« السابقةمتابعة »
WIL LIAM I.
swer to the
Another remarkable passage relating to ecclesiastical affairs, is the Conqueror's letter to pope Gregory VII. In K. of Eng. this letter the king takes notice of two demands made by the The Conpope; one was for the payment of three years' arrears of queror's anthe Peter-pence: the other was a demand of homage from pope's dethe crown of England. The king gives him satisfaction upon mage. mand of the first head, and promises the Peter-pence should be better see Recollected for the future: but as for the point of homage he cords, num. sends him a positive denial; alleging that he had made no promise of that kind himself, neither was any such submission paid to the see of Rome by his predecessors. These allegations were most true, but Hildebrand was a very enterprising ambitious prelate, had met with success in his attempts upon the emperor, and therefore was resolved, it seems, to push his fortune in other places. But the Conqueror was a prince of too much spirit and capacity to be thus imposed on; and, by the way, though his answer to the pope is couched in terms of respect, yet it has not that air of submission and profound reverence which the Confessor expressed in his address to pope Nicholas II.
set aside in
But notwithstanding this prince guarded well against enNo bishops croachment: though he took care to make the most of his the Concrown, and, it may be, strained his prerogative too far upon reign withthe Church in some cases; yet he never carried the point out synodical deprivaso far as to depose any bishop upon the strength of the re- tion. gale: these matters were always left, as far as it appears, to the management of ecclesiastics. Thus Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, Agelric, bishop of Selsea, and Agelmar, of Helmam, were all deprived at the synods of Winchester and Windsor. And when Wulstan, bishop of Worcester, had Hoveden, like to have met with the same fate upon pretence of his in- 260. Flosufficiency, the charge was brought in by Lanfranc, arch- rent. Wibishop of Canterbury, and managed before the rest of the An. 1070. bishops at the council of Pedrede.
Stow's Survey of Lon
In this king's reign a great many Jews transported them- tif. fol. 160. selves from Rouën, and settled in London, Norwich, Cambridge, Northampton, &c. But that this was their first don, Colecolony in England is a mistake in Fuller, as appears by the ward. laws of the Confessor, already mentioned.
Before we conclude with the Conqueror, it will not be Fuller's amiss just to mention his descent, and the division of his Church
History, book 3. p. 9.
LAN- dominions. As to his genealogy, this king William was naAbp. Cant. tural and only son to Robert II., duke of Normandy, and the seventh in a direct line from duke Rollo: his mother's name was Herlotte, daughter to Fulbert, chamberlain or groom of the chamber to his father Robert. At his death he bequeathed his duchy of Normandy to Robert his eldest son; the kingdom of England to William Rufus his second son then living; and as for Henry the youngest, his fortune was only five thousand pounds in money.
The last year of this reign, St. Paul's cathedral was burnt, together with the greatest part of the city of London.
William Rufus, having the kingdom of England devised to him by will, left his father some little time before he expired, and transported himself with all expedition; and by the interest of Lanfranc, and giving large bounty to every parish, made his way to the throne. To dispose Lanfranc more effectually to appear for him, the Conqueror wrote a letter to this prelate upon his death-bed to crown his second This letter William Rufus brought over with him; crowned by and had his coronation solemnized at Westminster on the 27th of September. Lanfranc, who had formerly knighted him, put the crown upon his head. To dispose this prelate to engage, he made him large promises of a fair administraGest. Reg. tion; but having gained possession, he seemed to forget his
663. Malmsb. de
Odericus Vitalis, fol. 659.
A. D. 1087.
word, and when the bishop put him in mind of his promise, he replied with some resentment, that no person could be exact to his engagements in everything. His uncle Odo, and a great part of the English nobility, declaring for his brother Robert, might probably ruffle this prince, and make Malmsb. de him treat the English with greater rigour. Gest. Reg. et de Gest. Pontif.
The next year, Giser Hasban, bishop of Wells, departed this life. He was a Lorrainer by birth, and preferred by Edward the Confessor, who joined him in commission with Aldred, archbishop of York, in an embassy to Rome, where he received his consecration. He was a great benefactor to the Church of Wells, recovered most of the estates seized Angl. Sacr. by Harold, and increased the number of the prebendaries. Lanfranc being disappointed in William Rufus, and per
pars 1. p.
A. D. 1089. ceiving the kingdom embroiled, and a storm likely to fall The death upon the Church, grew melancholy, and departed this life in of Lanfranc, May, in the year 1089. This archbishop was a great bene
factor to his diocese. He rebuilt Christ Church from the WILfoundation, which had been burned in Elphegus's time by K. of Eng the Danes. He settled the number of monks in that church, fixed them at a hundred and fifty, formed a rule or statutes for them, gave them a prior instead of a chorepiscopus, and made a present of a great many rich ornaments to the church. He was a considerable benefactor to the cathedral of Rochester and the monastery of St. Albans, and planted monks in both of them; which, by the way, is an argument they were furnished with secular priests before. To proceed: Gervasius he built two churches and two hospitals in Canterbury, and nensis. erected several churches in the manors belonging to the archbishoprick. He had a famous trial with Odo, bishop of Baieux, and earl of Kent, at Penenden Heath: the cause was heard before most of the great men of England, and was three days in pleading. Gosfrid, bishop of Constance, was the king's justitiary. Here Lanfranc pleaded his own cause, and recovered five-and-twenty manors, together with all the customs, services, and privileges anciently belonging to the estates of that see. He was likewise careful to pre- Ernulphus serve his metropolitical privileges. To this purpose, he wrote Eccles. a letter to Stigand, bishop of Chichester, in which he com- Roffens. Angl. Sacr. plains of Stigand's archdeacons for taking money by way of par. 1. p. synodals of the clergy of Sussex, that dwelt within any of See Rethe manors of the archbishoprick, and exempts all the cords, num. parish priests, who lived in his towns, or where he was patron, from the jurisdiction and visitation of the bishop. This privilege seems to have been the original of 'Peculiars.' In this letter the archbishop, though he writes in a determined manner, and with an air of authority, pretends to nothing new, but grounds his claim upon ancient usage. Eadmer The Conqueror had a great opinion of Lanfranc's conduct vor. 1. 1. p. and capacity, and left the direction of affairs in his hands, when himself was absent in Normandy: for Lanfranc, to do him right, was no less fit for business than books; and a good statesman as well as a divine. He was a person of great charity, and was very careful and active that minors, widows, and poor people, should suffer nothing by the disadvantage of their condition.
His character, with respect to learning, was considerable, as appears by his writings. To mention some of them: he
LANFRANC, Abp. Cant.
wrote a commentary upon St. Paul's Epistles, several letters to pope Alexander II. and to Hildebrand, archdeacon of Rome, and to several bishops in Normandy and England, the contents of which are too long to insist on. He likewise wrote a Treatise of Confession, a Commentary upon the Psalms, and an ecclesiastical history, which last is not extant, but of all his works, his treatise concerning the body and blood of our Saviour in the holy eucharist was most remarkable. In this book he disputes against Berengarius, and maintains a carnal presence, formerly held by Paschasius Radbertus. That this opinion was not the doctrine of the Church of England in the latter end of the tenth, or the beginning of the eleventh century, appears by the Easter homily already mentioned, under Elfric, archbishop of Canterbury.
Lanfranc When Paschasius, a monk of Corbey, who lived in the writes against ninth century, asserted a corporeal presence in the holy Berenga eucharist, and that Christians eat the same body that was
Du Pin. Ec
cent. 9. p.
born of the blessed Virgin, and drank the same blood which was shed upon the cross, people were startled at the novelty cles. Histor. of the terms, and several persons of figure wrote against 71. et deinc. him, such as Bertram, Johannes Scotus, &c., who were conDu Pin, ib, sulted upon this question by the emperor Charles the Bald. Father Mabillon grants, that notwithstanding the Catholics believed the real presence of Christ's body in the eucharist, yet Paschasius was the first that dogmatized so far upon the manner, and affirmed it the same body with that which was born of the blessed Virgin. The novelty of this assertion, as he goes on, shocked several great men, and made them write with vigour and sharpness against him. This controversy seems not, as monsieur Du Pin represents it, to be a bare dispute about words: for though both parties acknowledged a real presence, there was, notwithstanding, a great difference between them. Radbertus was for a carnal and bodily presence; Bertram, Scotus, &c., were for a spiritual and figurative presence, which, as to the effects and benefits, is no less real than the other.
As for Lanfranc, he came up to the corporeal notion, and defended the opinion of Paschasius Radbertus against Berengarius. That this doctrine had gained ground in the western Church in the latter end of this century, appears by
Berengarius's profession of faith at his recantation at the WILcouncil of Rome, held under Gregory VII. in the year of K. of Eng. our Lord 1078. This Berengarius being one of the princi- Du Pin. Ecpals in the controversy, and the person that gave the occasion cles. Hist. of writing Lanfranc's book, a short account of him may not 10. be unacceptable to the reader.
cent. 11. p.
Berengarius was born at Tours about the end of the tenth 4 short or beginning of the eleventh century. He studied at BerengaChartres, under Fulbert, bishop of that city. After the rius and his death of that prelate, he returned to Tours, and having a great character for his learning, he was chosen lecturer in the public schools of St. Martin. In this post, he conducted himself to such satisfaction that they made him treasurer of the church of St. Martin. From hence, after some time, he removed to Angiers, where he was well received by the bishop, who made him archdeacon of his church, and treated him with a particular regard. Here, about the year 1047, he began to publish his sentiments upon the eucharist. Lanfranc, who lived then in Normandy, hearing of Berengarius's tenets, engaged in the controversy against him, upon which Berengarius wrote him a letter, in which he gave him to understand that he was much to blame for charging John Scotus with heresy for his opinion concerning the sacrament of the altar; that he could not condemn him for what he delivered about this point, without laying the same imputation of unorthodoxy upon St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and several others of the fathers. When this letter was sent to Normandy, Lanfranc was gone to Rome; but falling into adversaries' hands, it was brought to pope Leo IX. in the year 1050, and a council being then held at Rome, it was condemned in the synod; Berengarius was excommunicated, and Lanfranc obliged to purge himself of the suspicion of holding too close a correspondence with Berengarius, and of being infected with his belief. This test Lanfranc underwent cheerfully enough, and satisfied the synod.
This year there was another synod held at Verceil. Here pope Leo IX. was present. Berengarius was likewise summoned to the council; but thinking it not safe to appear in person, he sent two proxies to make his defence. In this synod the book of John Scotus was condemned: the