M. (Paul) Rapin de Thoyras.

The history of England : written in French (Volume 1) online

. (page 89 of 360)
Online LibraryM. (Paul) Rapin de ThoyrasThe history of England : written in French (Volume 1) → online text (page 89 of 360)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

die. the King ufed to fcire the Temporalities into his Hands, andreccivc the Profits till the Vacancy was rilled. Ordericus Vitalis afcribes this Practice firft
to William II. He fays, before the Norman Invalion, the Biihop of the Diocefe took care of the Revenues of a vacant Abbey, a; the Archbilhop did of
th'fe of a Biihoprick till fill'd. In 1164, (10 Hn. II.) by the Conftitutions of Clarendon, an Archbiihoprick, Biihopnck, Abbey or Priory of royal
Foundation becoming void, the lame was to be in the K ng's Hands, and he might receive the Iftues thereof as if he had held them in Demean. And lb,
it teems, the Ufage was, both bef -re and after the Council of Clarendon. In the tth of Stephen, the Manors of the Biihoprick of Durham then vacant
are falJ, in the Roll, to be in Dominic Regis, and therefore discharged of Dan. gelt. In the Statute de Pnvifribus ( 25 Edtuard III.) it is decJaicd,
That the Kings, Earls, Barons, a^ Lords and Advowees, had, and ought to have the Cuftody of vacant Prelacies, C5TY. This Power was often abufed by the
King, as well as private Lords and Patrons, by keeping the Benefices void feveral Years together. However this be, the Crown was wont to take into
ils Hands the Temporalities of the vacant Biihoprick; and Abbeys, which were at firll committed to a Cufios, who accounted to the Crown for the fame.
And alterwards, when the Office of Efcheatry was fettled, the Efcheatcrs ufed, upon a Voidanre, to fcize them for the King, and anfwer for the fame as part
of the : r Efcheatry. The fuccceding Biihop could not meddle with the Temporalities thus feized, without a Writ to give him PolfelTion, called a Writ of
Rcftitution of Temporalities, which continues in ufe to this Day. The Kings in five or fix Succeffions after the Conqueft, made a conlidetablc Reveaauo
this way, as appears by the Revenue Rolls. The reft of the Branches will be continued in the following Coin-Notes.

In King Slipben'i Time there feems to have been a great deal of Monty cined. For thus writ
*' Reges, velpotiu T>ranni, quot Domini Cafiellorum, habentes finguli percufluram proprii num
yet we have veri few Remains ot thu'r Treaiuie. His Penny, in Speed, is no bieeer than h's P

a William of Nc-.i'bury: " Erant in AngHaquodam modo to:
numifmatis & poteftatem fubditis Regio more dicendi ju;." And
1.. as Prcdcceffors. It is the firft after the Conqueft that's half-faced
with this Infcnption, SI IE FN. EI. and, on the Reverie, SPTIDETS: D N. V. which Nicolfm takes to be the blundered Name of fome of his
aoovc-ment or.rd royal Lords. Dihvrcnt from this is another which gives both his Eyes, though even heVe the Face is lbmcwhat fide-ways. The Cicwn is
much the lame with Henry I, onh the Flower are railed higher. Tanner met with one, which inftead of the King's Head, bore two An els with S T I E F E N
,,'i vu!h c J Rl ': c J lc f" V' f „ , r ''" C ° n l""" - Mr. Thoresby has cn , with both the Figures of Stephen and Henry, and likewifc of EISTAOTH1U9
^"^''"Lr^L^'lb'"' ; Mth J Holle on ™ c s,<fc . and a '"6e Croliof F/wer-dc-lis on the other. Anotherof Euftatius with a Sword in liis Hand : Reverfc
Pellet in each quarter ot a Crofs, lurr-unled with a Rofc. (See the Figure above)



XI 1


Vol. I.




Reigns o/ William I. William II. Henry I.

and Stephen.

*Th different
of the Saxon
and Norman
Kings, ivith
regard to the


p. 6.


Tbi prudent

Rome to
ejlablijh her

H E Revolution in England by the Norman
Conqueft introduced a great change both in
Church and State. More efpecially the Pope
and Clergy were confiderable lofers by it. In-
ftead of the devout and fubmifuve Saxon Princes, who
were ready to embrace all opportunities, of augmenting
the privileges and revenues of the Church, there arofe in
England a race of Norman Kings of a quite different cha-
racter. Solely employed in graining at arbitrary Power,
they could not bear any diftinction between the Clergy
and Laity as to point of obedience. They challenged an
equal authority over both. What Schemes foever the
Court of Rome had formed to render the Clergy indepen-
dent of the Crown, the reigns of the two Williams were
not thought to afford any favourable opportunities to haften
their Execution. The Normans, out of intereft, were
entirely attached to their Sovereigns, and the Englijh, in
their low condition, were no proper Inftruments to pro-
mote the caufe of the Court of Rome. Matters ftanding
thus in England, the moft vigorous efforts of the Popes
to enlarge their Power, would have been ineffectual.
This probably was the reafon that obliged Gregory VII,
with all his Haughtinefs, to ftoop to the refolute and fted-
dy temper of William the Conqueror. This Monarch
not content with boldly refufing the homage required by
Gregory, openly contemned the Papal Decrees. He go-
verned the Clergy of his Kingdom like the reft of his Sub-
jects, with an abfolute fway. If he fuffered the Pope's Le-
gates to prefide at a Council, it was only to be freed with
more eafe from fome Bifhops that gave him difturbance.
But when he found this fame Synod unwilling to come into
all his meafures, he exerted his abfolute Power. By his
fole authority, he banifhed or imprifoned fuch Bifhops as
he did not like, without flaying for a Canonical Sen-
tence. On the other hand, whilft the Pope was thun-
dring out Anathema's againft the Emperor, and compel-
ling him to difhonourable homage ; William peaceably en-
joyed, in his Dominions, the right of Inveftiture, which
was the fubjeit of the quarrel between the Emperor and
the Court of Rome. He made the Church-Lands liable
to the fame fervices with the Lay-Fees. He feized the
Gold and Silver depofited in the Monafteries, and fpared
not even the conlecrated Vellels. Nothing was tranfacted
in the Church but by his direction, and the Synodal
Confutations were no longer in force than during his
pleafure. He went ftill further, and fet himfelf, in fome
meafure, above the Popes, bv forbidding his Subjects to
receive their orders, or acknowledge their authority, with-
out his permiffion.

William Rufus had no greater regard to the Church's
Immunities. All the Pope's Menaces were ineffectual to
prevent him from keeping the vacant Bifhopricks"and Ab-
beys in his hands, and to difpofe of them afterwards to the
belt bidder. I do not pretend to excufe the conduct of
the two Monarchs in all thefe refpects. My deftgn is
to fhow by thefe Inftances, that the Court of Rome owes
the progrefs and growth of its Power purely to its political
Prudence. The Popes wifely gave way to Princes of Re-
folution and Steddineis, whilft at the fame time they vigo-
roufly proceeded againft fuch, whofe circumftances would
not permit them to oppofe their defigns. We have a
plain inftance of this Policy in the different behaviour of
the Court of Rome with regard to the four firft Norman

Kings. After yielding to the two William!, fhe ftruggled
a long time with He my I. But when fhe faw, he was
not to be conquered, fhe contented herfelf with what fhe
would have fcorned, in the beginning of the Conteft. She
compounded the matter with that Monarch, and confented
the Bifhops and Abbots fhould do him homage ; at the
very time fhe obftinately refufed the fame Terms to the
Emperor, whofe affairs were not in fo profperous a State.
As for Stephen, file knew hew to improve the Troubles in
his Reign, by the help of the Bifhop of Wtnchefter. As
fhe was ready to make ufe of all the advantages that of-
fered, file took occafion from thefe Troubles to appoint
a Legate, different from the Archbifhop of Canterbury,
which (he durft not to have done at any other time. This
Incroachment feemed at firft of little confequence, but had
afterwards too great an influence upon the affairs of Eng-
land. By the means of thefe Legates it was that at length
fhe fet her Foot on the Necks both of the Kings and the
Clergy. I fay of the Clergy, fince 'tis manifeft, fhe
aimed no lefs at humbling the Bifhops and Archbiihops
than the Sovereigns.

We have a remarkable proof of this defign in the
haughty Treatment of Lanfranc by the Court of Rome,
when nominated to the See of Canterbury, upon Stigand's
Deprivation. Lanfranc was a Prelate of diftinguifhed
Worth, equally efteemed by the King, the Englijh, and
the Normans, and confequently of viery great Credit in
England. And yet, he could never prevail to be excufed
going to Rome in Perfon, to receive the Pall at the Pope's
hands. Hildebrand, then Archdeacon of R:?ne, and af-
terwards promoted to the Papal Chair, under the name of
Gregory VII, wrote him a Letter on that fubjedt, endea-
vouring to foften the Refufal. He told him, if there had
been any Inftance of the like favour being granted to his
Predeceffors, it would have been refufed. But, either
he was not well verfed in the Ecclefiaftical Hiftory of
England, or elfe, fuppofed Lanfranc not to know of the
Palls being lent to Aujlin, Jujlus, Honcrius, all .three
Archbifhops of Canterbury. It was not therefore from a
fcruple to introduce a new Cuftom, that Lanfranc was
denied this favour, but for fear the Archbifhops fhould
by degrees forget their Dependance on the Pope. We
fhall frequently fee in the courfe of this Hiftory, how
much the Roman Pontiffs abufed their exorbitant power
over the Clergy of England. It is not yet time to infift
on this Point. But, in order to give a general Knowledge
of the moft material Ecclefiaftical Affairs in England, du-
ring the Interval we have palled through, it is neceffary
to fhow the rife of the difpute between the Archbifhops
of Canterbury and York. This long Conteft is one of the
chief Articles of the Ecclefiaftical Hiftory of England.

Whilft Lanfranc was preparing for his Journey to Rome,
Thomas, Canon of Bayeux, one of TPilliam the Conqueror's
Chaplains, was nominated to the See of York. Shortly
after, the new Prelate came to Canterbury to lie conle-
crated according to Cuftom. But Lanfranc requiring him
to make a Profeffion of Canonical Obedience to him in
Writing;, he refufed to comply, and went away without
Confecration. This Conteft making a great noife, the
King wanted to be informed of the matter, fufpecting
Lanfranc had carried his Prerogatives too high. But after
fevera! Englijh Lords had fhown that Lanfranc had Cuftom
on his Side ( I ), JVilliam, without taking upon him to de-

She aims at
bumbling tbt
Clergy as
•well as the

The Vofe re,
fufes to itr.d
'the Pall A>


T!v Uettjini

of it.

Bcde. I. I.
c. z 9 . J. z.
c. 3. c. ig.

n.t Rift »/

the Difpute
hettoeeu the
tivo Arch'

; Ira .

Jc Geft.


Sax. Ann.


AEt. P until".

(I) Lanjratn came h'mfclf ti the King's Court, (or Great Council,) and there gave his Reafom, which being attcftYJ by the £«£hjk thjt were prefent, ft-
I the king. Malm, de Crfl. Pontil', \. I, p. 206,


Book VI.

The State of the C h u r c ti.


p. ^06.

Malm lb.
p. 206. &'(

RtaJiriS for



!. 1.

2 9

7fo Stntcttet
of the A'; irg
^ .(/ Iy.ru .

itr'atecn tit

I : I I

' .,■.•'•.■/ t.
d Geft.
Por.t.J. 1.

ride the Difputc, found an Expedient to fatisfy the two
Archbifhops. This was, that Thomas lhould return to
Canterbury, anddcli\era written Profeflion of Obedience
to Lanfranc, as fenior ; and that the fettling the Rights of
the two Sees fhould be referred to the Pope ( 1 ). This Ex*
pedient being approved of, the two Prelates let out toge-
ther for Rome to receive the Pall, and eaufe both tliis Con-
trovcrfy and another concerning the Jurildietion over the
Sees of Lincoln, Lichfield and IVorcefler, to be decided.
Alexander II, who was then Pope, received Lanfranc with
particular marks of Refpect. As foon as he faw him, he
rofe up from his Chair to embrace him, declaring how-
ever, he did not treat him thus on the account of his Dig-
nity, but for his Merit. Thomas met with a very different
Reception. The Pope voided his Election, becaufe he was
incapable, as being the Son of a Prieft, to hold any Church
Preferment. However, a kw days after, he was reltorcd
by the Mediation of Lanfranc. As for the Differences be-
tween the two Archbifhops, not being perfect Malter of
the Cafs, he referred the Decifion to the Englijh Bifhops
and Abbots.

This Affair not being decided at Rome, the two Arch-
bifhops returned to England. As they were equally de-
firous to fee the KTuc of their Difference, at their arrival
they waited upon the King at TVindfor, where, on account
of the Pajchal Solemnity, mod of the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal were aflembled ( 1 ). The Caufe was argued
before the King with great Warmth on both fides. Lan-
franc founded his Claim upon the following Reafons.

1. That the Archbifhop of Canterbury was to be con-
fidercd as if the See was at London, the Metropolis of
the Kingdom, feeing Gregory I defigned to fix it there.

2. That the Church of Canterbury was the moft ancient
in the Kingdom, and the Mother of all the reft. 3. He
allcdged the Corrftitutions of feveral Popes, granting the
Prerogative in queftion to his See. 4. F lined that
the Archbifhops of Canterbury had exercifed Jurifdi&ion
within the Province of York. To this purpofe he pro-
duced the Example of Theodore, who had even deprived
feveral Bifhops in the Kingdom of Northumberland.
5. Laftly, he added, the Archbifhops of York had made to
his PredecefTors a Profefhon of the Canonical Obeoience,
which Thomas refufed. In proof of this, lie inftaneed in
Ealdulph, who made no fcruple to profefs Obedience to

The Archbifhop of York replied it was true, Gregory I
did defign to fix the Archiepifcopal See at London, but was
very far from intending to give that See any Pre-eminence
over York. To prove his afTertion he cited the Authority
of Bede, who fays in exprefs Terms, Gregory decreed,
that after the Death of Auftin, the two Archbifhopricks
lhould be independent of each other. Thomas inferred from
thence, that, fuppoiing the Archiepifcopal See was at Lon-
don, it would be no advantage to Lanfranc. 2. He faid,
it was not true, that the Church of Canterbury was the
Mother of that of York, fince every one knew, the
Church of York was founded by the Scotch Monks, who
had no relation to the Church of Canterbury. As for
the Jurifdiiftion exercifed by Theodore in Northumberland,
he maintained, that Prelate took advantage of the Trou-
bles then in the Church of that Kingdom, to extend his
Authority ; and a Right could not be built on a manifeft
Ufurpation. Lanfranc would have found it difficult to
anfwer the Argument brought by Thomas, from Gregory's
Regulation concerning the Independency of the two Arch-
bifliops, if the Conftitutions of feveral Popes had not been
for him. Moreover, he fupported his Right by Cullom,
for which the Englijh gave Teftimony. And by this it
was that he carried the Caufe. It was iudgtd that the
Popes, Succeitbrs- to Gregory, had power to annul his Con-
futations and therefore the King and Lords thought it
juft that the Archbifhop of York fhould make Profcffion
ot Canonical Obedience to the See of Canterbury. The
other Controverfv about the three Bifhopricks, was de-
cided likewifc in favour of Lanfranc, and the Archbifhop
of } It k acquiefced in both thefe Sentences. But, to avoid
any future Difputes, there was drawn up, in the name of
the two Archbifhops, a form of Canonical Obedience, ad-
juring their Differences. Thomas was made to own, he
was in the wrong, to difpute Zan/ranc's Superiority and Ju-
rifdiction over the whole Church of England : Declaring
that as Archbifhop of York he owed Canonical Obedience,
not only to the Pcrfon of Lanfranc, as his Senior, but to
all the Archbifhops of Canterbury, as fuch. He dropped
all his Pretentions to the three Bifhopricks in queftion.

Lanfranc, on his part, yielded to the Archbifhops of York,
the Jurifdiction overall the Sec, North of the Humber to
the fartheft Parts of Scotland. It was likewife agreed,
that if the Aichbifhop of Canterbury fhould call a Na-
tional Synod, the Archbifhop of York and his Suffragan-,
fhould be obliged to make their Appearance, in what
part foever of the Kingdom the Synod fhould be held.
The two Archbifhops further covenanted, that upon the
deceafc of the Archbifhop of Canterbury, the Archbifhop
of York fhould repair to that City, and with the Affi-
ftance of the Suffragans of the Southern Province, fhould
confccratc the Primate-ElccL And that the Pcrfon no-
minated to the See of York, fhould be obliged to come
and be confecrated within the Province of Canterbury.
In fine, Lanfranc omitted nothing that mould eflablifh
the Superiority of his See over that of York. As for the
Oath Lanfranc required of Thomas, it is faid in the
Writing, that the King defiling it fhould he difpenfed
■with, Lanfranc readily confented, referving however a
Right, to require this Oath of all future Archbifhops of
York ()).

Thus the Controverfy between the two Metropolitan
Sees was, or at leaft feemed to be, determined ; for it
was afterwards frequently renewed. Indeed, this was
not a Regulation made by a Synod, but an Agreement
between the two Archbifhops, authorized by the King (4).
Accordingly the Archbifhops of York ufeo this Pretence
to revive the Difputc. They alledged, as the Sentence
was not Synodal, their Right remained intire. In the Eadmer.
time of Anje/m, another Thomas, nominated to the See of 1- 4- p- 97,
York, refufed to take the Oath, but at length was con- p " 102-
drained to it.

Notwithftanding thefe two Precedents, Thurjlan being Tit Dlj}uti
elected Archbifhop of York in the Reign of Henry I, SjT^j'
refufed to make the cuftomary Submiffions to the Arch- Vide x. '
bifhop of Canterbury. But the King gave him to un- Script,
derftand, he muff either comply, or renounce his Arch- ElX- 15 '
bifhoprick. Thurjlan, however grievous it might be to Hovcd. '
him, chofe the latter. Nevertheless, he caufed the Chap-
ter of York to fend Deputies to Pajchal II, to reprefent
the Wrong done to their See. Thefe Deputies remon-
ftrated, the King had exceeded his Power, in compel-
ling Thurjlan to renounce his Election, for refufing to
fubjeiSt the See of York to an obedience, which was ne-
ver canunicaJy enjoined. This Argument prevailing with
the Pope, he writ to the King, exhorting him to re-
ftore Thurjlan ; adding, that in cafe the Archbifhops had
any Difpute about Privileges, he himfelf would equitably
decide it. Pafihal being dead, and Gelafius II fucceed-
ing him, the Archbifhop of Canterbury lent his Agents
to Rome, to found the new Pope's Sentiments concerning
this Conteft. Thefe Agents reported, that they found
by what the Pope faid, he defigned to fend a Legate into
England to decide the Controverfy. But he was prevent-
ed by Death, which furprized him as he was travelling to

Calixtus II, SuccefTor to Gelafius, repairing to Rheims X. Scrijtor.
to hold a Council, Thurjlan obtained the King's Leave EaJmcr -
to go thither; but upon condition he would not re-
ceive Confecration from the Pope or any other Bifhop.
However, the King not confiding altogether on this
Prelate's Word, fent a Letter to the Pope, protefting,
if Thurjlan was confecrated by any but the Archbifhop
of Canterbury, he fhould never more 1st foot in Eng-
land. Notwithftanding this Proteftation, Calixtus him-
felf confecrated Thurjlan in the prcfence of the Conn
cil. The Archdeacon of Canterbury would have oppofed
it, but was told by the Pope, he defigned no manner
of Injury to the See of Canterbury. Henry not having E admer.
been able to prevent Thurjlan from being confecrated^ p. 136.
banifhed him the Kingdom with his whole Family. But Hovcd _-
he did not long remain in exile. The Pope, willing r ' ~ 7i '
to ftand by what he had done, threatned the King with
Excommunication, and his Kingdom with an Inter-
dict (5). The Pope's Refolutencfs caufed Henry to
yield at length, that Thurjlan fhould be inftallcd, with-
out making the cuftomary Stibmiffion to the See of
Canterbury. It is true, to fave the King's Honour, this
Prelate promifed, not to perform any of his Archiepifco-
pal Functions out of the Diocefe of York. Thus the
See of York recovered, in fome meafure, part of the
Ground it had loft. This Conteft was afterwards re-
vived feveral times : But there is no NecelTity of pur-
fuing this Subject any farther. What has been faid is
fufficient to fhow the State of the Cafe between the

I. 1. p. 206.
here it received a fins] Determination at the Feaft

(t) The Matter was to he referred to a Synod of Bilhops, and not to the Pope. Malm, de Gcfl. Pontif.
(~) The Caufe was firft debated at Wiixbtjicr, at the Fcalt of Eaftcr ; and afterwards at WinAfir, «
of Pcnlccofl. Malmsli. tic Gift. Part. 1. l. p. 212.

(3) King William I, atteiied and confirmed the Supremacy of Cmttrbtoj, by a Deed, which is in Sfclman. Cmcil. Vol. II. p. 5. 6 ; l" "ot forged. J

(4) The agreement was lublcribed by the King and Queen, Huitrt the Pope's Legate, the two Archbifhops, thirteen Bilhops, and eleven great Abbots,
who allot them added the Croi's after their Names, according to the Saxon Cuftom. .

(e) By wtueof this Interdict, all Divine Service was Wcwfe, and no part of the fccerdeUl Office to be «:«ifcd, u»fef> ui the Baptifm ot Infants and
Abfolution ot d\ ing Penitents.

N°. XL' Vol. I. II h !i ™'o


t&e Sec of
by degrc \

extend* ;r,

vuer SValcSt

E admen

7he HlSTORTof ENGLAND. Vol. I.

two Primates and the Grounds on which each built his came to the Papacy in the Reign of William the Con-


Before we leave this Difpute Concerning the Jurifdic-
tion of the two Sees, it will not be improper to fpealc
of fome other matters relating to that Affair. _ We have
feen, in the foregoing Book, that Gucan, a Weljh Prieft,

qucror, fet his Heart more upon this Affair than any of his
Predeceffors. He called a Council at Rome, where the
Clergy were forbid to marry under heavy Penalties. The
Italians, French, Spaniards, and Germans, fubmitted at
length, after long ftruggles. But the Englijh not being s. Dunelm.

nominated to the Bifhoprick of Landaff in Wales, was of opinion, that a Council confifting moltly of Italian Brompi.

confecrated by Dunjlan Archbifhop of Canterbury, tho'
the Bifhop of St. David's exercifed the Archiepifcopal
Functions in that Country. This was a new acqui-
fition of Power to the See of Canterbury, which 'till
then had no Jurifdiction over the Weljh Bifhops. . Gu-
can*, Succeffors following his Example, the Archbifhops
of Canterbury claimed the fame Power with regard to
the Bifhops in Wales. But they met with great

Bifhops, had power to enact Laws for all Chrijlendom,
were much more difficult. However Lanfranc, either to
make his Court to Gregory, or becaufe he was per-
fuaded of the Juftice of the thing, endeavoured to intro-
duce into England the Decrees of the Council of Rome.
To this purpofe he convened at Winchejler a national Sv-
nod, where this Affair was debated. He met with i'o
ftrong oppofition, that he was going to defift from his
defign. Nevertheless, finding he could not bring the
Synod, to prohibit all the Clergy in general from mar-
rying, he procured, on what pretence I know not, a
Decree that all Priefts who had their Cures in Cities,
fhould put away their Wives. But the Country Incum-


Oppofition. At length, in the Reign of Henry I, Ber-
nard the Queen's Chaplain, being nominated to the
See of St. David's, was confecrated by Ralph Archbifhop
of Canterbury. This Proceeding greatly ftrengthen'd the
Archbifhop's pretentions, who maintain'd, that fince his

Jurifdiction was own'd by the chief of the Weljl) Bifhops, bents were not fo rigoroufly ufed. However, to prevent
the reft could not be excus'd from profetfing Obedience, for the future the married Priefts from holding any Cures,
However, as Bernard repented afterwards of what he the Synod ordained, by Lanfranc 's fuggeftion, that none
had done, a long Conteft arofe, which was not deci- fhould be admitted into Orders, without a folemn Declara-
ded 'till Wain was united to England in the Reign of tion againft Marriage (2). This Reftraint difcouraging

Edward I.

toMeft a- Whilft Ralph fat in the Chair of Canterbury, he re-

"• ceived a Letter from Alexander I, King of Scotland, ac-

Online LibraryM. (Paul) Rapin de ThoyrasThe history of England : written in French (Volume 1) → online text (page 89 of 360)