The independent Christians of Scotland, who subordinated the authority of man to that of G.o.d, were filled with sorrow as they beheld these back-slidings: and it was this no doubt which induced many to leave their homes and fight in the very heart of Europe in behalf of that Christian liberty which had just expired among themselves.

[Sidenote: CLEMENT AND BONIFACE.]

At the commencement of the eighth century a great idea took possession of a pious doctor of the Scottish church named Clement.[109] The _work of G.o.d_ is the very essence of Christianity, thought he, and this work must be defended against all the encroachments of man. To human traditionalism he opposed the sole authority of the word of G.o.d; to clerical materialism, a church which is the a.s.sembly of the saints; and to Pelagianism, the sovereignty of grace. He was a man of decided character and firm faith, but without fanaticism; his heart was open to the holiest emotions of our nature; he was a husband and a father.

He quitted Scotland and travelled among the Franks, every where scattering the seeds of the faith. It happened unfortunately that a man of kindred energy, Winifrid or Boniface of Wess.e.x, was planting the pontifical Christianity in the same regions. This great missionary, who possessed in an essential degree the faculty of organization, aimed at external unity above all things, and when he had taken the oath of fidelity to Gregory II., he had received from that pope a collection of the Roman laws. Boniface, henceforth a docile disciple or rather a fanatical champion of Rome, supported on the one hand by the pontiff, and on the other by Charles Martel, had preached to the people of Germany, among some undoubted Christian truths,--the doctrine of t.i.thes and of papal supremacy. The Englishman and the Scotchman, representatives of two great systems, were about to engage in deadly combat in the heart of Europe--in a combat whose consequences might be incalculable.

[109] Alter qui dicitur Clemens, genere _Scotus_ est. Bonifacii epistola ad Papam, Labbei concilia ad ann. 745.

[Sidenote: CLEMENT'S SUCCESS.]

Alarmed at the progress made by Clement's evangelical doctrines, Boniface, archbishop of the German churches, undertook to oppose them.

At first he confronted the Scotchman with the laws of the Roman church; but the latter denied the authority of these ecclesiastical canons, and refuted their contents.[110] Boniface then put forward the decisions of various councils; but Clement replied that if the decisions of the councils are contrary to holy Scripture, they have no authority over Christians.[111] The archbishop, astonished at such audacity, next had recourse to the writings of the most ill.u.s.trious fathers of the Latin church, quoting Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory; but the Scotchman told him, that instead of submitting to the word of men, he would obey the word of G.o.d alone.[112] Boniface with indignation now introduced the Catholic church which, by its priests and bishops, all united to the pope, forms an invincible unity; but to his great surprise his opponent maintained that there only, where the Holy Spirit dwells, can be found the spouse of Jesus Christ.[113]

Vainly did the archbishop express his horror; Clement was not to be turned aside from his great idea, either by the clamours of the followers of Rome, or by the imprudent attacks made on the papacy by other Christian ministers. Rome had, indeed, other adversaries. A Gallic bishop named Adalbert, with whom Boniface affected to a.s.sociate Clement, one day saw the archbishop complacently exhibiting to the people some relics of St. Peter which he had brought from Rome; and being desirous of showing the ridiculous character of these Romish practices, he distributed among the bystanders his own hair and nails, praying them to pay these the same honours as Boniface claimed for the relics of the papacy. Clement smiled, like many others, at Adalbert's singular argument; but it was not with such arms that he was wont to fight. Gifted with profound discernment, he had remarked that the authority of man subst.i.tuted for the authority of G.o.d was the source of all the errors of Romanism. At the same time he maintained on predestination what the archbishop called "horrible doctrines, contrary to the Catholic faith."[114] Clement's character inclines us to believe that he was favourable to the doctrine of predestination. A century later the pious Gottschalk was persecuted by one of Boniface's successors for holding this very doctrine of Augustine's. Thus then did a Scotchman, the representative of the ancient faith of his country, withstand almost unaided in the centre of Europe the invasion of the Romans. But he was not long alone: the great especially, more enlightened than the common people, thronged around him. If Clement had succeeded, a Christian church would have been founded on the continent independent of the papacy.

[110] Canones ecclesiarum Christi abnegat et refutat. Ibid.

[111] Synodalia jura spernens. Ibid.

[112] Tractatus et sermones sanctorum patrum, Hieronymi, Augustini, Gregorii recusat. Ibid.

[113] Clemens contra catholicam contendit ecclesiam. Bonifacii epistola ad Papam, Labbei concilia ad ann. 745.

[114] Multa alia horribilia de praedestinatione Dei, contraria fidei catholicae affirmat. Ibid.

Boniface was confounded. He wished to do in central Europe what his fellow-countryman Wilfrid had done in England; and at the very moment he fancied he was advancing from triumph to triumph, victory escaped from his hands. He turned against this new enemy, and applying to Charles Martel's sons, Pepin and Carloman, he obtained their consent to the a.s.sembling of a council before which he summoned Clement to appear.

[Sidenote: CLEMENT CONDEMNED.]

The bishops, counts, and other notabilities having met at Soissons on the 2nd March 744, Boniface accused the Scotchman of despising the laws of Rome, the councils, and the fathers; attacked his marriage, which he called an adulterous union, and called in question some secondary points of doctrine. Clement was accordingly excommunicated by Boniface, at once his adversary, accuser, and judge, and thrown into prison, with the approbation of the pope and the king of the Franks.[115]

[115] Sacerdotio privans, reduci facit in custodiam. Concilium Romanum. Bonifacii epistola ad Papam, Labbei concilia ad ann. 745.

The Scotchman's cause was every where taken up; accusations were brought against the German primate, his persecuting spirit was severely condemned, and his exertions for the triumph of the papacy were resisted.[116] Carloman yielded to this unanimous movement. The prison doors were opened, and Clement had hardly crossed the threshold before he began to protest boldly against human authority in matters of faith: the word of G.o.d is the only rule. Upon this Boniface applied to Rome for the heretic's condemnation, and accompanied his request by a silver cup and a garment of delicate texture.[117] The pope decided in synod that if Clement did not retract his errors, he should be delivered up to everlasting d.a.m.nation, and then requested Boniface to send him to Rome under a sure guard. We here lose all traces of the Scotchman, but it is easy to conjecture what must have been his fate.

[116] Propter ista enim, persecutiones et inimicitias et maledictiones multorum populorum patior. (Ibid.) For on account of these things, I suffer the persecution and hatred and maledictions of mult.i.tudes.

[117] Poculum argenteum et sindonem unam. Gemuli Ep. Ibid.

Clement was not the only Briton who became distinguished in this contest. Two fellow-countrymen, Sampson and Virgil, who preached in central Europe, were in like manner persecuted by the Church of Rome.

Virgil, antic.i.p.ating Galileo, dared maintain that there were other men and another world beneath our feet.[118] He was denounced by Boniface for this _heresy_, and condemned by the pope, as were other Britons for the apostolical simplicity of their lives. In 813, certain Scotchmen who called themselves bishops, says a canon, having appeared before a council of the Roman church at Chalons, were rejected by the French prelates, because, like St. Paul, _they worked with their own hands_. Those enlightened and faithful men were superior to their time: Boniface and his ecclesiastical materialism were better fitted for an age in which clerical forms were regarded as the substance of religion.

[118] Perversa doctrina......quod alius mundus et alii homines sub terra sint. (Zachariae papae Ep. ad Bonif. Labbei concilia, vi. p. 152.) A heretical doctrine.....that there is another world and other men under the earth.

[Sidenote: DUNS SCOTUS.]

Even Great Britain, although its light was not so pure, was not altogether plunged in darkness. The Anglo-Saxons imprinted on their church certain characteristics which distinguished it from that of Rome; several books of the Bible were translated into their tongue, and daring spirits on the one hand, with some pious souls on the other, laboured in a direction hostile to popery.

At first we see the dawning of that philosophic rationalism, which gives out a certain degree of brightness, but which can neither conquer error nor still less establish truth. In the ninth century there was a learned scholar in Ireland, who afterwards settled at the court of Charles the Bald. He was a strange mysterious man, of profound thought, and as much raised above the doctors of his age by the boldness of his ideas, as Charlemagne above the princes of his day by the force of his will. John Scot Erigena--that is, a native of Ireland and not of Ayr, as some have supposed--was a meteor in the theological heavens. With a great philosophic genius he combined a cheerful jesting disposition. One day, while seated at table opposite to Charles the Bald, the latter archly inquired of him: "What is the distance between a _Scot_ and a _Sot_?" "The width of the table," was his ready answer, which drew a smile from the king. While the doctrine of Bede, Boniface, and even Alcuin was traditional, servile, and, in one word, Romanist, that of Scot was mystical, philosophic, free, and daring. He sought for the truth not in the word or in the Church, but in himself:--"The knowledge of ourselves is the true source of religious wisdom. Every creature is a theophany--a manifestation of G.o.d; since revelation presupposes the existence of truth, it is this truth, which is above revelation, with which man must set himself in immediate relation, leaving him at liberty to show afterwards its harmony with scripture, and the other theophanies. We must first employ reason, and then authority. Authority proceeds from reason, and not reason from authority."[119] Yet this bold thinker, when on his knees, could give way to aspirations full of piety: "O Lord Jesus,"

exclaimed he, "I ask no other happiness of Thee, but to understand, unmixed with deceitful theories, the word that Thou hast inspired by thy Holy Spirit! Show thyself to those who ask for Thee alone!" But while Scot rejected on the one hand certain traditional errors, and in particular the doctrine of transubstantiation which was creeping into the church, he was near falling as regards G.o.d and the world into other errors savouring of pantheism.[120] The philosophic rationalism of the contemporary of Charles the Bald--the strange product of one of the obscurest periods of history (850)--was destined after the lapse of many centuries to be taught once more in Great Britain as a modern invention of the most enlightened age.

[119] Prius ratione utendum ac deinde auctoritate. Auctoritas ex vera ratione processit, ratio vero nequaquam ex auctoritate. De div.

praedestin.

[120] Deum in omnibus esse. (De divisione naturae, b. 74.) That G.o.d is in all things.

[Sidenote: ALFRED AND THE BIBLE.]

While Scot was thus plumping the depths of philosophy, others were examining their Bibles; and if thick darkness had not spread over these first glimpses of the dawn, perhaps the Church of Great Britain might even then have begun to labour for the regeneration of Christendom. A youthful prince, thirsting for intellectual enjoyments, for domestic happiness, and for the word of G.o.d, and who sought, by frequent prayer, for deliverance from the bondage of sin, had ascended the throne of Wess.e.x, in the year 871. Alfred being convinced that Christianity alone could rightly mould a nation, a.s.sembled round him the most learned men from all parts of Europe, and was anxious that the English, like the Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins, should possess the holy scripture in their own language. He is the real patron of the biblical work,--a t.i.tle far more glorious than that of founder of the university of Oxford. After having fought more than fifty battles by land and sea, he died while translating the Psalms of David for his subjects.[121]

[121] A portion of the law of G.o.d translated by Alfred may be found in Wilkins, Concilia, i. p. 186 et seq.

After this gleam of light thick darkness once more settled upon Great Britain. Nine Anglo-Saxon kings ended their days in monasteries; there was a seminary in Rome from which every year fresh scholars bore to England the new forms of popery; the celibacy of priests, that cement of the Romish hierarchy, was established by a bull about the close of the tenth century; convents were multiplied, considerable possessions were bestowed on the Church, and the tax of _Peter's pence_, laid at the pontiff's feet, proclaimed the triumph of the papal system. But a reaction soon took place: England collected her forces for a war against the papacy, a war at one time secular and at another spiritual. William of Normandy, Edward III., Wickliffe, and the Reformation, are the four ascending steps of protestantism in England.

[Sidenote: WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR.]

A proud, enterprising, and far-sighted prince, the illegitimate son of a peasant girl of Falaise and Robert the Devil, duke of Normandy, began a contest with the papacy which lasted until the Reformation.

William the Conqueror, having defeated the Saxons at Hastings in 1066 A. D., took possession of England, under the benediction of the Roman pontiff. But the conquered country was destined to conquer its master.

William, who had invaded England in the pope's name, had no sooner touched the soil of his new kingdom, than he learned to resist Rome, as if the ancient liberty of the British Church had revived in him.

Being firmly resolved to allow no foreign prince or prelate to possess in his dominions a jurisdiction independent of his own, he made preparations for a conquest far more difficult than that of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom. The papacy itself furnished him with weapons. The Roman legates prevailed on the king to dispossess the English episcopacy in a ma.s.s, and this was exactly what he wished. To resist the papacy, William desired to be sure of the submission of the priests of England. Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, was removed, and Lanfranc of Pavia, who had been summoned from Bec in Normandy to fill his place, was commissioned by the Conqueror to bend the clergy to obedience. This prelate, who was regular in his life, abundant in almsgiving, a learned disputant, a prudent politician, and a skilful mediator, finding that he had to choose between his master King William and his friend the pontiff Hildebrand, gave the prince the preference. He refused to go to Rome, notwithstanding the threats of the pope, and applied himself resolutely to the work the king had intrusted to him. The Saxons sometimes resisted the Normans, as the Britons had resisted the Saxons; but the second struggle was less glorious than the first. A synod at which the king was present having met in the abbey of Westminster, William commanded Wulston, bishop of Worcester, to give up his crosier to him. The old man rose, animated with holy fervour: "O king," he said, "from a better man than you I received it, and to him only will I return it."[122] Unhappily this "better man" was not Jesus Christ. Then approaching the tomb of Edward the Confessor, he continued: "O my master, it was you who compelled me to a.s.sume this office; but now behold a new king and a new primate who promulgate new laws. Not unto them, O master, but unto you, do I resign my crosier and the care of my flock." With these words Wulston laid his pastoral staff on Edward's tomb. On the sepulchre of the confessor perished the liberty of the Anglo-Saxon hierarchy. The deprived Saxon bishops were consigned to fortresses or shut up in convents.

[122] Divino animi ardore repente inflammatus, regi inquit: Melior te his me ornavit cui et reddam. Wilkins, Concilia, i, 367.

[Sidenote: STRUGGLE BETWEEN WILLIAM AND HILDEBRAND.]

The Conqueror being thus a.s.sured of the obedience of the bishops, put forward the supremacy of the sword in opposition to that of the pope.

He nominated directly to all vacant ecclesiastical offices, filled his treasury with the riches of the churches, required that all priests should make oath to him, forbade them to excommunicate his officers without his consent, not even for incest, and declared that all synodal decisions must be countersigned by him. "I claim," said he to the archbishop one day, raising his arms towards heaven, "I claim to hold in this hand all the pastoral staffs in my kingdom."[123]

Lanfranc was astonished at this daring speech, but prudently kept silent,[124] for a time at least. Episcopacy connived at the royal pretensions.

[123] Respondit rex et dixit se velle omnes baculos pastorales Angliae in manu sus tenere. Script. Anglic. Lond. 1652, fol. p. 1327.

[124] Lanfranc ad haec miratus est, sed propter majores ecclesiae Christi utilitates, quas sine rege perficere non potuit, ad tempus _siluit_. Ibid.

Will Hildebrand, the most inflexible of popes, bend before William?

The king was earnest in his desire to enslave the Church to the State; the pope to enslave the State to the Church: the collision of these two mighty champions threatened to be terrible. But the haughtiest of pontiffs was seen to yield as soon as he felt the mail-clad hand of the Conqueror, and to shrink unresistingly before it. The pope filled all Christendom with confusion, that he might deprive princes of the right of invest.i.ture to ecclesiastical dignities: William would not permit him to interfere with that question in England, and Hildebrand submitted. The king went even farther: the pope, wishing to enslave the clergy, deprived the priests of their lawful wives; William got a decree pa.s.sed by the counsel of Winchester in 1076 to the effect that the married priests living in castles and towns should not be compelled to put away their wives.[125] This was too much: Hildebrand summoned Lanfranc to Rome, but William forbade him to go. "Never did king, not even a pagan," exclaimed Gregory, "attempt against the holy see what this man does not fear to carry out!"[126].... To console himself, he demanded payment of the _Peter's pence_, and an oath of fidelity. William sent the money, but refused the homage; and when Hildebrand saw the tribute which the king had paid, he said bitterly: "What value can I set on money which is contributed with so little honour!"[127] William forbade his clergy to recognise the pope, or to publish a bull without the royal approbation, which did not prevent Hildebrand from styling him "the pearl of princes."[128] "It is true," said he to his legate, "that the English king does not behave in certain matters so religiously as we could desire.... Yet beware of exasperating him.... We shall win him over to G.o.d and St. Peter more surely by mildness and reason than by strictness or severity."[129] In this manner the pope acted like the archbishop--_siluit_: he was silent. It is for feeble governments that Rome reserves her energies.

[125] Sacerdotes vero in castellis vel in vicis habitantes habentes uxores, non cogantur ut dimittant. Wilkins, Concilia, i. p. 367.

[126] Nemo enim omnium regum, etiam paganorum.... Greg. lib vii. Ep.

i. ad Hubert.

[127] Pecunias sine honore tributas, quanti pretii habeam. Ibid.

[128] Gemma principum esse meruisti. Greg. lib. vii. Epp. xxiii. ad Gulielm.

[129] Facilius lenitatis dulcedine ac rationis ostensione, quam austeritate vel rigore just.i.tiae. Ibid. Ep. v. ad Hugonem.

[Sidenote: CaeSAROPAPIA.]