protagonist213 stalks before us in gigantic stature,—glorious as an archangel, or terrible and hideous214 as Satan.
The writers who arose shortly after the triumph of the Reformation have revelled216 in this fruitful theme. The abuses of monachism,—not entirely forgotten at the beginning of the seventeenth century,—its undeniable faults, and the mischief217 it entails218 upon society,—judged with the exaggeration which unhappily seems inseparable from religious polemics219, produced in every part of Europe a succession
451
of violent and headlong attacks upon the institution and its patrons, which we can now more readily understand than excuse. But just as little can the calm, impartial judgment220 of the historian ratify221 the indiscriminate praise which was lavished222 by the Roman Catholics upon all whom the zeal of Protestants condemned223, the misrepresentations of fact by which they attempted to fortify225 their opinions, or the eager credulity which they showed when any tale, however preposterous226, appeared to support their particular objects. In later times the controversy227 has been renewed with greater decency of language, but not less zeal. The champion of protestantism is the Rev1. Mr. Soames: Dr. Lingard takes up the gauntlet on behalf of his church. It is no intention of mine to balance their conflicting views as to the character and intentions of Dúnstán and his two celebrated coadjutors; these have been too deeply tinged228 by the ground-colour that lies beneath the outlines. But I propose to examine the facts upon which both parties seem agreed, though each may represent them variously in accordance with a favourite theory.
It admits of no doubt whatever that monachism, and monachism under the rule of St. Benedict, had been established at an early period in this country[955];
452
but it is equally certain that the strict rule had very generally ceased to be maintained at the time
453
when Dúnstán undertook its restoration. Many of the conventual churches had never been connected with monks at all; while among the various abbeys which the piety or avarice of individuals had founded, there were probably numerous instances where no rule had ever prevailed, but the caprice of the founders, who iure dominii imposed such regulations as their vanity suggested, or their industry gleaned229 from the established orders of Columba, Benedict, and other credited authorities[956]. The
454
chapters, whatever their origin, had in process of time slid into that easy and serene230 state of secular canons, which we can still contemplate in the venerable precincts of cathedral closes. The celibacy of the clergy had not been maintained: and even in the collegiate churches the presbyter and prebendaries had permitted themselves to take wives, which could never have been contemplated even by those who would have looked with indulgence upon that connexion on the part of parish priests. Moreover in many places, wealthy ease, power, a dignified and somewhat irresponsible position had produced their natural effect upon the canons, some of whom were connected with the best families of the state; so that, in spite of all the deductions231 which must be made for exaggeration on the part of the monkish232 writers, we cannot deny that many instances of profligacy233 and worldly-mindedness
455
did very probably disgrace the clerical profession. It would be strange indeed if what has taken place in every other age and country should have been unexampled only among the Anglosaxons of the ninth and tenth centuries, or that their monks and clergy should have enjoyed a monopoly of purity, holiness and devotion to duty[957].
As we have seen already, it was only towards the end of the eighth century that Chrodogang introduced a cœnobitical mode of life in the cathedral of his archdiocese. Long before this time the great majority of our churches had been founded; and among them some may possibly from the first have been served by clergymen resident in their own detached houses, and who merely met at stated hours to perform their duties in the choir234, living at other times apart upon their præbenda or allowances from the general fund. But some of the cathedrals had been founded in connexion with abbeys; and it is probable that a majority of these great establishments were provided with some Rule of life, and demanded a cœnobitical though not strictly monastic habit. This is too frequently alluded235 to by the prelates of the seventh century, not to be admitted. But whatever may have been the
456
details in different establishments, we may be certain that residence, temperance, soberness, chastity, and a strict attendance upon the divine services were required by the Rule of every society. Unfortunately these are restrictions and duties which experience proves to have been sometimes neglected; nor can we find any great improbability in the assertion of the Saxon Chronicle, that the canons of Winchester would hold no rule at all[958]; or in the accusations brought against them in the Annals of Winchester[959], and in Wulfstán’s Life of Æðelwold[960], of violating every one of their obligations. I do not see any reason to doubt the justice of the charge made against some of their body by the last-named author, of having deserted236 the wives they had taken, and living in open and scandalous disregard of morality as well as canonical restraint. Wulfstán very likely made the most of his facts, but it is to be remembered that he was an eye-witness; and it is improbable that he should have been indebted exclusively to his invention for charges so boldly made, so capable of being readily brought to the test, and containing in truth nothing
457
repugnant to our experience of human nature. The canons of Winchester, many of whom were highly connected, wealthy beyond those of most other foundations, and established in the immediate vicinity of the royal court, may possibly have been more than ordinarily neglectful of their duties[961]; and they do appear in fact to have been treated in a much more summary way than the prebendaries of other cathedrals; yet perhaps not with strict justice, unless it can be shown that Winchester was ever a monastic establishment, which, previous to Æðelwold, I do not remember it to have been. Lingard who would have gratefully accepted any evidence against the canons in the other cathedrals, confines himself to Winchester; yet it strikes one as some confirmation of the general charge, even against their brethren at Worcester, that among the signatures to their charters so few are those of deacons and presbyters, till long after Oswald’s appointment to the see. This, although the silence of their adversaries237 allows us to acquit238 them of the irregularities laid to the charge of the canons at Winchester, may lead us to infer that they were
458
not scrupulously239 diligent240 in fulfilling the duties of their calling.
We cannot feel the least surprise that Dúnstán desired to reform the state of the church. The peculiar circumstances of his early years, even the severe mental struggles which preceded and explain his adoption241 of the monastic career, were eminently242 calculated to train him for a Reviver; and Revival was the fashion of his day. Arnold earl of Flanders[962] had lent himself with the utmost zeal to the reform of the Benedictine abbeys in his territory, and they were the models selected for imitation, or as schools of instruction, by other lands, especially England so closely connected with Flanders by commerce and the alliances of the reigning243 houses[963].
459
Yet with it all, Dúnstán does not appear to have taken a very prominent part in the proceedings244 of the friends of monachism,—certainly not the prominent part taken by Oswald or Æðelwold, the last of whom merited the title of the “Father of Monks,” by the attention he paid to their interests. In the archbishop’s own cathedral at Canterbury, the canons were left in undisturbed possession of their property and dignity, nor were monks introduced there by archbishop Ælfríc till some years after Dúnstán’s death. And even this measure, although supported by papal authority[964], was not final: it was only in the time of Lanfranc that the monks obtained secure possession of Christchurch. Dúnstán very probably continued throughout his life to be a favourer of the Order, and merited its gratitude245 by giving it valuable countenance246 and substantial protection against violence. But he was assuredly not himself a violent disturber, casting all things divine and human into confusion for the sake of a system of monkery. His recorded conduct shows nothing of the kind. I believe his monkish and very vulgar-minded panegyrists to have done his character and memory great wrong in this respect; and that they have measured the distinguished statesman by the narrow gauge247 of their own intelligence and desire. Troublous no doubt were his commencements; and in the days of his misery, while his mind yet tossed
460
and struggled among the awful abysses of an unfathomed sea in the fierce conflicts of his ascetic111 retirement248, where the broken heart sought rest and found it not, he may have given credence249 himself to what he considered supernatural visitations vouchsafed250, and powers committed, to him. But when time had somewhat healed his wounds, when the first difficulties of his political life were surmounted251, and he ruled England,—nominally as the minister of Eádgár, really as the leader of a very powerful party among the aristocracy,—there can be little doubt that the spirit of compromise, which always has been the secret of our public life, produced its necessary effect upon himself. Dúnstán was neither Richelieu nor Mazarin, but the servant of a king who wielded253 very limited powers; he had first attained his throne through a revolt, the pretext for which was his brother’s bad government, and its justification,—the consequent right of the people to depose69 him. Whatever may have been the archbishop’s private leaning, he appears to have conducted himself with great discretion, and to have very skilfully254 maintained the peace between the two embittered255 factions257; he perhaps encouraged Eádgár to manifest his partiality for monachism by the construction or reform of abbeys; he probably supported Oswald and Æðelwold by his advice, and by preventing them from being illegally interfered258 with in the course of their lawful70 actions; but as prime minister of England, he maintained the peace as well for one as for the other, and there is no evidence that any measure
461
of violence or spoliation took place by his connivance259 or consent. Neither the nation, nor the noble families whose scions260 found a comfortable provision and sufficient support in the prebends, would have looked calmly upon the unprovoked destruction of rights sanctioned by prescription261. But there is indeed no reason to believe that violent measures were resorted to in any of the establishments, to bring about the changes desired. Even in Winchester, where more compulsion seems to have been used than anywhere else, the evicted262 canons were provided with pensions. I strongly suspect that in fact they did retain during their lives the prebends which could not legally be taken from them, though they might be expelled from the cathedral service and the collegiate buildings; and that this is what the monkish writers veil under the report that pensions were assigned them.
Dr. Lingard has very justly observed that Oswald, with all his zeal, made no change whatever in his cathedral of York, which archdiocese he at one time held together with Worcester; and that, generally speaking, the new monasteries were either reared upon perfectly263 new ground, or on ancient foundations then entirely reduced to ruins[965]. With regard to Worcester, he says:—“Of Oswald we
462
are told that he introduced monks in the place of clergymen into seven churches within his bishopric; but there is reason to believe that some of the seven were new foundations, and that in some of the others the change was effected with the full consent of the canons themselves. In his cathedral he succeeded by the following artifice264. Having erected in its vicinity a new church to the honour of the Virgin265 Mary, he entrusted it to the care of a community of monks, and frequented it himself for the solemn celebration of mass. The presence of the bishop attracted that of the people; the ancient clergy saw their church gradually abandoned; and after some delay, Wensine, their dean, a man advanced in years and of unblemished character, took the monastic habit, and was advanced three years later to the office of prior. The influence of his example and the honour of his promotion266, held out a strong temptation to his brethren; till at last the number of canons was so diminished by repeated desertions, that the most wealthy of the churches of Mercia became without dispute or violence, by the very act of its old possessors, a monastery of Benedictine monks[966]. In what manner Oswald proceeded with the other churches we are ignorant; but in 971 he became archbishop of York, and though he held that high dignity during twenty years, we do not read that he introduced a single colony of monks or changed
463
the constitution of a single clerical establishment, within the diocese. The reason is unknown.”
It might not unfairly be suggested either that the rights of the canons were too well established to be shaken, or that experience had changed his own mind as to the necessity of the alteration267. High station, active engagement with the details of business, increasing age, and a natural mutual respect which grows with better acquaintance, may have convinced Oswald that his youthful zeal had a little outrun discretion, and that the canons in his province and diocese were not so utterly268 devoid269 of claims to consideration as he once had imagined in his reforming fervour. But the reader of Anglosaxon history will not fail to have observed that the measured and in general fair tone of Dr. Lingard differs very widely from that of early monkish chroniclers, and that he himself attributes to Oswald a much less active interference than is asserted by many protestant historians. That he is right I do not for a moment doubt; for not only are the accounts of Oswald’s biographers inconsistent with one another, and improbable, but we have very strong evidence that the eviction270 of the canons from Worcester was not completed in Oswald’s lifetime. We possess no fewer than seventy-eight charters granted by his chapter, and these comprise several signed in 990 and 991, the years immediately preceding that in which he died[967]: these charters are signed in part by presbyters
464
and deacons, in part by clerics, and there is but one signature of a monk6[968], though there are at least six clerici who subscribe271. Although from an examination of the charters I entertain no doubt that several, if not all, the presbyters and deacons were monks, still it is clear that a number of the canons still retained their influence over the property of the chapter till within a few months of Oswald’s decease. This prelate came to his see in 960, and according to many accounts immediately replaced the canons of Worcester by monks: all agree that he lost no time about it, and Florence[969], himself a monk of that place, fixes his triumph in the year 969. Consistently with this we have a grant of that year[970], in which Wynsige the monk, and all the monks at Worcester are named: we have a similar statement[971] in another document of 974: and in subsequent charters monks are named. A good example occurs in a grant of the year 977, to which are appended the names of eight monks[972]: but coupled with these are also the names of sixteen clerics, exclusive of a presbyter and deacon of old standing272, whom the chapter had probably caused to be ordained long
465
before, to do the service for them. All at once the addition monachus to seven of these eight names vanishes, and is replaced by presbyter or diaconus. Henceforth the number of clerici gradually diminishes, but, as we have seen, is not entirely gone in 991, the year before Oswald’s death. I do not believe that the bishop had any power to expel the canons, and that he was compelled to let them remain where they were until they died: but he perhaps could prevent any but monks from being received in their places, and it is to be presumed that he could refuse to admit any but monks to priests’ and deacons’ orders. This, we may gather from the charters, was the plan he pursued; and when we consider the dignity and power possessed by the Anglosaxon priesthood, we shall confess that it was one which threw every advantage into the scale of monachism.
Had we similar means of enquiry, it is very probable that we should come to the same conclusion with regard to other establishments from which the canons are said to have been forcibly driven. However enough seems to have been said, to prove that we must be very careful how we trust to the random273 assertions of partizans either on one side or the other. Let us be ready to condemn224 ecclesiastical tyranny and arrogance274, wherever it is proved to have disgraced the clerical profession; but let us not forget that it is our duty to judge charitably. In the case which we have now considered, I think we shall be disposed to acquit
466
some men, whose names fill a conspicuous275 place in Saxon history, of the violence and folly276 which their own over-zealous partizans have laid to their charge, and which have been used in modern times to embitter256 the separation unfortunately existing between two great bodies of Christians.
415
for their persons, the mutual14 aid and consolation15 in the perils16 and difficulties of their task, all supplied motives17 in favour of a cœnobitical mode of life: monks and clerics were confounded together through the circumstances of the adventure in which they shared; nay18 the very administration of those rites20 by which the imagination of the heathen Saxons was so strongly worked upon, could only be conducted on a sufficiently21 imposing22 scale by an assemblage of ecclesiastics24. To this must be added the protection to be derived25 from settling on one spot, in the immediate26 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 proximity27 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 opposition28 than the characteristic bigotry29 of heathen, i. e. rural populations. This combination of circumstances probably led at an early period to that approximation between the modes of life of monks and clerks, which at the close of the eighth century Chrodogang succeeded in enforcing in his archbishopric of Metz, but which had been attempted four centuries earlier by Eusebius of Vercelli[903]. Both the Roman and Scottish missionaries
416
followed the same plan, which indeed appears to be the natural one, and to have been generally adopted on all similar occasions, whether in ancient Germany, in Peru or in the most modern missions of Australia or New Zealand. In Beda’s Ecclesiastical History, which in these respects no doubt was founded upon ancient and contemporary records, we frequently read of prelates leaving their monasteries32 (by which general name churches as well as collections of monks are designated) to preach the Gospel and administer the rite19 of baptism in distant villages[904]. But this system had also
417
inconveniences of no slight character; the distance of the converts from the church, the necessity for daily superintendence and continual exhortation33 on the part of the preacher, the very danger and fatigue34 of repeated journeys into rude, uncultivated parts of the country, must have soon forced upon
418
the clergy the necessity of providing other machinery35 than they as yet possessed36. The multiplication37 of centres of instruction was the first and greatest point to be ensured; whereby a more constant intercourse39 between the neophyte40 and the missionary might be attained41. 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 bishop30; 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 applied42 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 entrusted43 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 piety44 of their new converts bestowed45, the
419
bishops46 could naturally not proceed to plant these clerical colonies of their own authority: though, as soon as they became masters of vills and manors47 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 stewards48, administrators49 or bailiffs of the property, the proceeds of which were paid over to the episcopal church, and laid out at the discretion50 of the bishop[905]. But the zeal31 of the people could here assist the benevolent51 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 meritorious52 work of the conversion, the earnest hope to establish a peculiar53 claim upon the favour of Heaven, nay perhaps even the less worthy54 motives of vanity and ambition, disposed the landowner to raise a church upon his own estate for the use of himself and his surrounding tenants55 or friends. From a very early period this disposition56 was cultivated and encouraged;
420
and the bishops relinquished57 the patronage58 of the church to the founder59, reserving of course to themselves the canonical60 subjection and consecration61 of the presbyter who was ordained62 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 dedication63 by John of Beverley of churches, for Puch and Addi, two Northumbrian noblemen, and these were no doubt
421
private foundations[907]. We still possess various regulations of Theodore, and of nearly contemporary prelates, which refer to such separate churches, proving how very general they had become, and how strictly64 they required to be guarded against the avarice65 or other unworthy motives of the founders66, and the simoniacal practices both of priest and layman67. 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 deposed68, 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 lawfully71 ordained to a church, and so have obtained it entirely72 for himself; which vice73, so widely diffused74, is to be remedied with the utmost zeal. Also it is to be forbidden both to clerks and laics, that no one shall presume to give any church whatever to
422
a presbyter, without the licence and consent of the bishop.” These churches frequently were granted to abbeys or to the bishops themselves; and in the latter case they were served by priests especially appointed thereunto from the cathedral[909]. At this early period when tithes75 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 fixed77 was one hide, equivalent to the estate of a single family, which, properly managed, would support the presbyter and his attendant clerks. Archbishop Ecgberht rules[910]: “Ut unicuique aecclesiae vel una mansa integra absque alio servitio attribuatur, et presbyteri in eis constituti non de decimis neque de oblationibus fidelium nec de domibus, neque de atriis vel hortis iuxta aecclesiam positis, neque de praescripta mansa, aliquod servitium faciant, praeter aecclesiasticum: et si aliquod amplius habuerint, inde senioribus suis, secundum patriae morem, debitum servitium impendant.” And this regulation, though probably already established
423
by custom, obtained the force of law in the Frankish empire, by a constitution of Hludwich in 816[911]. This glebe-land the bishop seems not to have been able to interfere78 with, so as to alienate79 it from the particular church, in favour of another, even when both churches were within his own subjection[912].
But although many churches may have arisen in this manner, a large proportion of which gradually found their way into the hands of bishops and abbots, and although these last may have erected80 churches, as the necessities of the case demanded, in the various districts over which they exercised rights of property, the greater number of parish-churches (plebes, aecclesiae baptismales, tituli maiores) had probably a very different origin. It
424
had been shown that in all likelihood every Mark had its religious establishment, its fanum, delubrum, or sacellum, as the Latin authors call them, its hearh, as the Anglosaxon no doubt designated them[913]; and further, that the priest or priests attached to these heathen churches had lands—perhaps freewill offerings too—for their support. It has also been shown that a well-grounded plan of turning the religio loci to account was acted upon by all the missionaries, and that wherever a substantial building was found in existence, it was taken possession of for the behoof of the new religion. Under such circumstances it would seem that nothing could be more natural than the establishment of a baptismal church in every independent mark that adopted Christianity, and that the substitution of one creed82 for the other not only did not require the abolition83 of the old machinery, but would be much facilitated by retaining it. It is in this manner then that I understand the assertions of Beda and others, that certain missionary prelates established churches per loca, such churches being certainly not cathedrals[914] or abbey-churches.
425
There cannot be the least reason to doubt that parish-churches were generally established in the time of Beda, less than half a century after the period to which most of the instances in the notes refer[915]: and it is not very probable that they were all owing to private liberality. In a similar manner probably arose the numerous parish-churches which before the close of the eighth century were founded, especially by the English missionaries, on the continent of Europe[916]. Thus in the seventh
426
century in England the ecclesiastical machinery consisted of episcopal churches served by a body of clerks or monks,—sometimes united under the same rule, and a sufficient number of whom had the necessary orders of priests, deacons and the like; probably also churches served by a number of presbyters under the guidance of an archipresbyter or archpriest[917], bearing some resemblance to our later collegiate foundations; and numerous parish-churches established on the sites of the ancient fanes in the marks, or erected by the liberality of kings, bishops and other landowners on
427
their own manorial84 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 distinguished85 from the túnpreostas, village or parochial priests[919].
As early as the fifth century the fourth general council (Chalcedon, an. 451) had laid down the rule that the ecclesiastical and political establishments should be assimilated as much as possible[920]; and as the central power was represented by the
428
metropolitans87 and the bishops, so the subsidiary authorities had their corresponding functionaries89 in the parish priests, priests of collegiate churches and their dependents. We possess a curious parallel drawn90 by Walafrid Strabo in the earliest years of the ninth century, on this subject. In his book De Exordiis Rerum Aecclesiasticarum (cap. 31), he thus compares the civil and ecclesiastical polities: “Porro sicut comites quidam Missos suos praeponunt popularibus, qui minores causas determinent, ipsis maiora reservent, ita quidam episcopi chorepiscopos habent. Centenarii qui et centuriones et Vicarii, qui per pagos statuti sunt, Presbyteris Plebei, qui baptismales aecclesias tenent, et minoribus praesunt Presbyteris, conferri queunt. Decuriones et Decani, qui sub ipsis vicariis quaedam minora exercent, Presbyteris titulorum possunt comparari. Sub ipsis ministris centenariorum sunt adhuc minores qui Collectarii, Quaterniones, et Duumviri possunt appellari, qui colligunt populum, et ipso numero ostendunt se decanis esse minores. Sunt autem ista vocabula ab antiquitate mutuata,” etc[921].
429
Both in spiritual and in temporal matters, the clergymen thus dispersed93 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 (“quorum94 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 confirmation95, ordination96, 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 jurisdiction97, as it was called,—the “iurisdictio fori interni,”—that is to say confession98, penance99 and absolution, but solely100 as representatives and vicars of the bishop[922].
430
It was this gradual extension of the powers of the presbyter that destroyed the distinction between the collegiate churches served by the archpriest and his clergy, and the church in which a single presbyter administered the daily rites of religion. The word parochia which at first had been properly confined to the former churches, became generally applied to the latter, when the difference between their spiritual privileges entirely vanished.
In the theory of the early church, the whole district subject to the rule of the bishop formed but one integral mass: the parochial clergy even in spirituals were but the bishop’s ministers or vicars, and in temporals they were accountable to him for every gain which accrued101 to the church. This he was to distribute at his own discretion; it is true that there were canons of the church which in some degree regulated his conduct, and probably the presbyters of his cathedral, his witan or council, did not neglect to offer their advice on so interesting a subject. To him it belonged to assign the funds for the support of the parochial clergy, out of the
431
share which was commanded to be set apart for the sustenance102 of the ministers of the altar: to him also it belonged to apportion103 the share which was directed to be applied to the repairs of the fabric104 of the churches in his diocese; and he also had the immediate distribution of that portion which was devoted105 to the charitable purposes of relieving the poor and ransoming106 the enslaved,—a noble privilege, more valuable in rude days like those than in our civilized107 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 insufficient108 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 superstition109 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, compulsory110
432
contributions, and the sums paid in commutation of penance, the clergy in England were at all times provided not only with the means of comfort, but even with wealth and splendour. The sources and nature of ecclesiastical income will form the subject of a separate chapter.
As a body the clergy in England were placed very high in the social scale: the valuable services which they rendered to their fellow-creatures,—their dignity as ministers and stewards of the mysteries of the faith,—lastly the ascetical course of life which many of them adopted, struck the imagination and secured the admiration112 of their rude contemporaries. At first too, they were honourably113 distinguished by the possession of arts and learning, which could be found in no other class; and although the most celebrated114 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 progenitors115. 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 decency116, nay even splendour, of the religious services were maintained by their skilful117 arrangement; painting, sculpture and architecture were made familiar through their efforts, and the best examples of these civilising arts were
433
furnished by their churches and monasteries: it is probable that their lands in general supplied the best specimens118 of cultivation119, and that the leisure of the cloister120 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 exquisite121 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 coveted122: they were the only schoolmasters[925]; and those who yet preserve the affectionate regard which grows up between a generous boy and him to whom he owed his earliest intellectual
434
training, can judge with what force such motives acted in a state of society so different from our own. Moreover the intervention123 of the clergy in many most important affairs of life was almost incessant124. 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 advisers125, 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 makers126 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 Christians127 into a higher and more sacred sphere.
Great privileges were accordingly given to them in a social point of view. They enjoyed a high wergyld, an increased mundbyrd, and a distinguished secular128 rank. The weofodþegn or servant of the altar who duly performed his important
435
functions, was reckoned on the same footing as the secular thane, woroldþegn, who earned nobility and wealth in the service of an earthly master. The oaths of a priest or deacon were of more force than those of a free man; and it was rendered easier for them to rebut129 accusations130 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 participation131 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 politic86, 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 immunity132 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 scattered133 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 misery134 and subjection.
On the first establishment of conventual bodies
436
we have seen that a complete immunity had been granted from the secular services to which all other lands were liable[926]; but that the inconvenience of this course soon led to its abandonment. It is difficult to say whether this immunity was at any time extended to the hide, “mansus aecclesiasticus,” or “dos aecclesiae” of the parish-church: it is on the contrary probable that it never was so extended; for no hint of the sort occurs in our own annals or charters; and it is well known that the church lands among the neighbouring Franks were subject, like those of the laity135, to the burthens of the state[927]. From every hide which passed into clerical hands, the king could to the very last demand the inevitable136 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 quota137 toward the arming and support of a substitute in the field[928].
Nor did the legislation of the Teutonic nations contemplate138 the withdrawal139 of the clergy from the authority of the secular tribunals. The sin of the
437
clergyman might indeed be punished in the proper manner by his ecclesiastical superior: penance and censure140 might be inflicted141 by the bishop upon his delinquent142 brother; but the crime of the citizen was reserved for the cognizance of the state[929].
This had been the custom of the Franks, even while they permitted the clergy, who belonged to the class of Roman provincials144, to be judged by the Roman law[930]: it was for centuries the practice
438
in England, and would probably so have remained had the error of the Conqueror145 in separating the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions146 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 outlaw147 and abjure148 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 enacts149 that if a man in orders steal, fight, perjure150 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 dignified152 of their body, were held to answer before the ordinary courts, is supplied by the many provisions in the laws as to the mode of conducting their trials[935]. It could not indeed be otherwise in a country where every offence was to be tried by the people themselves.
439
But the most effectual mode of separating the clergy from the other members of the church yet remains153 to be considered. He that is permitted to contract marriage, to enjoy the inestimable blessings154 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 celibacy155 of the clergy is a mere156 point of discipline (and could therefore be dispensed157 with at once were it desired[936]), it has always been pertinaciously158 insisted upon by those whose interest it was to destroy the national feeling of the clergy in every country, and render them subservient159 to one centralising power. It is fitting that we enquire160 how far this was attempted in England, and how far the attempt succeeded.
The perilous161 position of the early Christians, and especially of the clergy, rendered it at least matter of prudence162 that they should not contract the obligation of family bonds which must prove a serious
440
hindrance163 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 doctrines164 of the faith, those peculiar metaphysical notions which seem always to have characterized the oriental modes of thought. The antagonism165 of spirit and matter, the degraded—nay even diabolical[937]—nature of the latter, and the duty of emancipating166 the spiritual portion of our being from its trammels, were quite as prominent doctrines of some Christian81 communities, as of the Brahman or Buddhist167. 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 admonished169 to separate himself from the society of his wife: and both were taught that a life of continence for the future would be an acceptable offering in the sight of God. It seems unnecessary to
441
dilate170 upon the fallacy of these views, or to point out the gross and degrading materialism171 on which they are ultimately based. The historian, while he laments172, must to the best of his power record the aberrations174 of human intelligence, under his inevitable conditions of place and time.
It is uncertain at what period this restriction175 was first attempted to be enforced in the Western Church, but there are early councils which notice the existence of a strong feeling on the subject[938]. In the year 376 a Gallic synod excommunicated those who should refuse the ministrations of a priest on the ground of his marriage[939]. But this can only prove that at the time there were married priests, whether living in continence or not, and that certain persons were scandalized at them. I cannot admit, as some authors have done, that the Council intended to make such marriages legal; on the contrary, it seems to me that the intention of the canon is merely to assert the validity of the sacraments, however unworthy might be the person by whom they were administered[940].
442
But restrictions176 which wound the natural feelings of men are vain: popes and councils may decree, but they cannot enforce obedience177, and it seems to me that on this particular subject they never entirely succeeded in carrying out their views. All they did was to convert a holy and a blessed connexion into one of much lower character, and to throw the doors wide open to immorality178 and scandal. The efforts of Boniface in Germany were particularly directed to this point[941], and his biographer
443
tells us on more than one occasion of his success in destroying the influence of married priests. But it may be questioned whether the same result attended the efforts of the Roman missionaries in England. It seems to me, on the contrary, that we have an almost unbroken chain of evidence to show that, in spite of the exhortations179 of the bishops,
444
and the legislation of the witan, those at least of the clergy who were not bound to cœnobitical order, did contract marriage, and openly rear the families which were its issue. From Eddius we learn that Wilfrið bishop of York, one of the staunchest supporters of Romish views, had a son[942]; he does not indeed say that this son was born in wedlock180, nor does any author directly mention Wilfrið’s marriage: but we may adopt this view of the matter, as the less scandalous of two alternatives, and as rendered probable by the absence of all accusations which might have been brought against the bishop on this score by any one of his numerous enemies. In a charter of emancipation181 we find among the witnesses, Ælfsige the priest and his son[943]: by another document a lady grants a church hereditarily182 to Wulfmǽr the priest and his offspring, as long as he shall have any in orders[944], where a succession of married clergymen is obviously contemplated183. Again we read of Godwine at Worðig bishop Ælfsige’s son[945], and of the son of Oswald a presbyter[946]. Under Eádweard the Confessor we are told of Robert the deacon and his
445
son-in-law Richard Fitzscrob[947], and of Gódríc a son of the king’s chaplain Gódman[948].
It may no doubt be argued that in some of these instances the children may have been the issue of marriages contracted before the father entered into orders; but it is obvious that this was not the case with all of them, nor is there any proof that any were so. On the other hand we have evidence of married priests which it would be difficult to reject. Florence speaks of the newly born son of a certain presbytera, or priest’s wife[949]: I have already cited a passage from Simeon of Durham which distinctly mentions a married presbyter[950], about the year 1045: and the History of Ely records the wife and family of an archipresbyter in that town[951]. Lastly we are told over and over again that one principal cause for the removal of the canons or prebendaries from the cathedrals and collegiate churches by Æðelwold and Oswald was the contravention of their rule by marriage.
The frequent allusion184 to this subject by the kings in various enactments185, serve to show very clearly that the clergy would not submit to the restraint
446
attempted to be enforced upon them. But we have a still more conclusive186 evidence in the words of an episcopal charge delivered by archbishop Ælfric. He says, “Beloved, we cannot now compel you by force to observe chastity, but we admonish168 you to observe it, as the ministers of Christ ought, and as did those holy men whom we have already mentioned, and who spent all their lives in chastity[952].” It is thus very clear that the clergy paid little regard to such admonishments, unsupported by secular penalties. In this, as perhaps in some other cases, the good sense and sound feeling of the nation struggled successfully against the authority of the Papal See. In fact, though spirituality were the pretext187, a most abominable188 slavery to materialism lies at the root of all the grounds on which the Roman prelates founded the justification189 of their course. That they had ulterior objects in view may easily be surmised190, though these may have been but dimly described and hesitatingly confessed, until Gregory the Seventh boldly and openly avowed191 them. Had the Roman church ventured to argue that the clergy ought to be separated entirely from the nation and the state, nay from humanity itself, for certain definite purposes and ends, it would at least have deserved the praise of candour; and much might have been alleged192 in favour of this view while the clergy were still strictly missionaries exposed to the perils and uncertainties193 of a daily struggle. But, in an absurd idolatry of
447
what was miscalled chastity, to proscribe194 the noblest condition and some of the highest functions of man, was to set up a rule essentially195 false, and literally196 hold out a premium197 to immorality; and so the more reflecting even of the clergy themselves admitted[953]. Whatever may have been the desire of the prelates, we may be certain that not only in England, but generally throughout the North of Europe, the clergy did enter into quasi-marriages; and as late as the thirteenth century, the priests in Norway replied to Gregory the Ninth by setting up the fact of uninterrupted custom[954].
448
In addition to the clergy who either in their conventual or parochial churches administered the rites of religion to their flocks, very considerable monastic establishments existed from an early period in England. It is true that not every church which our historians call monasterium was really a monastic foundation, but many of them undoubtedly198 were so; and it is likely that they supplied no small number of presbyters and bishops to the service of the church. The rule of St. Benedict was well established throughout the West long before Augustine set foot in Britain; and although monks are not necessarily clergymen, it is probable that many of the body in this country took holy orders. Like the clergy the monks were subject to the control of the bishop, and the abbots received consecration from the diocesan. Till a late period in fact, there is little reason to suppose that any English monastery199 succeeded in obtaining exemption200 from episcopal visitation: though on the other hand it is probable that monasteries founded by powerful and wealthy laymen202 did contrive203 practically to establish a considerable independence. This is the more conceivable, because we cannot doubt that a great difference did from the first exist between
449
the rules adopted by various congregations of monks, or imposed upon them by their patrons and founders, until the time when greater familiarity with Benedict’s regulations, and the customs of celebrated houses, produced a more general conformity204.
One of the most disputed questions in Anglosaxon history is that touching205 the revival206 of monkery by Dúnstán and his partizans. Its supposed connexion with the tragical207 story of Eádwig, and the dismemberment of England by Eádgár, have lent it some of the attractions of romance; and by the monastic chroniclers in general, it has very naturally been looked upon as the greatest point in the progressive record of our institutions. Connected as it is with some of the most violent prejudices of our nature, political, professional and personal, it has not only obtained a large share of attention from ecclesiastical historians of all ages, but has been discussed with great eagerness, not to say acrimony, by those who differed in opinion as to the wisdom and justice of the revival itself. Yet it does not appear to me to have been brought to the degree of clearness which we should have expected from the skill and learning of those who have undertaken its elucidation209. Neither the share which Dúnstán took in the great revolution, nor the extent to which Æðelwold and Oswald succeeded in their plans, are yet satisfactorily settled; and great obscurity still hangs both over the manner and the effect of the change.
Few things in history, when carefully investigated,
450
do really prove to have been done in a hurry. Sudden revolutions are much less common than we are apt to suppose, and fewer links than we imagine are wanting in the great chain of causes and effects. Could we place ourselves above the exaggerations of partizans, who hold it a point of honour to prove certain events to be indiscriminately right or indiscriminately wrong, we should probably find that the course of human affairs had been one steady and very gradual progression; the reputation of individual men would perhaps be shorn of part of its lustre210; and though we should lose some of the satisfaction of hero-worship, we might more readily admit the constant action of a superintending providence211, operating without caprice through very common and every-day channels. But it would have been too much to expect an impartial212 account of the events which led to the reformation of the Benedictine order in England; like Luther in the fifteenth, Dúnstán must be made the principal figure in the picture of the tenth century: throughout all great social struggles the protagonist213 stalks before us in gigantic stature,—glorious as an archangel, or terrible and hideous214 as Satan.
The writers who arose shortly after the triumph of the Reformation have revelled216 in this fruitful theme. The abuses of monachism,—not entirely forgotten at the beginning of the seventeenth century,—its undeniable faults, and the mischief217 it entails218 upon society,—judged with the exaggeration which unhappily seems inseparable from religious polemics219, produced in every part of Europe a succession
451
of violent and headlong attacks upon the institution and its patrons, which we can now more readily understand than excuse. But just as little can the calm, impartial judgment220 of the historian ratify221 the indiscriminate praise which was lavished222 by the Roman Catholics upon all whom the zeal of Protestants condemned223, the misrepresentations of fact by which they attempted to fortify225 their opinions, or the eager credulity which they showed when any tale, however preposterous226, appeared to support their particular objects. In later times the controversy227 has been renewed with greater decency of language, but not less zeal. The champion of protestantism is the Rev1. Mr. Soames: Dr. Lingard takes up the gauntlet on behalf of his church. It is no intention of mine to balance their conflicting views as to the character and intentions of Dúnstán and his two celebrated coadjutors; these have been too deeply tinged228 by the ground-colour that lies beneath the outlines. But I propose to examine the facts upon which both parties seem agreed, though each may represent them variously in accordance with a favourite theory.
It admits of no doubt whatever that monachism, and monachism under the rule of St. Benedict, had been established at an early period in this country[955];
452
but it is equally certain that the strict rule had very generally ceased to be maintained at the time
453
when Dúnstán undertook its restoration. Many of the conventual churches had never been connected with monks at all; while among the various abbeys which the piety or avarice of individuals had founded, there were probably numerous instances where no rule had ever prevailed, but the caprice of the founders, who iure dominii imposed such regulations as their vanity suggested, or their industry gleaned229 from the established orders of Columba, Benedict, and other credited authorities[956]. The
454
chapters, whatever their origin, had in process of time slid into that easy and serene230 state of secular canons, which we can still contemplate in the venerable precincts of cathedral closes. The celibacy of the clergy had not been maintained: and even in the collegiate churches the presbyter and prebendaries had permitted themselves to take wives, which could never have been contemplated even by those who would have looked with indulgence upon that connexion on the part of parish priests. Moreover in many places, wealthy ease, power, a dignified and somewhat irresponsible position had produced their natural effect upon the canons, some of whom were connected with the best families of the state; so that, in spite of all the deductions231 which must be made for exaggeration on the part of the monkish232 writers, we cannot deny that many instances of profligacy233 and worldly-mindedness
455
did very probably disgrace the clerical profession. It would be strange indeed if what has taken place in every other age and country should have been unexampled only among the Anglosaxons of the ninth and tenth centuries, or that their monks and clergy should have enjoyed a monopoly of purity, holiness and devotion to duty[957].
As we have seen already, it was only towards the end of the eighth century that Chrodogang introduced a cœnobitical mode of life in the cathedral of his archdiocese. Long before this time the great majority of our churches had been founded; and among them some may possibly from the first have been served by clergymen resident in their own detached houses, and who merely met at stated hours to perform their duties in the choir234, living at other times apart upon their præbenda or allowances from the general fund. But some of the cathedrals had been founded in connexion with abbeys; and it is probable that a majority of these great establishments were provided with some Rule of life, and demanded a cœnobitical though not strictly monastic habit. This is too frequently alluded235 to by the prelates of the seventh century, not to be admitted. But whatever may have been the
456
details in different establishments, we may be certain that residence, temperance, soberness, chastity, and a strict attendance upon the divine services were required by the Rule of every society. Unfortunately these are restrictions and duties which experience proves to have been sometimes neglected; nor can we find any great improbability in the assertion of the Saxon Chronicle, that the canons of Winchester would hold no rule at all[958]; or in the accusations brought against them in the Annals of Winchester[959], and in Wulfstán’s Life of Æðelwold[960], of violating every one of their obligations. I do not see any reason to doubt the justice of the charge made against some of their body by the last-named author, of having deserted236 the wives they had taken, and living in open and scandalous disregard of morality as well as canonical restraint. Wulfstán very likely made the most of his facts, but it is to be remembered that he was an eye-witness; and it is improbable that he should have been indebted exclusively to his invention for charges so boldly made, so capable of being readily brought to the test, and containing in truth nothing
457
repugnant to our experience of human nature. The canons of Winchester, many of whom were highly connected, wealthy beyond those of most other foundations, and established in the immediate vicinity of the royal court, may possibly have been more than ordinarily neglectful of their duties[961]; and they do appear in fact to have been treated in a much more summary way than the prebendaries of other cathedrals; yet perhaps not with strict justice, unless it can be shown that Winchester was ever a monastic establishment, which, previous to Æðelwold, I do not remember it to have been. Lingard who would have gratefully accepted any evidence against the canons in the other cathedrals, confines himself to Winchester; yet it strikes one as some confirmation of the general charge, even against their brethren at Worcester, that among the signatures to their charters so few are those of deacons and presbyters, till long after Oswald’s appointment to the see. This, although the silence of their adversaries237 allows us to acquit238 them of the irregularities laid to the charge of the canons at Winchester, may lead us to infer that they were
458
not scrupulously239 diligent240 in fulfilling the duties of their calling.
We cannot feel the least surprise that Dúnstán desired to reform the state of the church. The peculiar circumstances of his early years, even the severe mental struggles which preceded and explain his adoption241 of the monastic career, were eminently242 calculated to train him for a Reviver; and Revival was the fashion of his day. Arnold earl of Flanders[962] had lent himself with the utmost zeal to the reform of the Benedictine abbeys in his territory, and they were the models selected for imitation, or as schools of instruction, by other lands, especially England so closely connected with Flanders by commerce and the alliances of the reigning243 houses[963].
459
Yet with it all, Dúnstán does not appear to have taken a very prominent part in the proceedings244 of the friends of monachism,—certainly not the prominent part taken by Oswald or Æðelwold, the last of whom merited the title of the “Father of Monks,” by the attention he paid to their interests. In the archbishop’s own cathedral at Canterbury, the canons were left in undisturbed possession of their property and dignity, nor were monks introduced there by archbishop Ælfríc till some years after Dúnstán’s death. And even this measure, although supported by papal authority[964], was not final: it was only in the time of Lanfranc that the monks obtained secure possession of Christchurch. Dúnstán very probably continued throughout his life to be a favourer of the Order, and merited its gratitude245 by giving it valuable countenance246 and substantial protection against violence. But he was assuredly not himself a violent disturber, casting all things divine and human into confusion for the sake of a system of monkery. His recorded conduct shows nothing of the kind. I believe his monkish and very vulgar-minded panegyrists to have done his character and memory great wrong in this respect; and that they have measured the distinguished statesman by the narrow gauge247 of their own intelligence and desire. Troublous no doubt were his commencements; and in the days of his misery, while his mind yet tossed
460
and struggled among the awful abysses of an unfathomed sea in the fierce conflicts of his ascetic111 retirement248, where the broken heart sought rest and found it not, he may have given credence249 himself to what he considered supernatural visitations vouchsafed250, and powers committed, to him. But when time had somewhat healed his wounds, when the first difficulties of his political life were surmounted251, and he ruled England,—nominally as the minister of Eádgár, really as the leader of a very powerful party among the aristocracy,—there can be little doubt that the spirit of compromise, which always has been the secret of our public life, produced its necessary effect upon himself. Dúnstán was neither Richelieu nor Mazarin, but the servant of a king who wielded253 very limited powers; he had first attained his throne through a revolt, the pretext for which was his brother’s bad government, and its justification,—the consequent right of the people to depose69 him. Whatever may have been the archbishop’s private leaning, he appears to have conducted himself with great discretion, and to have very skilfully254 maintained the peace between the two embittered255 factions257; he perhaps encouraged Eádgár to manifest his partiality for monachism by the construction or reform of abbeys; he probably supported Oswald and Æðelwold by his advice, and by preventing them from being illegally interfered258 with in the course of their lawful70 actions; but as prime minister of England, he maintained the peace as well for one as for the other, and there is no evidence that any measure
461
of violence or spoliation took place by his connivance259 or consent. Neither the nation, nor the noble families whose scions260 found a comfortable provision and sufficient support in the prebends, would have looked calmly upon the unprovoked destruction of rights sanctioned by prescription261. But there is indeed no reason to believe that violent measures were resorted to in any of the establishments, to bring about the changes desired. Even in Winchester, where more compulsion seems to have been used than anywhere else, the evicted262 canons were provided with pensions. I strongly suspect that in fact they did retain during their lives the prebends which could not legally be taken from them, though they might be expelled from the cathedral service and the collegiate buildings; and that this is what the monkish writers veil under the report that pensions were assigned them.
Dr. Lingard has very justly observed that Oswald, with all his zeal, made no change whatever in his cathedral of York, which archdiocese he at one time held together with Worcester; and that, generally speaking, the new monasteries were either reared upon perfectly263 new ground, or on ancient foundations then entirely reduced to ruins[965]. With regard to Worcester, he says:—“Of Oswald we
462
are told that he introduced monks in the place of clergymen into seven churches within his bishopric; but there is reason to believe that some of the seven were new foundations, and that in some of the others the change was effected with the full consent of the canons themselves. In his cathedral he succeeded by the following artifice264. Having erected in its vicinity a new church to the honour of the Virgin265 Mary, he entrusted it to the care of a community of monks, and frequented it himself for the solemn celebration of mass. The presence of the bishop attracted that of the people; the ancient clergy saw their church gradually abandoned; and after some delay, Wensine, their dean, a man advanced in years and of unblemished character, took the monastic habit, and was advanced three years later to the office of prior. The influence of his example and the honour of his promotion266, held out a strong temptation to his brethren; till at last the number of canons was so diminished by repeated desertions, that the most wealthy of the churches of Mercia became without dispute or violence, by the very act of its old possessors, a monastery of Benedictine monks[966]. In what manner Oswald proceeded with the other churches we are ignorant; but in 971 he became archbishop of York, and though he held that high dignity during twenty years, we do not read that he introduced a single colony of monks or changed
463
the constitution of a single clerical establishment, within the diocese. The reason is unknown.”
It might not unfairly be suggested either that the rights of the canons were too well established to be shaken, or that experience had changed his own mind as to the necessity of the alteration267. High station, active engagement with the details of business, increasing age, and a natural mutual respect which grows with better acquaintance, may have convinced Oswald that his youthful zeal had a little outrun discretion, and that the canons in his province and diocese were not so utterly268 devoid269 of claims to consideration as he once had imagined in his reforming fervour. But the reader of Anglosaxon history will not fail to have observed that the measured and in general fair tone of Dr. Lingard differs very widely from that of early monkish chroniclers, and that he himself attributes to Oswald a much less active interference than is asserted by many protestant historians. That he is right I do not for a moment doubt; for not only are the accounts of Oswald’s biographers inconsistent with one another, and improbable, but we have very strong evidence that the eviction270 of the canons from Worcester was not completed in Oswald’s lifetime. We possess no fewer than seventy-eight charters granted by his chapter, and these comprise several signed in 990 and 991, the years immediately preceding that in which he died[967]: these charters are signed in part by presbyters
464
and deacons, in part by clerics, and there is but one signature of a monk6[968], though there are at least six clerici who subscribe271. Although from an examination of the charters I entertain no doubt that several, if not all, the presbyters and deacons were monks, still it is clear that a number of the canons still retained their influence over the property of the chapter till within a few months of Oswald’s decease. This prelate came to his see in 960, and according to many accounts immediately replaced the canons of Worcester by monks: all agree that he lost no time about it, and Florence[969], himself a monk of that place, fixes his triumph in the year 969. Consistently with this we have a grant of that year[970], in which Wynsige the monk, and all the monks at Worcester are named: we have a similar statement[971] in another document of 974: and in subsequent charters monks are named. A good example occurs in a grant of the year 977, to which are appended the names of eight monks[972]: but coupled with these are also the names of sixteen clerics, exclusive of a presbyter and deacon of old standing272, whom the chapter had probably caused to be ordained long
465
before, to do the service for them. All at once the addition monachus to seven of these eight names vanishes, and is replaced by presbyter or diaconus. Henceforth the number of clerici gradually diminishes, but, as we have seen, is not entirely gone in 991, the year before Oswald’s death. I do not believe that the bishop had any power to expel the canons, and that he was compelled to let them remain where they were until they died: but he perhaps could prevent any but monks from being received in their places, and it is to be presumed that he could refuse to admit any but monks to priests’ and deacons’ orders. This, we may gather from the charters, was the plan he pursued; and when we consider the dignity and power possessed by the Anglosaxon priesthood, we shall confess that it was one which threw every advantage into the scale of monachism.
Had we similar means of enquiry, it is very probable that we should come to the same conclusion with regard to other establishments from which the canons are said to have been forcibly driven. However enough seems to have been said, to prove that we must be very careful how we trust to the random273 assertions of partizans either on one side or the other. Let us be ready to condemn224 ecclesiastical tyranny and arrogance274, wherever it is proved to have disgraced the clerical profession; but let us not forget that it is our duty to judge charitably. In the case which we have now considered, I think we shall be disposed to acquit
466
some men, whose names fill a conspicuous275 place in Saxon history, of the violence and folly276 which their own over-zealous partizans have laid to their charge, and which have been used in modern times to embitter256 the separation unfortunately existing between two great bodies of Christians.
902. “Clerici extra sacros ordines constituti.” Beda, H. E. i. 27. Gregory contemplated the marriage and separate dwelling277 of these persons. But for a long time it is improbable that any such arrangement could take place. Augustine separated his monks from the canons who had accompanied him (the presbyters he was to obtain in the neighbouring countries of Gaul: see Gregory’s Epistles to Theodoric and Theodbert, and to Brunhild; Bed. Op. Min. ii. 234, 235), placing the latter in Christchurch, Canterbury. See Lingard, Ang. Sax. Church, i. 152, 153. But this sort of separation cannot have been always practicable. The Scottish missionaries were not all monks. Beda, H. E. iii. 3.
903. Neander, Gesch. der Relig. u. Kirche, i. 322; ii. 553. Lingard, Aug. Sax. Church, i. 150. Chrodogang’s institution is thus described by Paulus in his Gest. Episc. Mettens. “Hic clerum adunavit, et ad instar coenobii intra claustrorum septa conversari fecit, normamque eis instituit, qualiter in ecclesia militare deberent; quibus annonas vitaeque subsidia sufficienter largitus est, ut perituris vacare negotiis non indigentes, divinis solummodo officiis excubarent.” Pertz, ii. 268. Chrodogang’s rule is preserved in Labbé, Concil. vii. 1444. Harduin, Concil. iv. 1181. See Eichhorn, Deut. Staatsr. i. 760, § 179. It is in many respects similar to the rule of Benedict of Nursia, upon which it appears to have been modelled.
904. “Quadam autem die dum parochiam suam circuiens, monita salutis omnibus ruribus, casis et viculis largiretur, nec non etiam nuper baptizatis ad accipiendam Spiritus sancti gratiam manum imponeret,” etc. Beda, Vit. Cuthb. c. 29. This however is perhaps rather to be considered as an episcopal visitation. But there is abundant evidence that at first the custom was such as the text describes. It is said thus of Aidan, the Scottish bishop in Northumberland: “Erat in villa11 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 nil278 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 lament173 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 locus279 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 forte280 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 itinerant281 preachers in the west of England is also noted282 about the same period, viz. 680. “Cum vero aliqui, sicut illis regionibus moris est, praesbyteri sive clerici populares vel laicos praedicandi causa adiissent, et ad villam domumque praefati patrisfamilias venissent,” etc. Vit. Bonifac. Pertz, ii. 334.
905. If a bishop found it convenient to build a church out of his own diocese, the ecclesiastical authority remained to the bishop in whose diocese it was built. “Si quis episcopus in alienae civitatis territorio aecclesiam aedificare disponit, vel pro2 agri sui aut aecclesiastici utilitate, vel quacunque sui opportunitate, permissa licentia, quia prohiberi hoc votum nefas est, non praesumat dedicationem, quae illi omnimodis reservanda est in cuius territorio aecclesia assurgit; reservata aedificatori episcopo hac gratia, ut quos desiderat clericos in re sua videre, ipsos ordinet is cuius territorium est; vel si iam ordinati sunt, ipsos habere acquiescat: et omnis aecclesiae ipsius gubernatio ad eum, in cuius civitatis territorio aecclesia surrexit, pertinebit. Et si quid ipsi aecclesiae fuerit ab episcopo conditore conlatum, is in cuius territorio est, auferendi exinde aliquid non habeat potestatem. Hoc solum aedificatori episcopo credidimus reservandum.” Concil. Arelat. iii. cap. xxxvi. A.D. 452.
906. Elmham says of Theodore:—“Hic excitavit fidelium voluntatem, ut in civitatibus et villis aecclesias fabricarentur, parochias distinguerent, et assensus regios his procuravit, ut siqui sufficientes essent, super proprium fundum construere aecclesias, eorundem perpetuo patronatu gauderent; si inter38 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 rebus283 aecclesiae sibi creditis nihil audeant commutare, vendere vel donare, quia res sacratae Deo esse noscuntur.... Quicquid parochiarum presbyter de aecclesiastici iuris proprietate distraxerit, inane285 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 tithe76 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 descended286 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 provincial143 councils.
907. Beda, Hist. Eccl. v. 4, 5.
908. Thorpe, ii. 73. Kunstmann, Poenit. p. 121.
909. As early as 587, I find a grant of a parish-church to the monastery of St. Peter at Lyons, by Gerart and his wife Gimbergia, on the ground of their daughter being professed287 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 concur288 in recognising the genuineness of this charter.
910. Excerpt289. Ecgberhti, § 25. Thorpe, ii. 100.
911. “Volens etiam unamquamque aecclesiam habere proprios sumptus, ne per huiusmodi inopiam cultus negligerentur divini, inseruit praedicto edicto, ut super singulas aecclesias mansus tribueretur unus, cum pensatione legitima et servo et ancilla.” Vita Hludovici Imp23. Pertz, ii. 622. The tenth chapter of Hludwich’s capitulary is drawn up in the same words as Ecgberht uses, with the sole exception of the Frankish mansus for the English mansa, and it is therefore probable that both drew from some common and early source; unless indeed we suppose that the Frankish clergy thought the English custom worthy of imitation. The proper name for this landed foundation is dos aecclesiae, or as it is called in the Langobardic law (lib. iii. tit. i. § 46), mansus aecclesiasticus. The result of this dotation is very evident in the next following chapter of the above-quoted capitulary, by which parish-churches are obviously intended. Cap. xi. “Statutum est ut, postquam hoc impletum fuerit, unaquaeque aecclesia suum Presbyterum habeat, ubi id fieri facultas providente episcopo permiserit.”
912. “Non licet abbati, neque episcopo, terram aecclesiae convertere ad aliam, quamvis ambae in potestate eius sint. Si mutare vult aecclesiae terram, cum consensu amborum sit. Si quis vult monasterium suum in alio loco ponere, cum concilio episcopi et fratrum suorum faciat, et dimittat in priorem locum presbyterum ad ministeria aecclesiae.” Capit. Theodori. Thorpe, ii. 64.
913. Besinga hearh, fanum Besingorum. Cod290. Dipl. No. 994.
914. For example, of the Scotch291 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 pestilence292 raged in Essex: one of its kings, Sigheri, apostatized together with all his part of the people, “and set about restoring their deserted temples, and adoring images.” To correct this error, Wulfheri of Mercia, the superior king, sent his bishop Gearoman: “qui multa agens solertia ... longe lateque omnia pervagatus, et populum et regem praefatum ad viam iustitiae reduxit: adeo ut relictis, sive destructis fanis arisque quas fecerant, aperirent aecclesias, ac nomen Christi, cui contradixerant, confiteri gauderent, magis cum fide resurrectionis in illo mori, quam in perfidiae sordibus inter idola vivere cupientes.” Hist. Eccl. iii. 30. This was in 665.
915. In his Poenitential he gives a general direction as to the penance of the parish priest who loses his chrism. He says: “Qui autem in plebe suo [var. suum] chrisma perdideret, et eam invenerit, xl dies vel iii quadragesimas poeniteat.” Bed. Poenit. xxiv. Kunstm. Poenit. p. 165.
916. “Cumque aecclesiarum esset non minima in Hassis et Thyringea multitudo extructa, et singulis singuli providerentur custodes,” etc. Vit. Bonif. Pertz, ii. 346. “Praefato itaque regni eius tempore, servus Dei Willehadus per Wigmodiam aecclesias coepit construere, ac presbyteros super eas ordinare, qui libere populis monita salutis, ac baptismi conferrent gratiam.” Vit. Willehad. Pertz, ii. 381. “Aecclesias quoque destructas restauravit, probatasque personas qui populis monita salutis darent, singulis quibusque locis praeesse disposuit.” Ibid. ii. 383. “Testes quoque aecclesiae quas per loca singula construxit, testes et famulantium Dei congregationes quas aliquibus coadunavit in locis.” Vit. Liutgari, Pertz, ii. 409. “Itaque more solito, cum omni aviditate et sollicitudine rudibus Saxonum populis studebat in doctrina prodesse, erutisque ydolatriae spinis, verbum Dei diligenter per loca singula serere, aecclesias construere, et per eas singulos ordinare presbyteros, quos verbi Dei cooperatores sibi ipsi nutriverat.” Ibid. ii. 411. He also founded a church of canons, “monasterium, sub regula canonica dominio famulantium,” which afterwards became a cathedral. When Liutgar and his companions landed on the little island of Helgoland, they destroyed the heathen temples and built Christian churches. “Pervenientes autem ad eandem insulam, destruxerunt omnia eiusdem Fosetis fana quae illuc fuere constructa, et pro eis Christi fabricaverunt aecclesias.” Pertz, ii. 410. In like manner Willibrord in Frisia established Christian churches on the sites of the heathen fanes. “Simul et reliquias beatorum apostolorum ac martyrum Christi ab eo sperans accipere, ut dum in gente cui praedicaret, destructis idolis aecclesias institueret, haberet in promptu reliquias sanctorum quas ibi introduceret; quibusque ibidem depositis, consequenter in eorum honorem quorum essent illae, singula quaeque loca dedicaret.” Beda, H. E. v. 11. Again, “Plures per regiones illas aecclesias, sed et monasteria nonnulla construxit.” Beda, H. E. v. 11. This was consonant293 with the wise advice of Pope Gregory to Augustine, already cited vol. i. p. 332, note 2.
917. As late as the tenth century we read of an archipresbyter at the head of a church at Ely. Hist. Eliensis, Ang. Sac. i. 603.
918. Æðelberht’s queen Beorhte had a chaplain, bishop Liuthart, previous to the arrival of Augustine. Beda, H. E. i. 25. Paulinus was Æðelburge’s chaplain before the conversion of Northumberland. Ibid, ii. 9. Oidilwald king of Deira maintained Caelin, a brother of bishop Ced, in his family; “qui ipsi et familae ipsius, verbum et sacramenta fidei, erat enim presbyter, ministrare solebat.” Ibid. iii. 23. Lastly we read of Wilfrið, that he was chaplain to Alchfrið of Northumberland, “desiderante rege ut vir tantae eruditionis et religionis sibi specialiter individuo comitatu sacerdos esset et doctor.” Ibid. v. 19.
919. The distinction is found in the Chron. Saxon, an. 870. The Saxon handpreostas is translated in a Latin copy by capellani clerici; the Saxon túnpreostas by de villis suis presbyteri.
920. “Si qua civitas potestate imperiali novata est aut innovatur, civiles dispositiones et publicas aecclesiasticarum quoque parochiarum ordines subsequantur.” Conc. Chalc. an. 451. This was an attempt to bring the state generally into that condition which would have existed had the church and the empire not been on terms of hostility294 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 persecution295 on the one hand and heresy296 on the other. When it entered into its alliance with the state its outward constitution was already completed. That alliance is not a metaphysical entity297, but an historical fact.
921. Let us arrange these offices tabularly:—
903. Neander, Gesch. der Relig. u. Kirche, i. 322; ii. 553. Lingard, Aug. Sax. Church, i. 150. Chrodogang’s institution is thus described by Paulus in his Gest. Episc. Mettens. “Hic clerum adunavit, et ad instar coenobii intra claustrorum septa conversari fecit, normamque eis instituit, qualiter in ecclesia militare deberent; quibus annonas vitaeque subsidia sufficienter largitus est, ut perituris vacare negotiis non indigentes, divinis solummodo officiis excubarent.” Pertz, ii. 268. Chrodogang’s rule is preserved in Labbé, Concil. vii. 1444. Harduin, Concil. iv. 1181. See Eichhorn, Deut. Staatsr. i. 760, § 179. It is in many respects similar to the rule of Benedict of Nursia, upon which it appears to have been modelled.
904. “Quadam autem die dum parochiam suam circuiens, monita salutis omnibus ruribus, casis et viculis largiretur, nec non etiam nuper baptizatis ad accipiendam Spiritus sancti gratiam manum imponeret,” etc. Beda, Vit. Cuthb. c. 29. This however is perhaps rather to be considered as an episcopal visitation. But there is abundant evidence that at first the custom was such as the text describes. It is said thus of Aidan, the Scottish bishop in Northumberland: “Erat in villa11 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 nil278 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 lament173 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 locus279 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 forte280 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 itinerant281 preachers in the west of England is also noted282 about the same period, viz. 680. “Cum vero aliqui, sicut illis regionibus moris est, praesbyteri sive clerici populares vel laicos praedicandi causa adiissent, et ad villam domumque praefati patrisfamilias venissent,” etc. Vit. Bonifac. Pertz, ii. 334.
905. If a bishop found it convenient to build a church out of his own diocese, the ecclesiastical authority remained to the bishop in whose diocese it was built. “Si quis episcopus in alienae civitatis territorio aecclesiam aedificare disponit, vel pro2 agri sui aut aecclesiastici utilitate, vel quacunque sui opportunitate, permissa licentia, quia prohiberi hoc votum nefas est, non praesumat dedicationem, quae illi omnimodis reservanda est in cuius territorio aecclesia assurgit; reservata aedificatori episcopo hac gratia, ut quos desiderat clericos in re sua videre, ipsos ordinet is cuius territorium est; vel si iam ordinati sunt, ipsos habere acquiescat: et omnis aecclesiae ipsius gubernatio ad eum, in cuius civitatis territorio aecclesia surrexit, pertinebit. Et si quid ipsi aecclesiae fuerit ab episcopo conditore conlatum, is in cuius territorio est, auferendi exinde aliquid non habeat potestatem. Hoc solum aedificatori episcopo credidimus reservandum.” Concil. Arelat. iii. cap. xxxvi. A.D. 452.
906. Elmham says of Theodore:—“Hic excitavit fidelium voluntatem, ut in civitatibus et villis aecclesias fabricarentur, parochias distinguerent, et assensus regios his procuravit, ut siqui sufficientes essent, super proprium fundum construere aecclesias, eorundem perpetuo patronatu gauderent; si inter38 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 rebus283 aecclesiae sibi creditis nihil audeant commutare, vendere vel donare, quia res sacratae Deo esse noscuntur.... Quicquid parochiarum presbyter de aecclesiastici iuris proprietate distraxerit, inane285 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 tithe76 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 descended286 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 provincial143 councils.
907. Beda, Hist. Eccl. v. 4, 5.
908. Thorpe, ii. 73. Kunstmann, Poenit. p. 121.
909. As early as 587, I find a grant of a parish-church to the monastery of St. Peter at Lyons, by Gerart and his wife Gimbergia, on the ground of their daughter being professed287 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 concur288 in recognising the genuineness of this charter.
910. Excerpt289. Ecgberhti, § 25. Thorpe, ii. 100.
911. “Volens etiam unamquamque aecclesiam habere proprios sumptus, ne per huiusmodi inopiam cultus negligerentur divini, inseruit praedicto edicto, ut super singulas aecclesias mansus tribueretur unus, cum pensatione legitima et servo et ancilla.” Vita Hludovici Imp23. Pertz, ii. 622. The tenth chapter of Hludwich’s capitulary is drawn up in the same words as Ecgberht uses, with the sole exception of the Frankish mansus for the English mansa, and it is therefore probable that both drew from some common and early source; unless indeed we suppose that the Frankish clergy thought the English custom worthy of imitation. The proper name for this landed foundation is dos aecclesiae, or as it is called in the Langobardic law (lib. iii. tit. i. § 46), mansus aecclesiasticus. The result of this dotation is very evident in the next following chapter of the above-quoted capitulary, by which parish-churches are obviously intended. Cap. xi. “Statutum est ut, postquam hoc impletum fuerit, unaquaeque aecclesia suum Presbyterum habeat, ubi id fieri facultas providente episcopo permiserit.”
912. “Non licet abbati, neque episcopo, terram aecclesiae convertere ad aliam, quamvis ambae in potestate eius sint. Si mutare vult aecclesiae terram, cum consensu amborum sit. Si quis vult monasterium suum in alio loco ponere, cum concilio episcopi et fratrum suorum faciat, et dimittat in priorem locum presbyterum ad ministeria aecclesiae.” Capit. Theodori. Thorpe, ii. 64.
913. Besinga hearh, fanum Besingorum. Cod290. Dipl. No. 994.
914. For example, of the Scotch291 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 pestilence292 raged in Essex: one of its kings, Sigheri, apostatized together with all his part of the people, “and set about restoring their deserted temples, and adoring images.” To correct this error, Wulfheri of Mercia, the superior king, sent his bishop Gearoman: “qui multa agens solertia ... longe lateque omnia pervagatus, et populum et regem praefatum ad viam iustitiae reduxit: adeo ut relictis, sive destructis fanis arisque quas fecerant, aperirent aecclesias, ac nomen Christi, cui contradixerant, confiteri gauderent, magis cum fide resurrectionis in illo mori, quam in perfidiae sordibus inter idola vivere cupientes.” Hist. Eccl. iii. 30. This was in 665.
915. In his Poenitential he gives a general direction as to the penance of the parish priest who loses his chrism. He says: “Qui autem in plebe suo [var. suum] chrisma perdideret, et eam invenerit, xl dies vel iii quadragesimas poeniteat.” Bed. Poenit. xxiv. Kunstm. Poenit. p. 165.
916. “Cumque aecclesiarum esset non minima in Hassis et Thyringea multitudo extructa, et singulis singuli providerentur custodes,” etc. Vit. Bonif. Pertz, ii. 346. “Praefato itaque regni eius tempore, servus Dei Willehadus per Wigmodiam aecclesias coepit construere, ac presbyteros super eas ordinare, qui libere populis monita salutis, ac baptismi conferrent gratiam.” Vit. Willehad. Pertz, ii. 381. “Aecclesias quoque destructas restauravit, probatasque personas qui populis monita salutis darent, singulis quibusque locis praeesse disposuit.” Ibid. ii. 383. “Testes quoque aecclesiae quas per loca singula construxit, testes et famulantium Dei congregationes quas aliquibus coadunavit in locis.” Vit. Liutgari, Pertz, ii. 409. “Itaque more solito, cum omni aviditate et sollicitudine rudibus Saxonum populis studebat in doctrina prodesse, erutisque ydolatriae spinis, verbum Dei diligenter per loca singula serere, aecclesias construere, et per eas singulos ordinare presbyteros, quos verbi Dei cooperatores sibi ipsi nutriverat.” Ibid. ii. 411. He also founded a church of canons, “monasterium, sub regula canonica dominio famulantium,” which afterwards became a cathedral. When Liutgar and his companions landed on the little island of Helgoland, they destroyed the heathen temples and built Christian churches. “Pervenientes autem ad eandem insulam, destruxerunt omnia eiusdem Fosetis fana quae illuc fuere constructa, et pro eis Christi fabricaverunt aecclesias.” Pertz, ii. 410. In like manner Willibrord in Frisia established Christian churches on the sites of the heathen fanes. “Simul et reliquias beatorum apostolorum ac martyrum Christi ab eo sperans accipere, ut dum in gente cui praedicaret, destructis idolis aecclesias institueret, haberet in promptu reliquias sanctorum quas ibi introduceret; quibusque ibidem depositis, consequenter in eorum honorem quorum essent illae, singula quaeque loca dedicaret.” Beda, H. E. v. 11. Again, “Plures per regiones illas aecclesias, sed et monasteria nonnulla construxit.” Beda, H. E. v. 11. This was consonant293 with the wise advice of Pope Gregory to Augustine, already cited vol. i. p. 332, note 2.
917. As late as the tenth century we read of an archipresbyter at the head of a church at Ely. Hist. Eliensis, Ang. Sac. i. 603.
918. Æðelberht’s queen Beorhte had a chaplain, bishop Liuthart, previous to the arrival of Augustine. Beda, H. E. i. 25. Paulinus was Æðelburge’s chaplain before the conversion of Northumberland. Ibid, ii. 9. Oidilwald king of Deira maintained Caelin, a brother of bishop Ced, in his family; “qui ipsi et familae ipsius, verbum et sacramenta fidei, erat enim presbyter, ministrare solebat.” Ibid. iii. 23. Lastly we read of Wilfrið, that he was chaplain to Alchfrið of Northumberland, “desiderante rege ut vir tantae eruditionis et religionis sibi specialiter individuo comitatu sacerdos esset et doctor.” Ibid. v. 19.
919. The distinction is found in the Chron. Saxon, an. 870. The Saxon handpreostas is translated in a Latin copy by capellani clerici; the Saxon túnpreostas by de villis suis presbyteri.
920. “Si qua civitas potestate imperiali novata est aut innovatur, civiles dispositiones et publicas aecclesiasticarum quoque parochiarum ordines subsequantur.” Conc. Chalc. an. 451. This was an attempt to bring the state generally into that condition which would have existed had the church and the empire not been on terms of hostility294 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 persecution295 on the one hand and heresy296 on the other. When it entered into its alliance with the state its outward constitution was already completed. That alliance is not a metaphysical entity297, but an historical fact.
921. Let us arrange these offices tabularly:—
Secular.
Ecclesiastical.
1.
Comes.
1.
Episcopus.
α. Missus.
α. Chorepiscopus. (The Archdeacon or the Rural Dean.)
2.
Centenarius. Centurio, or Vicarius: qui per pagos constitutus est.
2.
Presbyter Plebei qui baptismalem aecclesiam habet,
3.
Decurio et Decanus.
3.
Minor91 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 Metropolitan88 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 grudgingly298, 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 distinctive299 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 acolytes300 and vergers?
922. “De poentitentibus, ut a presbyteris non reconcilientur, nisi praecipiente episcopo.—Ex concilio Africano.—Ut poenitentibus, secundum differentiam peccatorum, episcopi arbitrio poenitentiae tempora decernantur, et ut presbyter, inconsulto episcopo, non reconciliet poenitentem, nisi absentia episcopi, necessitate301 cogente.... Item, Ex concilio Cartaginensi de eadem re. Aurelius episcopus dixit: ‘Si quisquam in periculo fuerit constitutus, et se reconciliari divinis altaribus petierit, si episcopus absens fuerit, debet utique presbyter consulere episcopum, et sic periclitantem eius praecepto reconciliare: quam rem debemus salubri concilio roborare.’ Ab universis episcopis dictum est: ‘Placet quod sanctitas vestra necessaria nos instruere dignata est.’ Romani reconciliant hominem intra absidem: Graeci nolunt. Reconciliatio penitentium in coena Domini tantum est ab episcopo, et consummata penitentia: si vero episcopo dificile sit, presbytero potest, necessitatis causa, praebere potestatem, ut impleat.” Poen. Theodori. Thorpe, ii. 6. Aurelius of Carthage died in 430.
923. “Et ideo quia Carpentoracte convenientes huiusmodi ad nos querela pervenit, quod ea quae a quibuscumque fidelibus parochiis conferuntur, ita ab aliquibus episcopis praesumantur, ut aut parum, aut prope nihil, aecclesiis quibus collata fuerint relinquatur; ut si aecclesia civitatis eius cui episcopus praeest, ita est idonea, ut Christo propitio nihil indigeat, quidquid parochiis fuerit derelictum, clericis qui ipsis parochiis deserviunt, vel reparationibus aecclesiarum rationabiliter dispensetur,” etc. Concil. Carpentor. an. 527.
924. The extraordinary helplessness of early surgery is little appreciated by us, nor are we duly grateful for the advance in that most noble study which now secures to the lowest and poorest sufferer, alleviations once inaccessible302 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 mortified303. Amputation304 was necessary, and it was performed by the duke himself, holding an axe284 to the limb, which his chamberlain struck with a beetle305. “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 tandem306 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 savage307 duke laboured.
925. We do not sufficiently prize our own advantages, and the blessings which the mercy of God has vouchsafed to us in this respect. But let one fact be mentioned, which ought to arrest the attention of even the least reflecting man. In the ninth century there was not a single copy of the Old and New Testaments308 to be found in the whole diocese of Lisieux. We learn this startling fact from a letter sent by Freculf, its bishop, to Hrabanus Maurus. “Ad haec vestrae charitatis vigilantia intendat, quoniam nulla nobis librorum copia suppeditat, etiamsi parvitas obtusi sensus nostri vigeret: dum in episcopio, nostrae parvitati commisso, nec ipsos Novi Veterisque Testamenti repperi libros, multo minus horum expositiones.” Opera Hrabani. Ed. Colvener. ii. 1.
926. Vol. i. 302.
927. Eichhorn, § 114. vol. i. 506.
928. Exemption from munera personalia however was early claimed. “Presbyteros, diaconos, etc. ... etiam personalium munerum expertes esse volumus.” L. 6. C. de Episc. et Cleric. i. 3. Hence the king had an interest in forbidding the ordination of a free man without his consent. See the formulary in Marculfus, i. 10. See also the fourth and eighth canons of the Council of Orleans, A.D. 511. and Eichhorn, i. 484, 485. §§ 94, 96. From those we see that through ordination the king might lose his rights over the freeman and the master over his serf. Of the last case there cannot be the slightest doubt in England, and I should imagine little of the first.
929. The great argument of the clergy in later times,—in the twelfth century particularly, when all over Europe the attempt was made to exempt201 them from secular jurisdiction,—“that no one ought to be punished twice for the same offence,” had apparently309 not yet been thought of. The penances310 of the church, by which the sinner was to be reconciled to God, were still held quite distinct from the sufferings by which he expiated311 his violation312 of the law. Theodore alleviates313, but does not remit314, the penance of those whose guilt315 has bent92 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 premises316, that they were excommunicated for their acts, and ought not to be subject to a second infliction317. Accordingly in 1176, we find Richard archbishop of Canterbury attempting to explain away what Becket had so vigorously advanced: “Nec dicatur quod aliquis bis puniatur propter hoc in idipsum, nec enim iteratum est, quod ab uno incipitur et ab altero consummatur,” etc. See his letter to the bishops in An. Trivet. 1176. p. 82 seq. We shall readily admit that the laity ought not to have been let loose upon the clergy; but upon the same grounds we shall claim the subjection of the clergy to the secular tribunals for all secular offences.
930. Concil. Autisiodor. an. 578. can. 43. Concil. Matiscon. an. 581. can. 7. “Quodsi quicunque index ... clericum absque causa criminali, id est homicidio, furto aut maleficio, hoc [scil. iniuriam] facere fortasse praesumpserit, quamdiu episcopo loci illius visum fuerit, ab aecclesiae liminibus arceatur.”
931. “If a priest kill another man, let all that he had acquired at home be given up, and let the bishop deprive him of his orders: then let him be given up from the minster, unless the lord will compound for the wergeld.” Ælf. § 21.
932. Leg. Æðelr. ix. § 26. Thorpe, i. 346.
933. Leg. Cnut, ii. § 41. Thorpe, i. 400.
934. Eád. Guð. § 3. Thorpe, i. 168. Yet immediately afterwards Eádweard says: “If a man in orders fordo himself with capital crime, let him be seized and held to the bishop’s doom318.” Ibid. § 4.
935. See Leg. Wihtr. § 18, 19. Æðelr. ix. § 19-24, 27. Cnut, i. § 5; ii. § 41.
936. Whether it will ever be possible to surmount252 the difficulties which environ this subject, may be doubted; but it cannot escape any one who has enjoyed the intimacy319 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 lurk320 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 Writ215, and look upon as disastrous321 to the State.
937. Some sects322 believed the δημιουργός to have been the devil himself; and as the Saviour323 is declared to have made the world, identified Jesus with Satan! Others entirely denied his human nature, on the ground that the incarnation was a materialising of spirit. The ascetic practices of the Eastern church had a similar origin.
938. “Placuit etiam ut si diacones aut presbyteri coniugati ad torum uxorum suorum redire voluerint,” etc. Concil. Agathense, an. 506. Can. 9.
939. “Si quis secernat se a presbytero qui uxorem duxit, tanquam non oporteat, illo liturgiam peragente, de oblatione percipere, anathema324 sit.” Concil. Gangrense, an. 376. Can. 4. This provision was retained by Burkhart of Worms in his collection of canons made in the eleventh century. See Dönniges, Deut. Staatsr. p. 507. Schmidt, Gesch. der Deutschen, IV Band, lib. 4. cap. 13.
940. This was at least the feeling in the eleventh century. Wendover speaks in the following terms of the Council of Rome, celebrated by Gregory the Seventh in 1074:—“Iste papa in synodo generali simoniacos excommunicavit, uxoratos sacerdotes a divino removit officio, et laicis missas eorum audire interdixit, novo exemplo et, ut multis visum est, inconsiderato iudicio, contra sanctorum patrum sententiam, qui scripserunt, quod sacramenta quae in aecclesia fiunt, baptisma, chrisma, corpus Christi et sanguis, Spiritu invisibiliter cooperante, eorundem sacramentorum effectum [habeant], seu per bonos, seu per malos intra Dei aecclesiam dispensentur; tamen quia Spiritus Sanctus mystice illa vivificat, nec bonorum meritis amplificantur, nec peccatis malorum attenuantur. Ex qua re tam grave oritur scandalum, ut nullius haeresis tempore sancta aecclesia graviori sit schismate discissa, his pro iustitia, illis contra iustitiam agentibus; porro paucis continentiam observantibus: aliquibus eam causa lucri ac iactantiae simulantibus, multis incontinentiam periurio multipliciori adulterio cumulantibus: ad haec, opportunitate laicis insurgentibus contra sacros ordines, et se ab omni aecclesiastica subiectione excutientibus, laici sacra mysteria temerant et de his disputant, infantes baptizant, sordido aurium humore pro sacro chrismate utentes et oleo, in extremo vitae viaticum Dominicum et usitatum aecclesiae obsequium sepulturae a presbyteris uxoratis accipere parvipendunt; decimas etiam presbyteris debitas igne cremant, corpus Domini a presbyteris uxoratis consecratum pedibus saepe conculcant, sanguinem Domini voluntarie frequenter in terram effundunt.” Wend. ii. 13. See the Acts of this Council in Hardouin, vi. col. 1521 seq. In the following year, 1075, the abbot of Pontoise was insulted and beaten in a council held at Paris, for defending this decree of Gregory.
941. Boniface appears to have been quite as earnest in the eighth as Dunstan was in the tenth century. We are told of him in Thuringia, that in accordance with the instructions of the Apostolical Pontiff, “senatores plebis totiusque populi principes verbis spiritalibus affatus est; eosque ad veram agnitionis viam et intelligentiae lucem provocavit, quam olim ante maxima siquidem ex parte pravis seducti doctoribus perdiderunt; sed et sacerdotes ac presbiteros, quorum alii religioso Dei se omnipotentis cultu incoluerunt, alii quidem fornicaria contaminati pollutione castimoniae continentiam, quam sacris servientes altaribus servare debuerunt, amiserant, sermonibus evangelicis, quantum potuit, a malitiae pravitate ad canonicae constitutionis rectitudinem correxit, ammonuit, atque instruxit.” Pertz, ii. 341. “Quoniam cessante religiosorum ducum dominatu, cessavit etiam in eis Christianitatis et religionis intentio, et falsi seducentes populum introducti sunt fratres, qui sub nomine religionis maximam haereticae pravitatis introduxerunt sectam. Ex quibus est Torhtwine et Berhthere, Eanberhct et Hunræd, fornicatores et adulteri, quos iuxta apostolum Dominus iudicavit Deus.” Pertz, ii. 344. These seem all to have been Anglosaxons.
“Et recedens, non solum invitatus Baguariorum ab Odilone duce, sed et spontaneus, visitavit incolas; mansitque apud eos diebus multis, praedicans et evangelizans verbum Dei; veraeque fidei ac religionis sacramenta renovavit, et destructores aecclesiarum populique perversores abigebat. Quorum alii pridem falso se episcopatus gradu praetulerunt, alii etiam presbyteratus se officio deputabant, alii haec atque alia innumerabilia fingentes, magna ex parte populum seduxerunt. Sed quia sanctus vir iam Deo ab infantia deditus, iniuriam Domini sui non ferens, supradictum ducem cunctumque vulgus ab iniusta haereticae falsitatis secta et fornicaria sacerdotum deceptione coercuit; et provinciam Baguariorum, Odilone duce consentiente, in quattuor divisit parochias, quattuorque his praesidere fecit episcopos, quos ordinatione scilicet facta, in episcopatus gradum sublevant.” Pertz, ii. 346.
“Domino Deo opitulante, ac suggerente sancto Bonifatio archiepiscopo, religionis christianae confirmatum est testamentum, et orthodoxorum patrum synodalia sunt in Francis correcta instituta, cunctaque canonum auctoritate emendata atque expiata, et tam laicorum iniusta concubinarum copula partim, exhortante sancto viro separata est, quam etiam clericorum nefanda cum uxoribus coniunctio seiuncta ac segregata.” Pertz, ii. 346. The anonymous325 author of the life of Boniface tells of a bishop Gerold, who held the see of Mayence: he had a son who succeeded him in the bishopric. Pertz, ii. 354.
942. “Sanctus Pontifex noster de exilio cum filio suo proprio rediens,” etc. Vit. Wilfr. cap. 57.
943. Cod. Dipl. No. 1352.
944. “Wulfmǽr preóst and his bearnteám.” Cod. Dipl. No. 946.
945. “Godwine æt Worðige, Ælfsiges bisceopes sunu.” Chron. Sax. an. 1001. This however was not confined to England: we hear of more than one Frankish bishop having children: for example, “Anchisus dux egregius, filius Arnulfi, episcopi Mettensis.” Ann. Xantens. an. 647. Pertz, ii. 219. See also Paul. Gest. Ep. Mettens. Pertz, ii. 264. [See also T. F. Klitsche, “Geschichte des Cölibats,” etc. Augsb. 1830; J. A. Zaccaria. Storia Polemica del Sagro celibato, Roma, 1774; and Suppl. to Engl. Cyclop., Arts and Sciences, art. Celibacy.]
946. “Filius Oswaldi presbyteri.” Hist. Rams326., cap. xlv.
947. “Robertum diaconem et generum eius, Ricardum filium Scrob.... quos plus caeteris rex diligebat.” Flor. Wig208. an. 1052.
948. “Godricum regis capellani Godmanni filium, abbatem constituit.” Flor. Wig. an. 1053.
949. Flor. Wig. an. 1035. It is right to add that some MSS. of Florence read presbyteri, not presbyterae.
950. See vol. i. 145. “At ille qui ipsa nocte cum uxore dormierat,” etc. Sim. Dun. Eccl. Dun. cap. xlv.
951. “Mox ingens pestis arripuit domum illius sacerdotis; quae conjugem eius ac liberos eius cita morte percussit, totamque progeniem funditus extirpavit.” Hist. Eliens. Anglia Sacra, i. 603.
952. Thorpe, ii. 376.
953. In 1102 archbishop Anselm excommunicated married priests, sacerdotes concubinarios; Wendover, who records this act, expresses a doubt about its prudence. “Hoc autem bonum quibusdam visum est, et quibusdam periculosum, ne, dum munditias viribus maiores expeterent, in immunditias labarentur.” Wend. ii. 171. The results at this day in Ireland are well known, and the case is very similar in the Roman Catholic part of Hungary. See Paget, Hungary and Transylvania, i. 114. Shortly before the Reformation, the inconveniences arising from this state of things were felt to be so intolerable, yet the danger to society from a strict enforcement of the rule so great, that in some parts of Europe the bishop licensed327 their priests so take concubines, at a settled tariff328, and further raised a sum upon each child born. Erasmus relates that one bishop had admitted to him the issuing of no less than twelve thousand such licenses329 in one year. In his diocese the tax was probably light, the peasants sturdy, and the female population more than ordinarily chaste151. It was not unusual for the English kings to compel the priests to redeem330 their focariae or concubines, which amounts to much the same thing. This occurred in the years 1129 and 1208. See Wendover, ii. 210; iii. 223.
954. Gregory writes thus upon the subject to Sigurdr, archbishop of Nidaros: “Sicut ex parte tua fuit propositum coram nobis tam in diocesi quam in provincia Nidrosensi abusus detestandae consuetudinis inolevit, quod videlicet sacerdotes inibi existentes matrimonia contrahunt, et utuntur tanquam laici sic contractis. Et licet tu iuxta officii tui debitum id curaveris artius inhibere, multi tamen praetendentes excusationes frivolas in peccatis, scilicet quod felicis recordationis Hadrianus papa praedecessor noster, tunc episcopus Albanensis, dum in partibus illis legationis officio fungeretur, hoc fieri permisisset, quanquam super hoc nullum ipsius documentum ostendant, perire potius eligunt quam parere, longam super hoc nichilominus consuetudinem allegando. Cum igitur diuturnitas temporis peccatum non minuat sed augmentet, mandamus quatenus, si ita est, abusum huiusmodi studeas extirpare, et in rebelles, si qui fuerint, censuram aecclesiasticam exercere. Datum331 Viterbii, xvii Kal. Junii, anno undecimo.” This is A.D. 1237. Diplom. Norweg. No. 19, vol. i. pag. 15.
955. Mr. Soames (Anglosax. Church, p. 179, third edit.) says that Dúnstán’s monastery at Glastonbury was the first establishment of the kind ever known in England, and Dúnstán the first of English Benedictine abbots. Nothing can possibly be more inexact than this assertion. Biscop’s foundation at Wearmouth was a Benedictine one. In an address to his monks, he himself is represented to say:—“Ideo multum cavetote, fratres, semper, ne secundum genus unquam, ne deforis aliunde vobis Patrem quaeratis; sed iuxta quod Regula magni quondam abbatis Benedicti, iuxta quod privilegii nostri continent decreta, in conventa vestrae congregationis communi consilio perquiratis, qui secundum vitae meritum et sapientiae doctrinam aptior ad tale ministerium perficiendum digniorque probetur; et quemcunque omnes unanimae charitatis inquisitione optimum cognoscentes eligeretis, hunc vobis, accito episcopo, rogetis abbatem consueta benedictione formari.” Beda, Vit. Bened. § 12. (Opera Minora, ii. 151.) The same author tells us of abbot Céolfrið:—“Multa diu secum mente versans, utilius decrevit, dato Fratribus praecepto, ut iuxta sui statuta privilegii, iuxtaque Regulam sancti abbatis Benedicti, de suis sibi ipsi Patrem, qui aptior esset, eligerent, etc.” Vit. Bened. § 16. (Op. Min. ii. 156.) The author of the anonymous life of St. Cúðberht, which is earlier than that of Beda, says of Cúðberht at Lindisfarne:—“Vivens ibi quoque secundum sanctam Scripturam, contemplativam vitam in actuali agens, et nobis regularem vitam primus componens constituit, quam usque hodie cum Regula Benedicti observamus.” Anon. Cúðb. § 25. (Bed. Op. Min. ii. 271.) At a still later period, viz. the close of the seventh century, we learn that the monastery of Hnutscilling or Nursling in Hampshire was a Benedictine one, and St. Boniface a Benedictine monk. His contemporary biographer Willibald says:—“Maxime suo sub regulari videlicet disciplina abbati, monachica subditus obedientia praebebat, ut labore manuum cottidiano et disciplinali officiorum amministratione incessanter secundum praefinitam beati Patris Benedicti rectae constitutionis formam insisteret,” etc. Vit. Bonif. Pertz, ii. 336. One can hardly imagine how Mr. Soames should suffer himself to be misled by the exaggerations of Dúnstán’s monkish biographers: they are of a piece with their whole story. That the rule had become very much relaxed even in the Benedictine abbeys of this country is not to be doubted: the same thing took place on the continent. Many had perished in the Danish invasions; many had passed insensibly into the hands of secular canons: and it is not at all improbable that in the middle of the tenth century there was not a genuine Benedictine society left in England. But this will certainly not justify332 the assertions of Bridferð or Adelard, that Dúnstán was the first of English Benedictine monks or abbots. “Et hoc praedicto modo saluberrimam sancti Benedicti sequens institutionem, primus abbas Anglicae nationis enituit,” (Bridferð. MS. Cott. Cleop. B. xii. fol. 72.)—“Monachorum ibi scholam primo primus instituere coepit,”—(Adel. in Angl. Sacra, ii. 101 note) are at the least grave mistakes: one desires to believe that they are not something worse; but they warn us to be extremely cautious how we admit the authority of their writers as to any facts they may please to record.
956. On this point Beda speaks most explicitly333: “Sunt loca innumera, ut novimus omnes, in monasteriorum ascripto vocabulum, sed nihil prorsus monasticae conversationis habentia.” Ep. Ecgb. § 10. “Quod enim turpe est dicere, tot sub nomine monasteriorum loca hi, qui monachicae vitae prorsus sunt expertes, in suam ditionem acceperunt, sicut ipse melius nosti,” etc. Ibid. § 11. “At alii graviore adhuc flagitio, quum sint ipsi laici et nullius vitae regularis vel usu exerciti, vel amore praediti, data regibus pecunia, emunt sibi sub praetextu monasteriorum construendorum territoria, in quibus suae liberius vacent libidini, et haec insuper in ius sibi haereditarium edictis regalibus faciunt ascribi, ipsas quoque litteras privilegiorum suorum, quasi veraciter Deo dignas, pontificum, abbatum et potestatum seculi, obtinent subscriptione confirmari. Sicque usurpatis sibi agellulis sive vicis, liberi exinde a divino simul et humano servitio, suis tantum inibi desideriis laici monachis imperantes deserviunt; immo non monachos ibi congregant, sed quoscunque ob culpam inobedientiae veris expulsos monasteriis alicubi forte oberrantes invenerint, aut evocare monasteriis ipsi valuerint; vel certe quos ipsi de suis satellitibus ad suscipiendam tonsuram, promissa sibi obedientia monachica, invitare quiverint. Horum distortis cohortibus suas, quas instruxere, cellas implent, multumque informi atque inaudito spectaculo, idem ipsi viri modo coniugis ac liberorum procreandorum curam gerunt, modo exsurgentes do cubilibus, quid intra septa onasteriorum geri debeat sedula intentione pertractant.... Sic per annos circiter triginta, hoc est ex quo Aldfrid rex humanis rebus ablatus est, provincia nostra vesano illo errore dementata est, ut nullus pene exinde praefectorum extiterit, qui non huiusmodi sibi monasterium in diebus suae praefecturae comparaverit, suamque simul coniugem pari reatu nocivi mercatus astrinxerit; ac praevalente pessima consuetudine, ministri quoque regis ac famuli idem facere sategerint. Atque ita ordine perverso innumeri sunt inventi, qui se abbates pariter et praefectos, sive ministros, aut famulos regis appellant; qui, etsi aliquid vitae monasterialis ediscere laici, non experiendo sed audiendo, potuerint, a persona tamen illa ac professione, quae hanc docere debeat, sunt funditus exsortes; et quidem tales repente, ut nosti, tonsuram pro suo libitu accipiunt, suo examine de laicis non monachi sed abbates efficiuntur.” Ibid. § 12, 13. (Bed. Op. Min. ii. 216, 218 seq.) On these and other grounds Beda earnestly impresses upon Ecgberht the duty of founding the twelve bishoprics contemplated by Gregory in the province of York, in order to multiply the means of ecclesiastical supervision334. But if this was the condition of the Northumbrian monasteries in the year 734, the period of Northumbria’s greatest literary eminence335, what may we conclude to have been the condition of similar establishments in less instructed parts of England, especially after a century of cruel wars had relaxed all the bonds of civilized society? We may not greatly admire monachism, or believe it useful to a state; but we can hardly blame those, who, finding the institution in existence, desire to make the men who are attached to it worthy and not unworthy members of their profession.
957. In the often-cited letter to Ecgberht, Beda gives but a bad character to some among the prelates of his time. He says: “Quod non ita loquor, quasi te aliter facere sciam, sed quia de quibusdam episcopis fama vulgatum est, quod ipsi ita Christo serviant, ut nullos secum alicuius religionis aut continentiae viros habeant; sed potius illos qui risui, iocis, fabulis, commessationibus, et ebrietatibus, caeterisque vitae remissioris illecebris subigantur, et qui magis quotidie ventrem dapibus quam mentem sacrificiis coelestibus pascant.” § 4 (Op Min. ii. 209, 210).
958. “Dráf út ða clerca of ða biscopríce, forðan ðæt hí noldon nán Regul healdan.” Chron. Sax. an. 963.
959. “Clerici illi, nominetenus Canonici, frequentationem chori, labores vigiliarum, et ministerium altaris vicariis suis utcumque sustentatis relinquentes, et ab aecclesiae conspectu plerumque absentes septennio, quidquid de praebendis percipiebant, locis et modis sibi placitis absumebant. Nuda fuit aecclesia intus et extra.” An. Wint. p. 289.
960. “Erant Canonici nefandis scelerum moribus implicati, elatione et insolentia, atque luxuria praeventi, adeo ut nonnulli eorum dedignarentur missas suo ordine celebrare, repudiantes uxores quas illicite duxerant, et alias336 accipientes, gulae et ebrietati iugiter dediti.” Vit. Æðelw. p. 614.
961. The description of a secular clerk given by the anonymous author of the Gesta Abbatum Fontanellensium, written in the ninth century, was probably not exaggerated. He says of Wido, a relative of Charles Martel, “Erat de saecularibus clericis, gladioque quem semispatium vocant semper accinctus, sagoque pro cappa utebatur, parumque aecclesiasticae disciplinae imperiis parebat. Nam copiam canum multiplicem semper habebat, cum qua venationi quotidie insistebat, sagittatorque praecipuus in arcubus ligneis ad aves feriendas erat, hisque operibus magis quam aecclesiasticae disciplinae studiis se exercebat.” It does not surprise us to learn that this prelate was also “ignarus litterarum.” Pertz, i. 284, 285.
962. Arnold died in 904, but his reforms began twenty years earlier. However, between the years 912 and 942, Berno, and his still more celebrated successor Odo, abbots of Cluny, had introduced a reform of the Benedictine rule in a great number of monasteries. Flodoardus calls Odo: “Dominus Odo, venerabilis abbas, multorum restaurator monasteriorum, sanctaeque Regulae reparator.” See Pagi. Baron337, ad an. 942. This example was not lost upon Dúnstán.
963. “Baudouin le chauve, IIe comte de Flandre, s’empara, en 900, des deux abbayes de St. Vaast et St. Bertin.... Dès l’année 944, Arnould-le-vieux, rentré en possession de St. Vaast, entreprit la réforme de ces abbayes, par5 les soins de St. Gérard de Brognes, qu’il nomma abbé de St. Bertin. Il le chargea ensuite (probablement vers 950) de celle des abbayes de St. Pierre et de St. Bavon à Gand, qu’il avait également sous son pouvoir: Womare en fut nommé abbé. Ces reformes, sans doute d’après la règle de Cluny, créé en 910 [read 912 not 910], s’étendirent d’après la chronique de St. Bertin (Thes. Anecd. iii. 552, 553), à dix-huit abbayes de l’ordre de Saint Benoit (Chron. de Jean de Thielrode, édit. de M. Vanlokeren, p. 127). Les moines qui refusèrent de s’y soumettre, furent expulsés de leurs monastères: quelques-uns émigrèrent en Angleterre ou ailleurs.” Warnkönig, Hist. Fland. ii. 338 seq. In 956 Dúnstán flying from England, found hospitality and rest in one of these reformed houses, that of Blandinium or St. Peter, at Ghent.
964. Chron. Sax. an. 995. Probably it never had been monastic from the very time of Augustine: and the setting up a claim on the part of the monks, derived from Augustine himself, was totally inadmissible.
965. Hist. and Ant. Ang. Church, ii. 290, 294. This was certainly the case with several of Æðelwold’s monasteries; and I regret to think that many of the Saxon charters which pretend to the greatest antiquity338 were forged on occasion of this revival, to enlarge the basis of the restored foundations.
966. Eadmer, Vit. Oswald, p. 202. Ang. Sac. i. 542. Hist. Rames. p. 400.
967. Cod. Dipl. Nos. 674-678.
968. In Nos. 675, 678. In the other charters where this Leófwine occurs, he is even called clericus, unless it were another person of the same name.
969. An. 969. “S. Oswaldus, sui voti compos effectus, clericos Wigorniensis aecclesiae monachilem habitum suscipere renuentes de monasterio expulit; consentientes vero, hoc anno, ipso teste monachizavit, cisque Ramesiensium coenobitam Wynsinum, magnae religionis virum, loco decani praefecit.”
970. Cod. Dipl. No. 553.
971. Ibid. No. 586.
972. Ibid. No. 615.
点击收听单词发音
1 rev | |
v.发动机旋转,加快速度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 pro | |
n.赞成,赞成的意见,赞成者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 missionary | |
adj.教会的,传教(士)的;n.传教士 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 missionaries | |
n.传教士( missionary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 par | |
n.标准,票面价值,平均数量;adj.票面的,平常的,标准的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 monk | |
n.和尚,僧侣,修道士 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 monks | |
n.修道士,僧侣( monk的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 conversion | |
n.转化,转换,转变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 clergy | |
n.[总称]牧师,神职人员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 forth | |
adv.向前;向外,往外 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 villa | |
n.别墅,城郊小屋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 salvation | |
n.(尤指基督)救世,超度,拯救,解困 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 attainment | |
n.达到,到达;[常pl.]成就,造诣 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 mutual | |
adj.相互的,彼此的;共同的,共有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 consolation | |
n.安慰,慰问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 perils | |
极大危险( peril的名词复数 ); 危险的事(或环境) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 motives | |
n.动机,目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 nay | |
adv.不;n.反对票,投反对票者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 rite | |
n.典礼,惯例,习俗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 rites | |
仪式,典礼( rite的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 sufficiently | |
adv.足够地,充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 imposing | |
adj.使人难忘的,壮丽的,堂皇的,雄伟的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 imp | |
n.顽童 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 ecclesiastics | |
n.神职者,教会,牧师( ecclesiastic的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 derived | |
vi.起源;由来;衍生;导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 );(从…中)得到获得;源于;(从…中)提取 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 immediate | |
adj.立即的;直接的,最接近的;紧靠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 proximity | |
n.接近,邻近 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 opposition | |
n.反对,敌对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 bigotry | |
n.偏见,偏执,持偏见的行为[态度]等 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 bishop | |
n.主教,(国际象棋)象 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 zeal | |
n.热心,热情,热忱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 monasteries | |
修道院( monastery的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 exhortation | |
n.劝告,规劝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 fatigue | |
n.疲劳,劳累 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 machinery | |
n.(总称)机械,机器;机构 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 possessed | |
adj.疯狂的;拥有的,占有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 multiplication | |
n.增加,增多,倍增;增殖,繁殖;乘法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 inter | |
v.埋葬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 intercourse | |
n.性交;交流,交往,交际 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 neophyte | |
n.新信徒;开始者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 attained | |
(通常经过努力)实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 ); 达到; 获得; 达到(某年龄、水平、状况) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 applied | |
adj.应用的;v.应用,适用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43 entrusted | |
v.委托,托付( entrust的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44 piety | |
n.虔诚,虔敬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45 bestowed | |
赠给,授予( bestow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46 bishops | |
(基督教某些教派管辖大教区的)主教( bishop的名词复数 ); (国际象棋的)象 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47 manors | |
n.庄园(manor的复数形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
48 stewards | |
(轮船、飞机等的)乘务员( steward的名词复数 ); (俱乐部、旅馆、工会等的)管理员; (大型活动的)组织者; (私人家中的)管家 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
49 administrators | |
n.管理者( administrator的名词复数 );有管理(或行政)才能的人;(由遗嘱检验法庭指定的)遗产管理人;奉派暂管主教教区的牧师 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
50 discretion | |
n.谨慎;随意处理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
51 benevolent | |
adj.仁慈的,乐善好施的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
52 meritorious | |
adj.值得赞赏的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
53 peculiar | |
adj.古怪的,异常的;特殊的,特有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
54 worthy | |
adj.(of)值得的,配得上的;有价值的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
55 tenants | |
n.房客( tenant的名词复数 );佃户;占用者;占有者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
56 disposition | |
n.性情,性格;意向,倾向;排列,部署 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
57 relinquished | |
交出,让给( relinquish的过去式和过去分词 ); 放弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
58 patronage | |
n.赞助,支援,援助;光顾,捧场 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
59 Founder | |
n.创始者,缔造者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
60 canonical | |
n.权威的;典型的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
61 consecration | |
n.供献,奉献,献祭仪式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
62 ordained | |
v.任命(某人)为牧师( ordain的过去式和过去分词 );授予(某人)圣职;(上帝、法律等)命令;判定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
63 dedication | |
n.奉献,献身,致力,题献,献辞 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
64 strictly | |
adv.严厉地,严格地;严密地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
65 avarice | |
n.贪婪;贪心 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
66 founders | |
n.创始人( founder的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
67 layman | |
n.俗人,门外汉,凡人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
68 deposed | |
v.罢免( depose的过去式和过去分词 );(在法庭上)宣誓作证 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
69 depose | |
vt.免职;宣誓作证 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
70 lawful | |
adj.法律许可的,守法的,合法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
71 lawfully | |
adv.守法地,合法地;合理地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
72 entirely | |
ad.全部地,完整地;完全地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
73 vice | |
n.坏事;恶习;[pl.]台钳,老虎钳;adj.副的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
74 diffused | |
散布的,普及的,扩散的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
75 tithes | |
n.(宗教捐税)什一税,什一的教区税,小部分( tithe的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
76 tithe | |
n.十分之一税;v.课什一税,缴什一税 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
77 fixed | |
adj.固定的,不变的,准备好的;(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
78 interfere | |
v.(in)干涉,干预;(with)妨碍,打扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
79 alienate | |
vt.使疏远,离间;转让(财产等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
80 ERECTED | |
adj. 直立的,竖立的,笔直的 vt. 使 ... 直立,建立 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
81 Christian | |
adj.基督教徒的;n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
82 creed | |
n.信条;信念,纲领 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
83 abolition | |
n.废除,取消 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
84 manorial | |
adj.庄园的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
85 distinguished | |
adj.卓越的,杰出的,著名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
86 politic | |
adj.有智虑的;精明的;v.从政 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
87 metropolitans | |
n.大都会的( metropolitan的名词复数 );大城市的;中心地区的;正宗的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
88 metropolitan | |
adj.大城市的,大都会的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
89 functionaries | |
n.公职人员,官员( functionary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
90 drawn | |
v.拖,拉,拔出;adj.憔悴的,紧张的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
91 minor | |
adj.较小(少)的,较次要的;n.辅修学科;vi.辅修 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
92 bent | |
n.爱好,癖好;adj.弯的;决心的,一心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
93 dispersed | |
adj. 被驱散的, 被分散的, 散布的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
94 quorum | |
n.法定人数 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
95 confirmation | |
n.证实,确认,批准 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
96 ordination | |
n.授任圣职 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
97 jurisdiction | |
n.司法权,审判权,管辖权,控制权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
98 confession | |
n.自白,供认,承认 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
99 penance | |
n.(赎罪的)惩罪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
100 solely | |
adv.仅仅,唯一地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
101 accrued | |
adj.权责已发生的v.增加( accrue的过去式和过去分词 );(通过自然增长)产生;获得;(使钱款、债务)积累 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
102 sustenance | |
n.食物,粮食;生活资料;生计 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
103 apportion | |
vt.(按比例或计划)分配 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
104 fabric | |
n.织物,织品,布;构造,结构,组织 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
105 devoted | |
adj.忠诚的,忠实的,热心的,献身于...的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
106 ransoming | |
付赎金救人,赎金( ransom的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
107 civilized | |
a.有教养的,文雅的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
108 insufficient | |
adj.(for,of)不足的,不够的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
109 superstition | |
n.迷信,迷信行为 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
110 compulsory | |
n.强制的,必修的;规定的,义务的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
111 ascetic | |
adj.禁欲的;严肃的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
112 admiration | |
n.钦佩,赞美,羡慕 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
113 honourably | |
adv.可尊敬地,光荣地,体面地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
114 celebrated | |
adj.有名的,声誉卓著的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
115 progenitors | |
n.祖先( progenitor的名词复数 );先驱;前辈;原本 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
116 decency | |
n.体面,得体,合宜,正派,庄重 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
117 skilful | |
(=skillful)adj.灵巧的,熟练的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
118 specimens | |
n.样品( specimen的名词复数 );范例;(化验的)抽样;某种类型的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
119 cultivation | |
n.耕作,培养,栽培(法),养成 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
120 cloister | |
n.修道院;v.隐退,使与世隔绝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
121 exquisite | |
adj.精美的;敏锐的;剧烈的,感觉强烈的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
122 coveted | |
adj.令人垂涎的;垂涎的,梦寐以求的v.贪求,觊觎(covet的过去分词);垂涎;贪图 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
123 intervention | |
n.介入,干涉,干预 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
124 incessant | |
adj.不停的,连续的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
125 advisers | |
顾问,劝告者( adviser的名词复数 ); (指导大学新生学科问题等的)指导教授 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
126 makers | |
n.制造者,制造商(maker的复数形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
127 Christians | |
n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
128 secular | |
n.牧师,凡人;adj.世俗的,现世的,不朽的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
129 rebut | |
v.辩驳,驳回 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
130 accusations | |
n.指责( accusation的名词复数 );指控;控告;(被告发、控告的)罪名 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
131 participation | |
n.参与,参加,分享 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
132 immunity | |
n.优惠;免除;豁免,豁免权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
133 scattered | |
adj.分散的,稀疏的;散步的;疏疏落落的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
134 misery | |
n.痛苦,苦恼,苦难;悲惨的境遇,贫苦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
135 laity | |
n.俗人;门外汉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
136 inevitable | |
adj.不可避免的,必然发生的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
137 quota | |
n.(生产、进出口等的)配额,(移民的)限额 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
138 contemplate | |
vt.盘算,计议;周密考虑;注视,凝视 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
139 withdrawal | |
n.取回,提款;撤退,撤军;收回,撤销 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
140 censure | |
v./n.责备;非难;责难 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
141 inflicted | |
把…强加给,使承受,遭受( inflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
142 delinquent | |
adj.犯法的,有过失的;n.违法者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
143 provincial | |
adj.省的,地方的;n.外省人,乡下人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
144 provincials | |
n.首都以外的人,地区居民( provincial的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
145 conqueror | |
n.征服者,胜利者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
146 jurisdictions | |
司法权( jurisdiction的名词复数 ); 裁判权; 管辖区域; 管辖范围 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
147 outlaw | |
n.歹徒,亡命之徒;vt.宣布…为不合法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
148 abjure | |
v.发誓放弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
149 enacts | |
制定(法律),通过(法案)( enact的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
150 perjure | |
v.作伪证;使发假誓 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
151 chaste | |
adj.贞洁的;有道德的;善良的;简朴的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
152 dignified | |
a.可敬的,高贵的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
153 remains | |
n.剩余物,残留物;遗体,遗迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
154 blessings | |
n.(上帝的)祝福( blessing的名词复数 );好事;福分;因祸得福 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
155 celibacy | |
n.独身(主义) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
156 mere | |
adj.纯粹的;仅仅,只不过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
157 dispensed | |
v.分配( dispense的过去式和过去分词 );施与;配(药) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
158 pertinaciously | |
adv.坚持地;固执地;坚决地;执拗地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
159 subservient | |
adj.卑屈的,阿谀的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
160 enquire | |
v.打听,询问;调查,查问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
161 perilous | |
adj.危险的,冒险的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
162 prudence | |
n.谨慎,精明,节俭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
163 hindrance | |
n.妨碍,障碍 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
164 doctrines | |
n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 );教义;学说;(政府政策的)正式声明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
165 antagonism | |
n.对抗,敌对,对立 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
166 emancipating | |
v.解放某人(尤指摆脱政治、法律或社会的束缚)( emancipate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
167 Buddhist | |
adj./n.佛教的,佛教徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
168 admonish | |
v.训戒;警告;劝告 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
169 admonished | |
v.劝告( admonish的过去式和过去分词 );训诫;(温和地)责备;轻责 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
170 dilate | |
vt.使膨胀,使扩大 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
171 materialism | |
n.[哲]唯物主义,唯物论;物质至上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
172 laments | |
n.悲恸,哀歌,挽歌( lament的名词复数 )v.(为…)哀悼,痛哭,悲伤( lament的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
173 lament | |
n.悲叹,悔恨,恸哭;v.哀悼,悔恨,悲叹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
174 aberrations | |
n.偏差( aberration的名词复数 );差错;脱离常规;心理失常 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
175 restriction | |
n.限制,约束 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
176 restrictions | |
约束( restriction的名词复数 ); 管制; 制约因素; 带限制性的条件(或规则) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
177 obedience | |
n.服从,顺从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
178 immorality | |
n. 不道德, 无道义 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
179 exhortations | |
n.敦促( exhortation的名词复数 );极力推荐;(正式的)演讲;(宗教仪式中的)劝诫 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
180 wedlock | |
n.婚姻,已婚状态 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
181 emancipation | |
n.(从束缚、支配下)解放 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
182 hereditarily | |
世袭地,遗传地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
183 contemplated | |
adj. 预期的 动词contemplate的过去分词形式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
184 allusion | |
n.暗示,间接提示 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
185 enactments | |
n.演出( enactment的名词复数 );展现;规定;通过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
186 conclusive | |
adj.最后的,结论的;确凿的,消除怀疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
187 pretext | |
n.借口,托词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
188 abominable | |
adj.可厌的,令人憎恶的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
189 justification | |
n.正当的理由;辩解的理由 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
190 surmised | |
v.臆测,推断( surmise的过去式和过去分词 );揣测;猜想 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
191 avowed | |
adj.公开声明的,承认的v.公开声明,承认( avow的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
192 alleged | |
a.被指控的,嫌疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
193 uncertainties | |
无把握( uncertainty的名词复数 ); 不确定; 变化不定; 无把握、不确定的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
194 proscribe | |
v.禁止;排斥;放逐,充军;剥夺公权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
195 essentially | |
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
196 literally | |
adv.照字面意义,逐字地;确实 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
197 premium | |
n.加付款;赠品;adj.高级的;售价高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
198 undoubtedly | |
adv.确实地,无疑地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
199 monastery | |
n.修道院,僧院,寺院 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
200 exemption | |
n.豁免,免税额,免除 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
201 exempt | |
adj.免除的;v.使免除;n.免税者,被免除义务者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
202 laymen | |
门外汉,外行人( layman的名词复数 ); 普通教徒(有别于神职人员) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
203 contrive | |
vt.谋划,策划;设法做到;设计,想出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
204 conformity | |
n.一致,遵从,顺从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
205 touching | |
adj.动人的,使人感伤的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
206 revival | |
n.复兴,复苏,(精力、活力等的)重振 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
207 tragical | |
adj. 悲剧的, 悲剧性的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
208 wig | |
n.假发 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
209 elucidation | |
n.说明,阐明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
210 lustre | |
n.光亮,光泽;荣誉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
211 providence | |
n.深谋远虑,天道,天意;远见;节约;上帝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
212 impartial | |
adj.(in,to)公正的,无偏见的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
213 protagonist | |
n.(思想观念的)倡导者;主角,主人公 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
214 hideous | |
adj.丑陋的,可憎的,可怕的,恐怖的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
215 writ | |
n.命令状,书面命令 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
216 revelled | |
v.作乐( revel的过去式和过去分词 );狂欢;着迷;陶醉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
217 mischief | |
n.损害,伤害,危害;恶作剧,捣蛋,胡闹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
218 entails | |
使…成为必要( entail的第三人称单数 ); 需要; 限定继承; 使必需 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
219 polemics | |
n.辩论术,辩论法;争论( polemic的名词复数 );辩论;辩论术;辩论法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
220 judgment | |
n.审判;判断力,识别力,看法,意见 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
221 ratify | |
v.批准,认可,追认 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
222 lavished | |
v.过分给予,滥施( lavish的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
223 condemned | |
adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
224 condemn | |
vt.谴责,指责;宣判(罪犯),判刑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
225 fortify | |
v.强化防御,为…设防;加强,强化 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
226 preposterous | |
adj.荒谬的,可笑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
227 controversy | |
n.争论,辩论,争吵 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
228 tinged | |
v.(使)发丁丁声( ting的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
229 gleaned | |
v.一点点地收集(资料、事实)( glean的过去式和过去分词 );(收割后)拾穗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
230 serene | |
adj. 安详的,宁静的,平静的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
231 deductions | |
扣除( deduction的名词复数 ); 结论; 扣除的量; 推演 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
232 monkish | |
adj.僧侣的,修道士的,禁欲的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
233 profligacy | |
n.放荡,不检点,肆意挥霍 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
234 choir | |
n.唱诗班,唱诗班的席位,合唱团,舞蹈团;v.合唱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
235 alluded | |
提及,暗指( allude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
236 deserted | |
adj.荒芜的,荒废的,无人的,被遗弃的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
237 adversaries | |
n.对手,敌手( adversary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
238 acquit | |
vt.宣判无罪;(oneself)使(自己)表现出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
239 scrupulously | |
adv.一丝不苟地;小心翼翼地,多顾虑地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
240 diligent | |
adj.勤勉的,勤奋的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
241 adoption | |
n.采用,采纳,通过;收养 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
242 eminently | |
adv.突出地;显著地;不寻常地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
243 reigning | |
adj.统治的,起支配作用的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
244 proceedings | |
n.进程,过程,议程;诉讼(程序);公报 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
245 gratitude | |
adj.感激,感谢 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
246 countenance | |
n.脸色,面容;面部表情;vt.支持,赞同 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
247 gauge | |
v.精确计量;估计;n.标准度量;计量器 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
248 retirement | |
n.退休,退职 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
249 credence | |
n.信用,祭器台,供桌,凭证 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
250 vouchsafed | |
v.给予,赐予( vouchsafe的过去式和过去分词 );允诺 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
251 surmounted | |
战胜( surmount的过去式和过去分词 ); 克服(困难); 居于…之上; 在…顶上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
252 surmount | |
vt.克服;置于…顶上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
253 wielded | |
手持着使用(武器、工具等)( wield的过去式和过去分词 ); 具有; 运用(权力); 施加(影响) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
254 skilfully | |
adv. (美skillfully)熟练地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
255 embittered | |
v.使怨恨,激怒( embitter的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
256 embitter | |
v.使苦;激怒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
257 factions | |
组织中的小派别,派系( faction的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
258 interfered | |
v.干预( interfere的过去式和过去分词 );调停;妨碍;干涉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
259 connivance | |
n.纵容;默许 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
260 scions | |
n.接穗,幼枝( scion的名词复数 );(尤指富家)子孙 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
261 prescription | |
n.处方,开药;指示,规定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
262 evicted | |
v.(依法从房屋里或土地上)驱逐,赶出( evict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
263 perfectly | |
adv.完美地,无可非议地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
264 artifice | |
n.妙计,高明的手段;狡诈,诡计 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
265 virgin | |
n.处女,未婚女子;adj.未经使用的;未经开发的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
266 promotion | |
n.提升,晋级;促销,宣传 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
267 alteration | |
n.变更,改变;蚀变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
268 utterly | |
adv.完全地,绝对地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
269 devoid | |
adj.全无的,缺乏的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
270 eviction | |
n.租地等的收回 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
271 subscribe | |
vi.(to)订阅,订购;同意;vt.捐助,赞助 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
272 standing | |
n.持续,地位;adj.永久的,不动的,直立的,不流动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
273 random | |
adj.随机的;任意的;n.偶然的(或随便的)行动 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
274 arrogance | |
n.傲慢,自大 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
275 conspicuous | |
adj.明眼的,惹人注目的;炫耀的,摆阔气的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
276 folly | |
n.愚笨,愚蠢,蠢事,蠢行,傻话 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
277 dwelling | |
n.住宅,住所,寓所 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
278 nil | |
n.无,全无,零 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
279 locus | |
n.中心 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
280 forte | |
n.长处,擅长;adj.(音乐)强音的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
281 itinerant | |
adj.巡回的;流动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
282 noted | |
adj.著名的,知名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
283 rebus | |
n.谜,画谜 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
284 axe | |
n.斧子;v.用斧头砍,削减 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
285 inane | |
adj.空虚的,愚蠢的,空洞的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
286 descended | |
a.为...后裔的,出身于...的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
287 professed | |
公开声称的,伪称的,已立誓信教的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
288 concur | |
v.同意,意见一致,互助,同时发生 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
289 excerpt | |
n.摘录,选录,节录 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
290 cod | |
n.鳕鱼;v.愚弄;哄骗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
291 scotch | |
n.伤口,刻痕;苏格兰威士忌酒;v.粉碎,消灭,阻止;adj.苏格兰(人)的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
292 pestilence | |
n.瘟疫 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
293 consonant | |
n.辅音;adj.[音]符合的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
294 hostility | |
n.敌对,敌意;抵制[pl.]交战,战争 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
295 persecution | |
n. 迫害,烦扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
296 heresy | |
n.异端邪说;异教 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
297 entity | |
n.实体,独立存在体,实际存在物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
298 grudgingly | |
参考例句: |
|
|
299 distinctive | |
adj.特别的,有特色的,与众不同的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
300 acolytes | |
n.助手( acolyte的名词复数 );随从;新手;(天主教)侍祭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
301 necessitate | |
v.使成为必要,需要 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
302 inaccessible | |
adj.达不到的,难接近的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
303 mortified | |
v.使受辱( mortify的过去式和过去分词 );伤害(人的感情);克制;抑制(肉体、情感等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
304 amputation | |
n.截肢 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
305 beetle | |
n.甲虫,近视眼的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
306 tandem | |
n.同时发生;配合;adv.一个跟着一个地;纵排地;adj.(两匹马)前后纵列的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
307 savage | |
adj.野蛮的;凶恶的,残暴的;n.未开化的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
308 testaments | |
n.遗嘱( testament的名词复数 );实际的证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
309 apparently | |
adv.显然地;表面上,似乎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
310 penances | |
n.(赎罪的)苦行,苦修( penance的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
311 expiated | |
v.为(所犯罪过)接受惩罚,赎(罪)( expiate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
312 violation | |
n.违反(行为),违背(行为),侵犯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
313 alleviates | |
减轻,缓解,缓和( alleviate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
314 remit | |
v.汇款,汇寄;豁免(债务),免除(处罚等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
315 guilt | |
n.犯罪;内疚;过失,罪责 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
316 premises | |
n.建筑物,房屋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
317 infliction | |
n.(强加于人身的)痛苦,刑罚 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
318 doom | |
n.厄运,劫数;v.注定,命定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
319 intimacy | |
n.熟悉,亲密,密切关系,亲昵的言行 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
320 lurk | |
n.潜伏,潜行;v.潜藏,潜伏,埋伏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
321 disastrous | |
adj.灾难性的,造成灾害的;极坏的,很糟的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
322 sects | |
n.宗派,教派( sect的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
323 saviour | |
n.拯救者,救星 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
324 anathema | |
n.诅咒;被诅咒的人(物),十分讨厌的人(物) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
325 anonymous | |
adj.无名的;匿名的;无特色的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
326 rams | |
n.公羊( ram的名词复数 );(R-)白羊(星)座;夯;攻城槌v.夯实(土等)( ram的第三人称单数 );猛撞;猛压;反复灌输 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
327 licensed | |
adj.得到许可的v.许可,颁发执照(license的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
328 tariff | |
n.关税,税率;(旅馆、饭店等)价目表,收费表 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
329 licenses | |
n.执照( license的名词复数 )v.批准,许可,颁发执照( license的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
330 redeem | |
v.买回,赎回,挽回,恢复,履行(诺言等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
331 datum | |
n.资料;数据;已知数 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
332 justify | |
vt.证明…正当(或有理),为…辩护 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
333 explicitly | |
ad.明确地,显然地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
334 supervision | |
n.监督,管理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
335 eminence | |
n.卓越,显赫;高地,高处;名家 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
336 alias | |
n.化名;别名;adv.又名 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
337 baron | |
n.男爵;(商业界等)巨头,大王 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
338 antiquity | |
n.古老;高龄;古物,古迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |