whole Council. Therefore, though the name of the king and the year of his reign be expressed, yet as well the preamble as the body of the Council runs in the name of the archbishop and bishops of the province of Canterbury. And their names are only mentioned in the preamble, but there are no names subscribed: and indeed this seems to have been the practice of all the former English councils. Such is the form of those under Augustin, of those of Hertford and Hatfield under Theodore, of the council of Cloveshoe under Cuthbert in the year 7472. The like form appears in all the assemblies that may deserve the name either of national or provincial councils, that at Calcuith in the year 787 only excepted, from the coming of Augustin till after the Norman revolution; the archbishop being always particularly named, and the bishops of the province, sometimes in particular, sometimes under the general style of the assessors of the archbishop, inserted in the preamble to the Council, but without any subscriptions of names to the foot of the canons. And when they did sign the resolutions of councils, it was not with their names, but with the sign of the cross. And, however the aforesaid council of Calcuith may appear as an instance to the contrary, it is twice said in the body of that Council that the archbishop and bishops signed it with the sign of the cross, but not a syllable of subscribing their names, which doubtless would not have been omitted if it had been done or then in use. And the English church seems to have taken their pattern from the general practice of the catholic church; there being no such thing in any of the six first general councils as the names of the bishops subscribing the council they were present at, nor in any of the first provincial councils; nor are their names to be found therein, except the name of the bishop who presided therein, 2 [We have no detailed account of any councilor synod under Augustin. In the records of the council of Hertford in 672 or 673 and of the council of Hatfield, preserved in Bed. Eccles. Hist. IV, 5, 17, express mention is made of subscription: "Placuit ut quæque definita sunt unusquisque nostrum manus propriæ subscriptione confirmaret"; "hanc subscriptione ma sententiam .... nus nostræ confirmatam"; "nos om- 816. 816. unless the writing of any synodical epistle occasioned the mentioning of their names. 12. But a contrary practice appears in many of those assemblies said to be held at the founding, endowing, granting charters or privileges, or making constitutions for the good government of religious houses. But, though in the registers and cartularies of the monks these assemblies pass under the general names of councils and synods, and sometimes of national councils, and under the same titles are from thence inserted in the first volume of British Councils by the learned collector thereof, yet one who considers the acts of those assemblies shall not find one canon or constitution or scarce any one thing in all those assemblies but what relates to the religious only. The earliest instance of this kind is that assembly which passes under the title of the great council of Bacanceld held under Withred king of Kent and Berthwald archbishop of Canterbury in the year 694; to which is affixed a confused subscription of the names of the king, the archbishop, the bishop of Rochester, and no less than five abbesses, and after them one bishop and eight presbyters1. The like confused subscription is affixed to a charter of Ina a king of the West-Saxons to the monks of Malmesbury 2; to a charter to the abbey of Evesham, said to be granted by Constantine bishop of Rome, Egwin bishop of Worcester, and Coenred and Offa kings of the Mercians, and said to have been made at Rome in the year 7083: the like to the charter and famous visions of the aforesaid Egwin; to a charter of privileges said to be granted to the monasteries of the kingdom of Mercia by king Ethelbald: the like to the constitution ascribed to the council of Bacanceld in the year 7986. And so fond were the later monks of this kind of pomp, that those of Peterborough have furnished 1 Concil. Britan. Spelman I, 190, [Wilkins IV, 745. See before, viii, 3, note 15.] 2 Ibid. Spelman I, 229, [Wilkins I, 80. The charter was granted to the abbey of Glastonbury.] 3 Ibid. Spelman I, 210, [Wilkins IV, 748. In the charter Offa is described as king of the East-Angles: he was really king of the EastSaxons. The charter purports to have been made in the year 709, in which year, as we learn from Bede and the Saxon Chronicle, Coenred and Offa went to Rome. See before, X, 4, especially note 3.] 4 Ibid. Spelman I, 212, [Wilkins IV, 749. See before, x, 2, 3] 5 Ibid. Spelman I, 257, [Wilkins I, 101.] 6 [See §§ 2, 3, 4, of this chapter.] us with the names of two kings and two archbishops 7, witnesses to a lease said to be let by the abbot and monks of that abbey. And indeed almost all the charters and grants to the religious, down to the Conquest, are attended with such subscriptions of names. In short, the instances of this kind are so many, that, though they are for the most part unfortunate in their names and dates, yet one would not be forward to pronounce them all impostures. 13. But, if one may be allowed to judge of a matter so much in the dark, it seems probable that the names of the archbishop with the bishops assisting him in provincial synods were anciently only inserted in the preamble to the canons thereof. And by the sixth canon of this council it appears that the ancient way of subscribing Councils with the sign of the cross, not with the names of the bishops, was the present usage of the English church. But the ninth canon requiring the bishop of every diocese to get a copy of the canons of the former councils, and to have the year of the Lord and the names of the archbishop and bishops present at such councils inserted therein, might probably give occasion first to the notaries to write the names of the bishops, and in time to them to subscribe their own names. And it seems very likely that this afterward gave occasion to the monastics to apply the names of the bishops and fix dates to older councils, charters, and constitutions, in which they were more nearly concerned. And hence the different applications of grants, charters, and constitutions to different men and councils, the inconsistency of names and dates, and confused subscriptions, and many of those difficulties that perplex and entangle our history and sometimes lead men to make a wrong judgment of the usages and constitution of the ancient English church, may possibly be accounted for, without robbing us of so many monuments of antiquity, or laying a greater load on the monastics than it can appear they have deserved. But (to say nothing of the art of making charters some of them have been noted for) the great share they had in the ignorance of this and the succeeding ages, and the mighty zeal and application with which they ever watched 7 [One archbishop and two bishops.] Sax. Chron. an. 775, [but 777 in Monum. Hist. Brit. See 816. 816. over the interest of their foundations, will still add to the probability of this conjecture. But, whatever is to be said in favour of their charters and constitutions, there are some, however said to have the approbation of synods, whose faults are too big for any charity to cover; and, as they have the air and style of their legends, had probably the same beginning, and seem to deserve the same credit and authority. CHAPTER XVI. AB ANNO 816 AD ANNUM 854. 1. Catholic unity defined by the council of Calcuith, as by that of Cloveshoe, contrary to the doctrine of the church of Rome: the occasion thereof. The pretended power of the bishops of Rome. 2. Authority of the church of England asserted, and the sentence of the archbishop of Canterbury declared final, by this council. Appeals not allowed. 3. Sense of this council of the blessed sacrament. 4. Sense of this council in point of images and relics contrary to that of Nice. 5. Baronius' argument to prove image-worship introduced by Augustin grounded on a mistake. 6. Images not in use in England at the time of this council. 7. Monasteries or colleges of seculars and regulars distinguished. The like in other western nations. The rules of St. Basil, Benedict, &c. not yet generally received. 8. Antiquity of secular canons. Ground of quarrel betwixt monks and married clergy. State of the lower clergy in the year 816. 9. English monarchy established under Egbert. The steps he made in order thereunto. Name of England said to be assumed in his time. That name more ancient. 10. Advantages to the church expected from uniting several kingdoms, defeated by the depredations of the Danes. Import of several councils. 11. Several charters said to be granted about this time to the religious, particularly to the monasteries of Crowland and Peterborough. Several of the bishops and clergy take arms to oppose the Danes. 12. King Æthelwulf goes to Rome; enlarges the grant of Peter-pence. This improved in after-times to a great revenue; became a grievance, and was complained of by the English parliaments. 13. Alfred, a younger son of Æthelwulf, said to be anointed king at Rome: the ground thereof. 14. Anointing a ceremony used at confirmation. This probably the occasion of what is said of the anointing Alfred king. 1. THE third canon of the aforesaid council seems to be taken from the second canon of the council of Cloveshoe held under Cuthbert archbishop of Canterbury in the year 747; by which that council, in opposition to the contrary doctrine of Boniface archbishop of Mentz, asserted the unity of the catholic church to consist in an agreement of Christians in the same faith, hope, and charity, and in prayers and good offices for the salvation of each other, and not in an unity with the church of Rome, or in any submission to the bishops thereof, as Boniface pretended 1. Whether it was the late controversy, occasioned by the division of the province of Canterbury, that gave occasion to revive this canon, or upon what other views this council acted therein, is not to be determined at this distance: but this canon, compared with the eleventh, is enough to show that the sense of the English church, with respect to the unity of the catholic church and the freedom and independence of the church of England, was still the same as in the aforesaid council of Cloveshoe. For, when they speak of the catholic church and the government thereof in the third canon, they assert Christ the head thereof, and that, without flattery or preference of one bishop to another, bishops were all fellowservants, and found the unity of Christians in their union with Christ the head of his church. And upon this ground they affirm that the bishops of the catholic church have one and the same authority derived to them from Christ, and, as such, are fellow-servants and fellow-labourers 2; which doubtless they would not have affirmed, if they had been acquainted with any distinct or superior degree of power over the catholic church given by Christ to St. Peter or the bishops of Rome, or indeed if they had esteemed themselves within the bounds of the Roman patriarchate. For this was the language of St. Cyprian and other archbishops of Carthage and primates 1 [See before, xi, 9.] 2 Ut sit omnium una voluntas in opere et sermone, vel in judicio, sine cujusquam adulatione et disceptatione; quia unius ministerii sumus conservi, unius fabricationis coope- 816. |