VOLUME VI SLICE III Chitral to Cincinnati (continued 9)

It is this striving after religious experience that gives to the Oriental monachism of the middle ages its peculiar character. In the 5th and 6th centuries Egypt and Palestine had been the classic lands of monks and monasteries. But when, in consequence of the Arab invasion, the monasticism of those countries was cut off from intercourse with the rest of Christendom, it decayed. Constantinople and Mount Athos gained proportionately in importance during the middle ages. At Constantinople the monastery of Studium, founded about 460, attained to supreme influence during the controversy about images. On Mount Athos the first monastery was founded in the year 963, and in 1045 the number of monastic foundations had reached 180. In Greek monachism the old Hellenic ideal of the wise man who has no wants (αὐτάρκεια) was from the first fused with the Christian conception of unreserved self-surrender to God as the highest aim and the highest good. These ideas governed it in medieval times also, and in this way monastic life received a decided bent towards mysticism: the monks strove to realize the heavenly life even upon earth, their highest aim being the contemplation of God and of His ways. The teachings of Symeon “the New Theologian” on these matters lived on in the cloisters; it was taken up by the Hesychasts of the 14th century, and developed into a peculiar theory as to the perception of the Divine Light. In spite of all opposition their teaching was finally justified by the Eastern Church (sixth synod of Constantinople, 1351). And rightly so, for it was the old Greek piety minted afresh.

The Eastern Church, then, throughout the middle ages, remained true in every particular to her ancient character. It cannot be said that she developed as did the Western Church during this period, for she remained what she had been; but she freely developed her original characteristics, consistently, in every direction. This too is life, though of a different type from that of the West.

That there was life in the Eastern Church is also proved by the fact that the power of expansion was not denied her. Through her agency an important bulwark for the Christian faith was created in the new nations which had sprung into existence since the beginning of the middle ages: the Bulgarians, the Servians, and the multifarious peoples grouped under the name of Russians. There is a vast difference in national character between these young peoples and the successors of the Hellenes; and it is therefore all the more significant to find that both the Church and religious sentiment should in their case have fully preserved the Byzantine character. This proves once more the ancient capacity of the Greeks for the assimilation of foreign elements.

There was yet another outcome of this stubborn persistency of a peculiar type—the impossibility of continuing to share the life of the Western Church. Neither in the East nor in the West was a separation desired; but it was inevitable, since the lives of East and West were moving in different directions. It was the fall of Constantinople that first weakened the vital force of the Eastern Church. May we hope that the events of modern times are leading her towards a renaissance?

(b) The Nestorian and the Monophysite Churches.—Since the time when the church of eastern Syria had decided, in opposition to the church of the Empire, to cling to the ancient views of Syrian theologians—therefore also to the teaching and person of Nestorius—her relations were broken off with the church in western Syria and in Greek and Latin countries; but the power of Nestorian, or, as it was termed, Chaldaic Christianity, was not thereby diminished. Separated from the West, it directed its energies towards the East, and here its nearest neighbour was the Persian church. The latter followed, almost without opposition, the impulse received from Syria; from the rule of the patriarch Babacus (Syr. Bāb-hāi, 498-503) she may be considered definitely Nestorian. A certain number, too, of Arabic Christians, believers living on the west coast of India, the so-called Christians of St Thomas, and finally those belonging to places nearer the middle of Asia (Merv, Herat, Samarkand), remained in communion with the Nestorian church. Thus there survived in mid-Asia a widely-scattered remnant, which, although out of touch with the ancient usages of Christian civilization, yet in no way lacked higher culture. Nestorian philosophers and medical practitioners became the teachers of the great Arabian natural philosophers of the middle ages, and the latter obtained their knowledge of Greek learning from Syriac translations of the works of Greek thinkers.

Political conditions at the beginning of the middle ages favoured the Nestorian church, and the fact that the Arabs had conquered Syria, Palestine and Egypt, made it possible for her to exert an influence on the Christians in these countries. Of still more importance was the brisk commercial intercourse between central Asia and the countries of the Far East; for this led the Nestorians into China. The inscription of Si-ngan-fu (before 781) proves a surprisingly widespread extension of the Christian faith in that country. That it also possessed adherents in southern Siberia we gather from the inscriptions of Semiryetchensk, and in the beginning of the 11th century it found its way even into Mongolia. Nowhere were the nations Christian, but the Christian faith was everywhere accepted by a not insignificant minority. The foundation of the Mongolian empire in the beginning of the 13th century did not disturb the position of the Nestorian church; but the revival of the Mahommedan power, which was coincident with the downfall of the Mongolian empire, was pregnant with disaster for her. The greater part of Nestorian Christendom was now swallowed up by Islam, so that only remnants of this once extensive church have survived until modern times.

The middle ages were far more disastrous for the Monophysites than for the Nestorians; in their case there was no alternation of rise and decline, and we have only a long period of gradual exhaustion to chronicle. Egypt was the home of Monophysitism, whence it extended also into Syria. It was due to the great Jacob of Edessa (Jacob Baradaeus, d. 578) that it did not succumb to the persecution by the power of the Orthodox Empire, and out of gratitude to him the Monophysite Christians of Syria called themselves Jacobites. The Arab conquest (after 635) freed the Jacobite church entirely from the oppression of the Orthodox, and thereby assured its continuance. The church, however, never attained any greater development, but on the contrary continued to lose adherents from century to century. While Jacob of Edessa is said to have ordained some 100,000 priests and deacons for his fellow-believers, in the 16th century the Jacobites of Syria were estimated at only 50,000 families.

The Monophysite church of Egypt had a like fate. At the time of the separation of the churches the Greeks here had remained faithful to Orthodoxy, the Copts to Monophysitism. Here too the Arab conquest (641) put an end to the oppression of the native Christians by the Greek minority; but this did not afford the Coptic church any possibility of vigorous development. It succumbed to the ceaseless alternation of tolerance and persecution which characterized the Arab rule in Egypt, and the mass of the Coptic people became unfaithful to the Church. At the time of the conquest of the country by the Turks (1517) the Coptic church seems already to have fallen to the low condition in which the 19th century found it. Though at the time of the Arab conquest the Copts were reckoned at six millions, in 1820 the Coptic Christians numbered only about one hundred thousand, and it is improbable that their number can have been much greater at the close of the middle ages. Only in Abyssinia the daughter church of the Coptic church succeeded in keeping the whole people in the Christian faith. This fact, however, is the sole outcome of the history of a thousand years; a poor result, if measured by the standard of the rich history of the Western world, yet large enough not to exclude the hope of a new development.

II. The West. (a) The Early Middle Ages. The Catholic Church as influenced by the Foundation of the Teutonic States.—While the Eastern Church was stereotyping those peculiar characteristics which made her a thing apart, the Church of the West was brought face to face with the greatest revolution that Europe has ever experienced. At the end of the 6th century all the provinces of the Empire had become independent kingdoms, in which conquerors of Germanic race formed the dominant nationality. The remnants of the Empire showed an uncommonly tough vitality. It is true that the Teutonic states succeeded everywhere in establishing themselves; but only in England and in the erstwhile Roman Germany did the Roman nationality succumb to the Teutonic. In the other countries it not only maintained itself, but was able to assimilate the ruling German race; the Lombards, West Goths, Swabians, and even the Franks in the greater part of Gaul became Romanized. Consequently the position of the Christian Church was never seriously affected. This is the great fact which stands out at the beginning of the history of the Church in the middle ages. The continuity of the political history of Europe was violently interrupted by the Germanic invasion, but not that of the history of the Church. For, in view of the facts above stated, it was of small significance that in Britain Christianity was driven back into the western portion of the island still held by the Britons, and that in the countries of the Rhine and Danube a few bishoprics disappeared.

This was of the less importance, as the Church immediately made preparations to win back the lost territory. On the frontier line of ancient and medieval times stands the figure of Gregory I., the incarnation as it were of the change that was taking place: half Father of the Church, half medieval pope. He it was who sent the monk Augustine to England, in order to win over the Anglo-Saxons to the Christian faith. Augustine was not the first preacher of the Gospel at Canterbury. A Frankish bishop, Liudhard, had laboured there before his time; but the mission of Augustine and his ordination as a bishop were decisive in the conversion of the country and the establishment of the Anglo-Saxon church. On the continent an extension of the Frankish supremacy towards the east had already led to the advance of Christendom. Not only were the bishoprics in the towns of the Rhine country re-established, but as the Franks colonized the country on both sides of the Main, they carried the Christian faith into the very heart of Germany. Finally, the dependence of the Swabian and Bavarian peoples on the Frankish empire paved the way for Christianity in those provinces also. Celtic monks worked as missionaries in this part of the country side by side with Franks. In England it had not been possible to bring the old British and the young Anglo-Saxon churches into friendly union; but in spite of this the Celts did not abstain from working at the common tasks of Christendom, and the continent has much to thank them for. When the first century of the middle ages came to an end the Church had not only reoccupied the former territory of the Empire, she had already begun to overstep its limits.

In so doing she had remained as of old and had yet become new. Creed and dogma, above all, remained unchanged. The doctrinal decisions of the ancient Church remained the indestructible canon of belief, and what the theologians of the ancient Church had taught was reverenced as beyond improvement. The entire form of divine worship remained therefore unaltered. Even where the Latin tongue was not understood by the people, the Church preserved it in the Mass and in the administration of the sacraments, in her exorcisms and in her benedictions. Furthermore, the organization of ecclesiastical offices remained unchanged: the division of the Church into bishoprics and the grouping together of bishoprics into metropolitan dioceses. Finally, the property and the whole social status of the Church and of the hierarchy remained unchanged, as did also the conviction that the perfection of the Christian life was to be sought and found in the monastic profession.

Nevertheless, the new conditions did exercise the strongest influence upon the character of the Church. The churches of the Lombards, West Goths, Franks and Anglo-Saxons, all counted themselves parts of the Catholic Church; but the Catholic Church had altered its condition; it lacked the power of organization, and split up into territorial churches. Under the Empire the ecumenical council had been looked upon as the highest representative organ of the Catholic Church; but the earlier centuries of the middle ages witnessed the convocation of no ecumenical councils. Under the Empire the bishop of Rome had possessed in the Church an authority recognized and protected by the State; respect for Rome and for the successor of Saint Peter was not forgotten by the new territorial churches, but it had altered in character; legal authority had become merely moral authority; its wielder could exhort, warn, advise but could not command.

On the other hand, the kings did command in the Church. They certainly claimed no authority over faith or doctrine, and they too respected doctrinal law; but they succeeded in asserting their rights to a practical share in the government of the Church. The clergy and laity of a diocese together elected their bishop, as they had done before; but no one could become a bishop against the will of the king, and the confirmation of their choice rested with him. The bishops continued to meet in synods as before, but the councils became territorial synods; they were called together at irregular intervals by the king, and their decisions obtained legal effect only by royal sanction.

In these circumstances the intrusion of Germanic elements into ecclesiastical law is easy to understand. This is most clearly recognizable in the case of churches which arose alongside the episcopal cathedrals. In the Empire all churches, and all the property of the Church, were at the disposal of the bishops; in Germanic countries, on the contrary, the territorial nobles were looked upon as the owners of churches built upon their lands, and these became “proprietary churches.” The logical consequence of this was that the territorial nobles claimed the right of appointing clergy, and the enjoyment of the revenues of these churches derived from the land (tithes). Even a certain number of the monastic establishments came in this way into the possession of the feudal landowners, who nominated abbots and abbesses as they appointed the incumbents of their churches.

With these conditions, and with the diminution of the ascendancy of town over country that resulted from the Teutonic conquests, is connected the rise of the parochial system in the country. The parishes were further grouped together into rural deaneries and archdeaconries. Thus the diocese, hitherto a simple unit, became an elaborately articulated whole. The bishopric of the middle ages bears the same name as that of the ancient Church; but in many respects it has greatness that is new.

This transformation of old institutions is the first great result of Germanic influence in the Christian Church. It continues to the present day in the universal survival of the parochial system.

In the middle ages the civilizing task of the Church was first approached in England. This was the home of the Latin Christian literature and theology of medieval times. Aldhelm (d. 709) and the Venerable Bede (d. 735) were the first scholars of the period. England was also the home of Winfrid Bonifatius (d. 757). We are accustomed to look upon him chiefly as a missionary; but his completion of the conversion of the peoples of central Germany (Thuringians and Hessians) and his share in that of the Frisians, are the least part of his life-work. Of more importance is the fact that, in co-operation with the bishops of Rome, he carried out the organization of the church in Bavaria, and began the reorganization of the Frankish church, which had fallen into confusion and decay during the political disorders of the last years of the Merovingians. It was Boniface, too, who, with the aid of numerous English priests, monks and nuns, introduced the literary culture of England into Germany.

Pippin (d. 768) and Charlemagne (d. 814) built on the foundations laid by Winfrid. For the importance of Charlemagne’s work, from the point of view of the Church, consists also, not so much in the fact that, by his conversion of the Saxons, the Avars and the Wends in the eastern Alps, he substantially extended the Church’s dominions, as in his having led back the Frankish Church to the fulfilment of her functions as a religious and civilizing agent. This was the purpose of his ecclesiastical legislation. The principal means to this end taken by him was the raising of the status of the clergy. From the priests he demanded faithfulness in preaching and teaching, from the bishops the conscientious government of their dioceses. The monasteries, too, learned to serve the Church by becoming nurseries of literary and theological culture. For the purpose of carrying out his ideas Charlemagne gathered round him the best intellects of Europe. None was more intimately associated with him than the Anglo-Saxon Alcuin (d. 804); but he was only one among many. Beside him are the Celts Josephus Scottus and Dungal, the Lombards Paulinus and Paulus Diaconus, the West Goth Theodulf and many Franks. Under their guidance theology flourished in the Frankish empire. It was as little original as that of Bede; for on the continent, too, scholars were content to think what those of old had thought before them. But in so doing they did not only repeat the old formulae; the ideas of the men of old sprang into new life. This is shown by the searching discussions to which the Adoptionist controversy gave rise. At the same time, the controversy with the Eastern Church over the adoration of images shows that the younger Western theology felt itself equal, if not superior to the Greek. This was in fact the case; for it knew how to treat the question, which divided the Greeks, in a more dispassionate and practical manner than they.

The second generation of Frankish theologians did not lag behind the first. Hrabanus of Fulda (who died archbishop of Mainz in 856) was in the range of his knowledge undoubtedly Alcuin’s superior. He was the first learned theologian produced by Germany. His disciple, Abbot Walafrid Strabo of Reichenau (d. 849), was the author of the Glossa Ordinaria, a work which formed the foundation of biblical exposition throughout the middle ages. France was still more richly provided with theologians in the 9th century: her most prominent names are Hincmar, archbishop of Reims (d. 882), Bishop Prudentius of Troyes (d. 861), the monks Servatus Lupus (d. 862), Radbert Paschasius (d. circa 860), and Ratramnus (d. after 868); and the last theologian who came into France from abroad, Johannes Scotus Erigena (d. circa 880). The theological method of all these was merely that of restatement. But the controversy about predestination, which, in the 9th century, Hincmar and Hrabanus fought out with the monk Gottschalk of Fulda, as well as the discussions that arose from the definition of the doctrine of transubstantiation of Radbert, enable us to gauge the intellectual energy with which theological problems were once more being handled.

Charlemagne followed his father’s policy in carrying out his ecclesiastical measures in close association with the bishops of Rome. He renewed the donation of Pippin, and as Patrician he took Rome under his protection. From Pope Adrian I. he received the Dionyso-Hadriana, the Roman collection of material bearing on the ancient ecclesiastical law. But the Teutonic elements maintained their place in the law of the Frankish Church; and this was not altered by the fact that, since Christmas 800, the king of the Franks and Lombards had borne the title of Roman emperor. On the contrary, Rome itself was now for the first time affected by the predominance of the new empire; for Charlemagne converted the patriciate into effective sovereignty, and the successor of St Peter became the chief metropolitan of the Frankish empire.

There were, indeed, forces tending in the contrary direction; and these were present in the Frankish empire. Evidence of this is given by the canon law forgeries of the 9th century: the capitula of Angelram, the Capitularies of Benedictus Levita (see CAPITULARY), and the great collection of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. For the moment, however, this party met with no success. Of more importance was the fact that at Rome the old conditions, the old claims, and the old law were unforgotten. Developing the ideas of Leo I., Gelasius I. and Gregory the Great, Nicholas I. (858-867) drew a picture of the divine right and unlimited power of the bishop of Rome, which anticipated all that the greatest of his successors were, centuries later, actually to effect. The time had not, however, yet come for the establishment of the papal world-dominion. For, while the power of Charlemagne’s successors was decaying, the papacy itself became involved in the confusion of the party strife of Italy and of the city of Rome, and was plunged in consequence into such an abyss of degradation (the so-called Pornocracy), that it was in danger of forfeiting every shred of its moral authority over Christendom.

(b) Central Period of the Middle Ages. Dominance of the Roman Spirit in the Church.—After the accession of the House of Saxony (919), the national ecclesiastical system, founded upon the principles of Carolingian law, developed in Germany with fresh energy. The union in 962 by Otto I. of the revived Empire with the German kingship brought the latter into uninterrupted contact with the papacy. The revelation of the antagonism between the German conception of ecclesiastical affairs and Roman views of ecclesiastical law was sooner or later inevitable. This was most obvious in the matter of appointment to bishoprics. At Rome canonical election was alone regarded as lawful; in Germany, on the other hand, developments since the time of Charlemagne had led to the actual appointment of bishops being in the hands of the king, although the form of ecclesiastical election was preserved. For the transference of a bishopric a special legal form was evolved—that of investiture, the king investing the bishop elect with the see by delivering to him the ring and pastoral staff. No one found anything objectionable in this; investiture with a bishopric was parallel with the appointment by a territorial proprietor to a patronal church.

The practice customary in Germany was finally transferred to Rome itself. The desperate position of the papacy in the 11th century obliged Henry III. to intervene. When, on the 24th of December 1046, after three rival popes had been set aside, he nominated Suidgar, bishop of Bamberg, as bishop of Rome before all the people in St Peter’s, the papacy was bestowed in the same way as a German bishopric; and what had occurred in this case was to become the rule. By procuring the transference of the patriciate from the Roman people to himself Henry assured his influence over the appointment of the popes, and accordingly also nominated the successors of Clement II.

His intervention saved the papacy. For the popes nominated by him, Leo IX. in particular, were men of high character, who exercised their office in a loftier spirit than their corrupt predecessors. They placed themselves at the head of the movement for ecclesiastical reform. But was it possible for the relation between Empire and Papacy to remain what Henry III. had made it?

The original sources of this reform movement lay far back, in the time of the Carolingians. It has been pointed out how Charlemagne pressed the monks into the service of his civilizing aims. We admire this; but it is certain that he thereby alienated monasticism from its original ideals. These, however, had far too strong a hold upon the Roman world for a reaction against the new tendency to be long avoided. This reaction began with the reform of Benedict of Aniane (d. 821), the aim of which was to bring the Benedictine order back to the principles of its original rules. In the next century the reform movement acquired a fresh centre in the Burgundian monastery of Cluny. The energy of a succession of distinguished abbots and the disciples whom they inspired succeeded in bringing about the victory of the reforming ideas in the French monasteries; once more the rule of St Benedict controlled the life of the monks. A large number of the reformed monasteries attached themselves to the congregation of Cluny, thus assuring the influence of reformed monasticism upon the Church, and securing likewise its independence of the diocesan bishops, since the abbot of Cluny was subordinate of the pope alone. (See Cluny; Benedictines and Monasticism.) At the same time that Cluny began to grow into importance, other centres of the monastic reform movement were established in Upper and Lower Lorraine; and before long the activity of the Cluniac monks made itself felt in Italy. In Germany Poppo of Stavelot (d. 1048) was a successful champion of their ideas; in England Dunstan (d. 988 as archbishop of Canterbury) worked independently, but on similar lines. Everywhere the object was the same: the supreme obligation of the Rule, the renewal of discipline, and also the economic improvement of the monasteries. The reform movement had originally no connexion with ecclesiastical politics; but that came later when the leaders turned their attention to the abuses prevalent among the clergy, to the conditions obtaining in the Church in defiance of the ecclesiastical law. “Return to the canon law!” was now the battle-cry. In the Cluniac circle was coined the principle: Canonica auctoritas Dei lex est, canon law being taken in the Pseudo-Isidorian sense. The programme of reform thus included not only the extirpation of simony and Nicolaitism, but also the freeing of the Church from the influence of the State, the recovery of her absolute control over all her possessions, the liberty of the Church and of the hierarchy.

As a result, the party of reform placed itself in opposition to those ecclesiastical conditions which had arisen since the conversion of the Teutonic peoples. It was, then, a fact pregnant with the most momentous consequences that Leo IX. attached himself to the party of reform. For, thanks to him and to the men he gathered round him (Hildebrand, Humbert and others), their principles were established in Rome, and the pope himself became the leader of ecclesiastical reform. But the carrying out of reforms led at once to dissensions with the civil power, the starting-point being the attack upon simony.

Originally, in accordance with Acts viii. 18 et seq., simony was held to be the purchase of ordination. In the 9th century the interpretation was extended to include all acquisition of ecclesiastical offices or benefices for money or money’s worth. Since the landed proprietors disposed of churches and convents, and the kings of bishoprics and abbeys, it became possible for them too to commit the sin of simony; hence a final expansion, in the 11th century, of the meaning of the term. The Pseudo-Isidorian idea being that all lay control over things ecclesiastical is wrong, all transferences by laymen of ecclesiastical offices or benefices, even though no money changed hands in the process, were now classed as simony (Humbert, Adversus Simoniacos, 1057-1058). Thus the lord who handed over a living was a simonist, and so too was the king who invested a bishop. On this question the battle began. The Church at first refrained from contesting the rights of the landowners over their own churches, and concentrated her attack upon investiture. In 1059 the new system of papal election introduced by Nicholas II. ensured the occupation of the Holy See by a pope favourable to the party of reform; and in 1078 Gregory VII. issued his prohibition of lay investiture. In the years of conflict that followed Gregory looked far beyond this point; he set his aim ever higher; until, in the end, his idea was to concentrate all ecclesiastical power in the hands of the pope, and to raise the papacy to the dominion of the world. Thus was to be realized the old dream of Augustine: that of a Kingdom of God on earth under the rule of the Church. But it was not given to Gregory to reach this goal, and his successors had to return again to the strife over investiture. The settlement of 1111 may be said to have embodied the only solution of the great question that was right in principle, since it pronounced in favour of a clear distinction between the spiritual and temporal spheres. However, a solution that was right in principle proved impossible in practice, and the long struggle ended in a compromise by the Concordat of Worms (1122). The essential part of this was that the Empire accepted the canonical election of bishops, and allowed the metropolitan to confer the sacred office by gift of ring and pastoral staff; while the Church acknowledged that the bishop held his temporal rights from the Empire, and was therefore to be invested with them by a touch from the royal sceptre. A similar solution was arrived at in England. Henry I. also renounced his claim to bestow ring and pastoral staff, but kept the right of induction into the temporalities (1106-1107). In France the demands of the Church were successful to the same degree as in England and Germany, but without any conflict. Thus the Germanic element in the law regarding appointment to bishoprics was eliminated. Somewhat later it disappeared also in the case of the churches of less importance, patronal rights over these being substituted for the former absolute ownership. The pontificate of Alexander III. (1159-1181) decided this.

Since the time of Charlemagne Germanic influence had preponderated in the West, as is shown in the expansion of the Church no less than in matters of ecclesiastical law. The whole progress of Christianity in Europe from the 9th to the 12th century was due—if we exclude Eastern Christendom—to the Teutonic nations; neither the papacy nor the peoples of Latin race were concerned in it. German priests and bishops carried the Christian faith to the Czechs and the Moravians, laboured among the Hungarians and the Poles, and won the wide district between the Elbe and the Oder at once for Christianity and for the German nation. Germany, too, was the starting-point for the conversion of the Scandinavian countries, which was completed by English priests with the assistance of native princes.

But, even while the Teutonic peoples were thus taking the lead, we can see the Latin races beginning to assert themselves. The monastic reform movement was essentially Latin in origin; and even more significant was the fact that scholasticism, the new theology, had its home in the Latin countries. Aristotelian dialectics had always been taught in the schools; and reason as well as authority had been appealed to as the foundation of theology; but for the theologians of the 9th and 10th centuries, whose method had been merely that of restatement, ratio and auctoritas were in perfect accord. Then Berengar of Tours (d. 1088) ventured to set up reason against authority: by reason the truth must be decided. This involved the question of the relation in theology of authority and reason, and of whether the theological method is authoritative or rational. To these questions Berengar gave no answer; he was ruined by his opposition to Radbert’s doctrine of transubstantiation. The Lombard Anselm (d. 1109), archbishop of Canterbury, was the first to deal with the subject. He took as his starting-point the traditional faith; but he was convinced that whoever has experience of the truths of the faith would be able to understand them. In accordance with this principle he pointed out the goal of theology and the way to its attainment: the function of theology is to demonstrate dogmas sola ratione.

It was a bold conception—too bold for the medieval world, for which faith was primarily the obligation to believe. It was easy, therefore, to understand why Anselm’s method did not become the dominant one in theology. Not he, but the Frenchman Abelard (d. 1142), was the creator of the scholastic method. Abelard, too, started from tradition; but he discovered that the statements of the various authorities are very often in the relation of sic et non, yes and no. Upon this fact he based his pronouncement as to the function of theology: it must employ the dialectic method to reconcile the contradictions of tradition, and thus to shape the doctrines of the faith in accordance with reason. By teaching this method Abelard created the implements for the erection of the great theological systems of the schoolmen of the 12th and 13th centuries: Peter Lombard (d. 1160), Alexander of Hales (d. 1245), Albertus Magnus (d. 1280), and Thomas Aquinas (d. 1275). They adventured a complete exposition of Christian doctrine that should be altogether ecclesiastical and at the same time altogether rational. In so doing they set to work at the same time to complete the development of ecclesiastical dogma; the formulation of the Catholic doctrine of the Sacraments was the work of scholasticism.

Canon law is the twin-sister of scholasticism. At the very time when Peter Lombard was shaping his Sentences, the monk Gratian of Bologna was making a new collection of laws. It was not only significant that in the Concordia discordantium canonum ecclesiastical laws, whether from authentic or forged sources, were gathered together without regard to the existing civil law; of even greater eventual importance was the fact that Gratian taught that the contradictions of the canon law were to be reconciled by the same method as that used by theology to reconcile the discrepancies of doctrinal tradition. Thus Gratian became the founder of the science of canon law, a science which, like the scholastic theology, was entirely ecclesiastical and entirely rational (See Canon Law).

Like the new theology and the new science of law, the new monasticism was also rooted in Latin soil. In the first of the new orders, that of the Cistercians (1098), the old monastic ideal set forth in the Rule of Benedict of Nursia still prevailed; but in the constitution and government of the order new ideas were at work. In the Premonstratensian order, however, founded in 1120 by Norbert of Xanten, a new conception of the whole function of monachism was introduced: the duty of the priest-monk is not only to work out his own salvation, but, by preaching and cure of souls, to labour for others. This was the dominant idea of the order of friars preachers founded in 1216, on the basis of the Premonstratensian rule, by Dominic of Osma (see Dominic, Saint, and Dominicans). It was also the basis of the order of friars minor (Franciscans, q.v.), founded in 1210. For the foundation of Francis of Assisi came into existence as a society of itinerant preachers: no one was more deeply convinced than Francis of the duty of working for others, and his own mission was, as he said, to win souls. But with this idea he fused another, namely, that it is the task of the monk to imitate the humility and poverty of Jesus; and his order thus became a mendicant order. From the earliest times the monks had renounced all private property, and no individual monk, but only the order to which he belonged, could acquire possessions. For Francis this was not enough: he put “holy poverty” in place of renunciation of private property, and allowed neither monk nor monastery to have any possessions whatever; for only thus is the following of Jesus complete. So mighty was the impression made by the poverty of the Minorites, that the Dominicans promptly followed their example and likewise became mendicant.

This alone would serve to indicate the remarkable deepening of the religious life that had taken place in the Latin countries. Its beginning may be traced as early as the 11th century (Pietro Damiani, q.v.), and in the 12th century the most influential exponent of this new piety was Bernard (q.v.) of Clairvaux, who taught men to find God by leading them to Christ. Contemporary with him were Hugh (q.v.) of St Victor and his pupil Richard (q.v.) of St Victor, both monks of the abbey of St Victor at Paris, the aim of whose teaching, based on that of the Pseudo-Dionysius, was a mystical absorption of thought in the Godhead and the surrender of self to the Eternal Love. Under the influence of these ideas, in part purely Christian and in part neo-platonic, piety gained in warmth and depth and became more personal; and though at first it flourished in the monasteries, and in those of the mendicant orders especially, it penetrated far beyond them and influenced the laity everywhere.

The new piety did not set itself in opposition either to the hierarchy or to the institutions of the Church, such as the sacraments and the discipline of penance, nor did it reject those foreign elements (asceticism, worship of saints and the like) which had passed of old time into Christianity from the ancient world. Its temper was not critical, but aggressively practical. It led the Romance nations to battle for Christendom. In the 11th and 12th centuries the chivalry of Spain and southern France took up the struggle with the Moors as a holy war. In the autumn of 1096 the nobles of France and Italy, joined by the Norman barons of England and Sicily, set out to wrest the Holy Land from the unbelievers; and for more than a century the cry, “Christ’s land must be won for Christ,” exercised an unparalleled power in Western Christendom.

All this meant a mighty exaltation of the Church, which ruled the minds of men as she had hardly ever done before. Nor was it possible that the position of the bishop of Rome, the supreme head of the Western Church, should remain unaffected by it. Two of the most powerful of the German emperors, Frederick I. and his son Henry VI., struggled to renew and to maintain the imperial supremacy over the papacy. The close relations between northern Italy and the Empire, and the union of the sovereignty of southern Italy with the German crown, seemed to afford the means for keeping Rome in subjection. But Frederick I. fought a losing battle, and when at the peace of Venice (1177) he recognized Alexander III. as pope, he relinquished the hope of carrying out his Italian policy; while Henry VI. died at the early age of thirty-two (1197), before his far-reaching schemes had been realized.

The field was thus cleared for the full development of papal power. This had greatly increased since the Concordat of Worms, and reached its height under Innocent III. (1198-1216). Innocent believed himself to be the representative of God, and as such the supreme possessor of both spiritual and temporal power. He therefore claimed in both spheres the supreme administrative, legislative and judicial authority. Just as he considered himself entitled to appoint to all ecclesiastical offices, so also he invested the emperor with his empire and kings with their kingdoms. Not only did he despatch his decretals to the universities to form the basis of the teaching of the canon law and of the decisions founded upon it, but he considered himself empowered to annul civil laws. Thus he annulled the Great Charter in 1215. Just as the Curia was the supreme court of appeal in ecclesiastical causes, so also the pope threatened disobedient princes with deposition, e.g. the emperor Otto IV. in 1210, and John of England in 1212.

The old institutions of the Catholic Church were transformed to suit the new position of the pope. From 1123 onward there had again been talk of general councils; but, unlike those of earlier times, these were assemblies summoned by the pope, who confirmed their resolutions. The canonical election of bishops also continued to be discussed; but the old electors, i.e. the clergy and laity of the dioceses, were deprived of the right of election, this being now transferred exclusively to the cathedral chapters. The bishops kept their old title, but they described themselves accurately as “bishops by grace of the apostolic see,” for they administered their dioceses as plenipotentiaries of the pope; and as time went on even the Church’s criminal jurisdiction became more and more concentrated in the hands of the pope (see Inquisition).

The rule of the Church by the Roman bishop had thus become a reality; but the papal claim to supreme temporal authority proved impossible to maintain, although Innocent III. had apparently enforced it. The long struggle against Frederick II., carried on by Gregory IX. (1227-1241) and Innocent IV. (1243-1254), did not result in victory; no papal sentence, but only death itself, deprived the emperor of his dominions; and when Boniface VIII. (1294-1303), who in the bull Unam Sanctam (1302) gave the papal claims to universal dominion their classical form, quarrelled with Philip IV. of France about the extension of the royal power, he could not but perceive that the national monarchy had become a force which it was impossible for the papacy to overcome.

(c) Close of the Middle Ages. Disintegration.—While the Church was yet at the height of her power the great revolution began, which was to end in the disruption of that union between the Temporal and the Spiritual which, under her dominion, had characterized the life of the West. The Temporal now claimed its proper rights. The political power of the Empire, indeed, had been shattered; but this left all the more room for the vigorous development of national states, notably of France and England. At the same time intellectual life was enriched by a wealth of fresh views and new ideas, partly the result of the busy intercourse with the East to which the Crusades had given the first impetus, and which had been strengthened and extended by lively trade relations, partly of the revived study, eagerly pursued, of ancient philosophy and literature (see Renaissance). Old forms became too narrow, and vigorously growing national literatures appeared side by side with the universal Latin literature. The life of the Church, moreover, was affected by the economic changes due to the rise of the power of money as opposed to the old economic system based upon land.

The effects of these changes made themselves felt on all sides, in no case more strongly than in that of the papal claims to the supreme government of the world. Theoretically they were still unwaveringly asserted; indeed it was not till this time that they received their most uncompromising expression (Augustinus Triumphus, d. 1328; Alvarus Pelagius, d. 1352). After Boniface VIII., however, no pope seriously attempted to realize them; to do so had in fact become impossible, for from the time of their residence at Avignon (1305-1377) the popes were in a state of complete dependence upon the French crown. But even the curialistic theory met everywhere with opposition. In France Philip IV.’s jurists maintained that the temporal power was independent of the spiritual. In Italy, a little later, Dante championed the divine right of the emperor (De Monarchia, 1311). In Germany, Marsiglio of Padua and Jean of Jandun, the literary allies of the emperor Louis IV., ventured to define anew the nature of the civil power from the standpoint of natural law, and to assert its absolute sovereignty (Defensor pacis, c. 1352); while the Franciscan William of Occam (d. 1349) examined, also in Louis’ interests, into the nature of the relation between the two powers. He too concluded that the temporal power is independent of the spiritual, and is even justified in invading the sphere of the latter in cases of necessity.

While these thoughts were filling men’s minds, opposition to the papal rule over the Church was also gaining continually in strength. The reasons for this were numerous, first among them being the abuses of the papal system of finance, which had to provide funds for the vast administrative machinery of the Curia. There was also the boundless abuse and arbitrary exercise of the right of ecclesiastical patronage (provisions, reservations); and further the ever-increasing traffic in dispensations, the abuse of spiritual punishments for worldly ends, and so forth. No means, however, existed of enforcing any remedy until the papal schism occurred in 1378. Such a schism as this, so intolerable to the ecclesiastical sense of the middle ages, necessitated the discovery of some authority superior to the rival popes, and therefore able to put an end to their quarrelling. General councils were now once more called to mind; but these were no longer conceived as mere advisory councils to the pope, but as the highest representative organ of the universal Church, and as such ranking above the pope, and competent to demand obedience even from him. This was the view of the Germans Conrad of Gelnhausen (d. 1390) and Heinrich of Langenstein (d. 1397), as also of the Frenchmen Pierre d’Ailli (d. 1420) and Jean Charlier Gerson (d. 1429). These all recognized in the convocation of a general council the means of setting bounds to the abuses in the government of the Church by an extensive reform. The council of Pisa (1409) separated without effecting anything; but the council of Constance (1414-1418) did actually put an end to the schism. The reforms begun at Constance and continued at Basel (1431-1449) proved, however, insufficient. Above all, the attempt to set up the general council as an ordinary institution of the Catholic Church failed; and the Roman papacy, restored at Constance, preserved its irresponsible and unlimited power over the government of the Church. (See Papacy; Constance, Council of, and Basel, Council of.)

Thus the attempt to reform the Church by means of councils failed; but this very failure led to the survival of the desire for reform. It was kept alive by the most various circumstances; in the first instance by the attitude of the European states. Thanks to his recognition by the powers, Pope Eugenius IV. (1431-1447) had been victorious over the council of Basel; but neither France nor Germany was prepared to forgo the reforms passed by the council. France secured their validity, as far as she herself was concerned, by the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (July 7, 1438); Germany followed with the Acceptation of Mainz (March 26, 1439). The theory of the papal supremacy held by the Curia was thus at least called in question.

The antagonism of the opposition parties was even more pronounced. The tendencies which they represented had been present when the middle ages were yet at their height; but the papacy, while at the zenith of its power, had succeeded in crushing the attacks made upon the creed of the Church by its most dangerous foes, the dualistic Cathari. On the other hand it had not been able to overcome the less radical opposition of the “Poor Man of Lyons” (Waldo, d. c. 1217), and even in the 15th century stray supporters of the Waldensian teaching were to be found in Italy, France and Germany, everywhere keeping alive mistrust of the temporal power of the Church, of her priesthood and her hierarchy. In England the hierarchy was attacked by John Wycliffe (d. 1384), its greatest opponent before Luther. Starting from Augustine’s conception of the Church as the community of the elect, he protested against a church of wealth and power, a church that had become a political institution instead of a school of salvation, and against its head, the bishop of Rome. Wycliffe’s ideas, conveyed to the continent, precipitated the outbreak of the Hussite storm in Bohemia. The council of Constance thought to quell it by condemnation of Wycliffe’s teaching and by the execution of John Huss (1415). But in vain. The flame burst forth, not in Bohemia alone, where Huss’s death gave the signal for a general rising, but also in England among the Lollards, and in Germany among those of Huss’s persuasion, who had many points of agreement with the remnant of the Waldenses.

(See Huss; Wycliffe; Lollards; Waldenses.)

This was open opposition; but there was besides another opposing force which, though it raised no noise of controversy, yet was far more widely severed from the views of the Church than either Wycliffe or Huss: this was the Renaissance, which began its reign in Italy during the 14th century. The Renaissance meant the emancipation of the secular world from the domination of the Church, and it contributed in no small measure to the rupture of the educated class with ecclesiastical tradition. Beauty of form alone was at first sought, and found in the antique; but, with the form, the spirit of the classical attitude towards life was revived. While the Church, like a careful mother, sought to lead her children, never allowed to grow up, safely from time into eternity, the men of the Renaissance felt that they had come of age, and that they were entitled to make themselves at home in this world. They wished to possess the earth and enjoy it by means of secular education and culture, and an impassable gulf yawned between their views of religion and morality and those of the Church.

This return to the ideals of antiquity did not remain confined to Italy, but the humanism of the northern countries presents no close parallel to the Italian renaissance. However much it agreed in admiration of the ancients, it differed absolutely in its preservation of the fundamental ideas of Christianity. But neither Reuchlin (d. 1522), Erasmus (d. 1536), Faber d’Étaples (d. 1536), Thomas More (d. 1535), nor the numerous others who were their disciples, or who shared their views, were in the least degree satisfied with the conditions prevailing in the Church. Their ideal was a return to that simplicity of primitive Christendom which they believed they found revealed in the New Testament and in the writings of the early Fathers.

To this theology could not point the way. Since the time of Duns Scotus (d. 1308) theologians had been conscious of the discrepancy between Aristotelianism and ecclesiastical dogma. Faith in the infallibility of the scholastic system was thus shaken, and the system itself was destroyed by the revival of philosophic nominalism, which had been discredited in the 11th century by the realism of the great schoolmen. It now found a bold supporter in William of Occam (q.v.), and through him became widely accepted. But nominalism was powerless to inspire theology with new life; on the contrary, its intervention only increased the inextricable tangle of the hairsplitting questions with which theology busied itself, and made their solution more and more impossible.

Mysticism, moreover, which had no lack of noteworthy supporters in the 14th and 15th centuries, and the various new departures in thought initiated by individual theologians such as Nicolaus Cusanus (d. 1464) and Wessel Gansfort (d. 1489), were not competent to restore to the Church what she had once possessed in scholasticism—that is to say, a conception of Christianity in which all Christendom recognized the convictions in which it lived and had its being.

This was all the more significant because Western Christendom in the 15th century was by no means irreligious. Men’s minds were agitated by spiritual questions, and they sought salvation and the assurance of salvation, using every means prescribed by the Church: confession and the communion, indulgences and relics, pilgrimages and oblations, prayers and attendance at church; none of all these were contemned or held cheap. Yet the age had no inward peace.

After the failure of the attempts at reform by the councils, the guidance of the Church was left undisturbed in the hands of the popes, and they were determined that it should remain so. In 1450 Eugenius IV. set up in opposition to the council of Basel a general council summoned by himself, which met first at Ferrara and afterwards at Florence. Here he appeared to score a great success. The split between East and West had led in the 11th century to the rupture of ecclesiastical relations between Rome and Constantinople. This schism had lasted since the 16th of July 1054; but now a union with the Eastern Church was successfully accomplished at Florence. Eugenius certainly owed his success merely to the political necessities of the emperor of the East, and his union was forthwith destroyed owing to its repudiation by oriental Christendom; yet at the same time his decretals of union were not devoid of importance, for in them the pope reaffirmed the scholastic doctrine regarding the sacraments as a dogma of the Church, and he spoke as the supreme head of all Christendom.

This claim to the supreme government of the Church was to be steadily maintained. In the year 1512 Julius II. called together the fifth Lateran general council, which expressly recognized the subjection of the councils to the pope (Leo X.’s bull Pastor Aeternum, of the 19th of December 1516), and also declared the constitution Unam Sanctam (see above) valid in law.

But the papacy that sought to win back its old position was itself no longer the same as of old. Eugenius IV.’s successor, Nicholas V. (1447-1455), was the first of the Renaissance popes. Under his successors the views which prevailed at the secular courts of the Italian princes came likewise into play at the Curia: the papacy became an Italian princedom. Innocent VIII., Alexander VI., Julius II. were in many respects remarkable men, but they were scarcely affected by the convictions of the Christian faith. The terrible tragedy which was consummated on the 23rd of May 1498 before the Palazzo Vecchio, in Florence, casts a lurid light upon the irreconcilable opposition in which the wearers of the papal dignity stood to medieval piety; for Girolamo Savonarola was in every fibre a loyal son of the medieval Church.

Twenty years after Savonarola’s death Martin Luther made public his theses against indulgences. The Reformation which thus began brought the disintegrating process of the middle ages to an end, and at the same time divided Western Catholicism in two. Yet we may say that this was its salvation; for the struggle against Luther drove the papacy back to its ecclesiastical duties, and the council of Trent established medieval dogma as the doctrine of modern Catholicism in contradistinction to Protestantism. (See also Papacy; Renaissance; Reformation, and biographies of popes, &c.)

Authorities.—For sources see U. Chevalier, Répertoire des sources historiques du moyen-âge (Paris, 1903); A. Potthast, Bibliotheca historica medii aevi (Berlin, 1896); W. Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter (7th ed., Stuttgart, 1904); A. Molinier, Les Sources de l’histoire de la France (Paris, 1901). General Treatises: Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (12 yols., 5th ed., New York, 1889-1892), vol. iv. Medieval Christianity; W. Moeller, Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vol. ii. Das Mittelalter (Freiburg, 1891); H.H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity (6 vols., 2nd ed., London, 1857). Particular Treatises: J. Lingard, The History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church (2 vols. 3rd ed., London, 1845); E. Churton, The Early English Church (London, 1878); A. Martineau, Church History in England from the Earliest Times to the Reformation (London, 1878); W. Hunt, The English Church from its Foundation to the Norman Conquest (London, 1899); W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England (3 vols., London, 1874-1878); A. Bellesheim, Geschichte der kathol. Kirche in Schottland (2 vols., Mainz, 1883; Engl. transl. with Notes and Additions by O.H. Blair, 4 vols., Edinburgh, 1887-1890); W. Stephen, History of the Scottish Church (Edinburgh, 1894-1896, 2 vols.); W.D. Killen, The Ecclesiastical History of Ireland (2 vols., London, 1875-1878); A. Bellesheim, Geschichte der kath. Kirche in Irland (3 vols., Mainz, 1890-1891); F. Rettberg, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (2 vols. Göttingen, 1846, 1848); A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (4 vols., Leipzig, 3rd ed., 1904); Gallia Christiana in provincias eccl. distributa (16 and 3 vols., Paris, 1715-1900); F.N. Fager, Histoire de l’église cathol. en France depuis son origine (19 vols., Paris, 1862-1873); Ughelli, Italia sacra (10 vols., Venice, 1717-1722); P. Gams, Kirchengeschichte von Spanien (5 vols., Regensburg, 1862-1879); H. Reuterdahl, Svenska Kyrkans historia (3 vols., Lund, 1838-1863); A. v. Maurer, Die Bekehrung des norwegischen Stammes (2 vols., Munich, 1855-1856); Bang, Udsigt over den norske Kirkes historie under Katholicismen (Christiania, 1887); P. Gams, Series episcoporum ecclesiae catholicae (Regensburg, 1873); C. Eubel, Hierarchia catholica medii aevi (2 vols., Münster, 1898, 1901); P. Hinschius, System des kath. Kirchenrechts (6 vols., Berlin, 1869-1896); E. Friedberg, Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts (5th ed., Leipzig, 1903); U. Stutz, “Kirchenrecht” (Holtzendorff-Kohler, Encyklopaedie der Rechtswissenschaft, 6th ed. II. Leipzig, 1904); B. Hauréau, Histoire de la philosophie scolastique (Paris, 1872); F. Schwane, Dogmengeschichte der mittleren Zeit (Freiburg, 1882); A. Ebert, Allgem. Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters im Abendlande (3 vols., Leipzig, 1874-1887); C.F. v. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte (2nd ed., 9 vols., Freiburg, 1873-1890).

(A. H.*)

C. The Modern Church

The issue in 1564 of the canons of the council of Trent marks a very definite epoch in the history of the Christian Church. Up till that time, in spite of the schism of East and West and of innumerable heresies, the idea of the Church as Catholic, not only in its faith but in its organization, had been generally accepted. From this conception the Reformers had, at the outset, no intention of departing. Their object had been to purify the Church of medieval accretions, and to restore the primitive model in the light of the new learning; the idea of rival “churches,” differing in their fundamental doctrines and in their principles of organization, existing side by side, was as abhorrent to them as to the most rigid partisan of Roman centralization. The actual divisions of Western Christendom are the outcome, less of the purely religious influences of the Reformation period than of the political forces with which they were associated and confused. When it became clear that the idea of doctrinal change would find no acceptance at Rome, the Reformers appealed to the divine authority of the civil power against that of the popes; and princes within their several states succeeded, as the result of purely political struggles and combinations, in establishing the form of religion best suited to their convictions or their policy. Thus over a great part of Europe the Catholic Church was split up into territorial or national churches, which, whatever the theoretical ties which bound them together, were in fact separate organizations, tending ever more and more to become isolated and self-contained units with no formal intercommunion, and, as the rivalry of nationalities grew, with increasingly little even of intercommunication.

It was not, indeed, till the settlement of Westphalia in 1648, after the Thirty Years’ War, that this territorial division of Christendom became stereotyped, but the process had been going on for a hundred years previously; in some states, as in England and Scotland, it had long been completed; in others, as in South Germany, Bohemia and Poland, it was defeated by the political and missionary efforts of the Jesuits and other agents of the counter-Reformation. In any case, it received a vast impetus from the action of the council of Trent. With the issue of the Tridentine canons, all hope even of compromise between the “new” and the “old” religions was definitely closed. The anathema of the Roman Church had fallen upon all the fundamental doctrines for which the Reformers had contended and died; the right of free discussion within the limits of the creeds, which had given room for the speculations of the medieval philosophers, was henceforth curtailed and confined; and the definitions of the schoolmen were for ever exalted by the authority of Rome into dogmas of the Church. The Latin Church, which, by combining the tradition of the Roman centralized organization with a great elasticity in practice and in the interpretation of doctrine, had hitherto been the moulding force of civilization in the West, is henceforth more or less in antagonism to that civilization, which advances in all its branches—in science, in literature, in art—to a greater or less degree outside of and in spite of her, until in its ultimate and most characteristic developments it falls under the formal condemnation of the pope, formulated in the famous Syllabus of 1864. Considered from the standpoint of the world outside, the Roman Church is, no less than the Protestant communities, merely one of the sects into which Western Christendom has been divided—the most important and widespread, it is true, but playing in the general life and thought of the world a part immeasurably less important than that filled by the Church before the Reformation, and one in no sense justifying her claim to be considered as the sole inheritor of the tradition of the pre-Reformation Church.

If this be true of the Roman Catholic Church, it is still more so of the other great communities and confessions which emerged from the controversies of the Reformation. Of these the Anglican Church held most closely to the tradition of Catholic organization; but she has never made any higher claim than to be one of “the three branches of the Catholic Church,” a claim repudiated by Rome and never formally admitted by the Church of the East. The Protestant churches established on the continent, even where—as in the case of the Lutherans—they approximate more closely than the official Anglican Church to Roman doctrine and practice, make no such claim. The Bible is for them the real source of authority in doctrine; their organization is part and parcel of that of the state. They are, in fact, the state in its religious aspect, and as such are territorial or national, not Catholic. This tendency has been common in the East also, where with the growth of racial rivalries the Orthodox Church has split into a series of national churches, holding the same faith but independent as to organization.

A yet further development, of comparatively recent growth, has been the formation of what are now commonly called in England the “free churches.” These represent a theory of the Church practically unknown to the Reformers, and only reached through the necessity for discovering a logical basis for the communities of conscientious dissidents from the established churches. According to this the Catholic Church is not a visibly organized body, but the sum of all “faithful people” throughout the world, who group themselves in churches modelled according to their convictions or needs. For the organization of these churches no divine sanction is claimed, though all are theoretically modelled on the lines laid down in the Christian Scriptures. It follows that, while in the traditional Church, with its claim to an unbroken descent from a divine original, the individual is subordinate to the Church, in the “free churches” the Church is in a certain sense secondary to the individual. The believer may pass from one community to another without imperilling his spiritual life, or even establish a new church without necessarily incurring the reproach of schism. From this theory, powerful in Great Britain and her colonies, supreme in the United States of America, has resulted an enormous multiplication of sects.

It follows from the above argument that, from the period of the Reformation onward, no historical account of the Christian Church as a whole, and considered as a definite institution, is possible. The stream of continuity has been broken, and divides into innumerable channels. The only possible synthesis is that of the Christianity common to all; as institutions, though they possess many features in common, their history is separate and must be separately dealt with. The history of the various branches of the Christian Church since the Reformation will therefore be found under their several titles (see Roman Catholic Church; England, Church of; Presbyterianism; Baptists, &c, &c.).

(W. A. P.)

CHURCHILL, CHARLES (1731-1764), English poet and satirist, was born in Vine Street, Westminster, in February 1731. His father, rector of Rainham, Essex, held the curacy and lectureship of St John’s, Westminster, from 1733, and the son was educated at Westminster school, where he became a good classical scholar, and formed a close and lasting intimacy with Robert Lloyd. Churchill was entered at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1749, but never resided. He had been refused at Oxford, ostensibly on the unlikely ground of lack of classical knowledge, but more probably because of a hasty marriage which he had contracted within the rules of the Fleet in his eighteenth year. He and his wife lived in his father’s house, and Churchill was afterwards sent to the north of England to prepare for holy orders. He became curate of South Cadbury, Somersetshire, and, on receiving priest’s orders (1756), began to act as his father’s curate at Rainham. Two years later the elder Churchill died, and the son was elected to succeed him in his curacy and lectureship. His emoluments amounted to less than £100 a year, and he increased his income by teaching in a girls’ school. He fulfilled his various duties with decorum for a while, but his marriage proved unfortunate, and he spent much of his time in dissipation in the society of Robert Lloyd. He was separated from his wife in 1761, and would have been imprisoned for debt but for the timely help of Lloyd’s father, who had been an usher and was now a master of Westminster school.

Churchill had already done some work for the booksellers, and his friend Lloyd had had some success with a didactic poem, “The Actor.” His intimate knowledge of the theatre was now turned to account in the Rosciad, which appeared in March 1761. This reckless and amusing satire described with the most disconcerting accuracy the faults of the various actors and actresses on the London stage. Its immediate popularity was no doubt largely due to its personal character, but its real vigour and raciness make it worth reading even now when the objects of Churchill’s wit are many of them forgotten. The first impression was published anonymously, and in the Critical Review, conducted by Tobias Smollett, it was confidently asserted that the poem was the joint production of George Colman, Bonnell Thornton and Robert Lloyd. Churchill owned the authorship and immediately published an Apology addressed to the Critical Reviewers, which, after developing the subject that it is only the caste of authors that prey on their own kind, repeats the fierce attack on the stage. Incidentally it contains an enthusiastic tribute to Dryden, of whom Churchill was a not unworthy scholar. In the Rosciad he had given warm praise to Mrs Pritchard, Mrs Cibber and Mrs Clive, but no leading London actor, with the exception of David Garrick, had escaped censure, and in the Apology Garrick was clearly threatened. He deprecated criticism by showing every possible civility to Churchill, who became a terror to the actors. Thomas Davies wrote to Garrick attributing his blundering in the part of Cymbeline “to my accidentally seeing Mr Churchill in the pit, it rendering me confused and unmindful of my business.” Churchill’s satire made him many enemies, and inquiries into his way of life provided abundant matter for retort. In Night, an Epistle to Robert Lloyd (1761), he answered the attacks made on him, offering by way of defence the argument that any faults were better than hypocrisy. His scandalous conduct brought down the censure of the dean of Westminster, and in 1763 the protests of his parishioners led him to resign his offices, and he was free to wear his “blue coat with metal buttons” and much gold lace without remonstrance from the dean. The Rosciad had been refused by several publishers, and was finally published at Churchill’s own expense. He received a considerable sum from the sale, and paid his old creditors in full, besides making an allowance to his wife.

He now became a close ally of John Wilkes, whom he regularly assisted with the North Briton. The Prophecy of Famine: A Scots Pastoral (1763), his next poem, was founded on a paper written originally for that journal. This violent satire on Scottish influence fell in with the current hatred of Lord Bute, and the Scottish place-hunters were as much alarmed as the actors had been. When Wilkes was arrested he gave Churchill a timely hint to retire to the country for a time, the publisher, Kearsley, having stated that he received part of the profits from the paper. His Epistle to William Hogarth (1763) was in answer to the caricature of Wilkes made during the trial. In it Hogarth’s vanity and envy were attacked in an invective which Garrick quoted as “shocking and barbarous.” Hogarth retaliated by a caricature of Churchill as a bear in torn clerical bands hugging a pot of porter and a club made of lies and North Britons. The Duellist (1763) is a virulent satire on the most active opponents of Wilkes in the House of Lords, especially on Bishop Warburton. He attacked Dr Johnson among others in The Ghost as “Pomposo, insolent and loud, Vain idol of a scribbling crowd.” Other poems are “The Conference” (1763); “The Author” (1763), highly praised by Churchill’s contemporaries; “Gotham” (1764), a poem on the duties of a king, didactic rather than satiric in tone; “The Candidate” (1764), a satire on John Montagu, fourth earl of Sandwich, one of Wilkes’s bitterest enemies, whom he had already denounced for his treachery in the Duellist (Bk. iii.) as “too infamous to have a friend”; “The Farewell” (1764); “The Times” (1764); “Independence,” and an unfinished “Journey.”

In October 1764 he went to Boulogne to join Wilkes. There he was attacked by a fever of which he died on the 4th of November. He left his property to his two sons, and made Wilkes his literary executor with full powers. Wilkes did little. He wrote an epitaph for his friend and about half a dozen notes on his poems, and Andrew Kippis acknowledges some slight assistance from him in preparing his life of Churchill for the Biographia Britannica (1780). There is more than one instance of Churchill’s generosity to his friends. In 1763 he found his friend Robert Lloyd in prison for debt. He paid a guinea a week for his better maintenance in the Fleet, and raised a subscription to set him free. Lloyd fell ill on receipt of the news of Churchill’s death, and died shortly afterwards. Churchill’s sister Patty, who was engaged to Lloyd, did not long survive them. William Cowper was his schoolfellow, and left many kindly references to him.

A partial collection of Churchill’s poems appeared in 1763. They are included in Chalmers’s edition of the English poets, and were edited (1804) by W. Tooke. This was reprinted in the Aldine edition (1844). There is a revised edition (1892) in the same series, The Poetical Works of Charles Churchill, with a Memoir by J.L. Hannay and copious notes by W. Tooke. For Churchill’s biography, see Genuine Memoirs of Charles Churchill, with an account of and observations on his writings; together with some Original letters ... between him and the author (1765); A. Kippis, in Biographia Britannica (1780); also John Forster in the Edinburgh Review (January 1845).

CHURCHILL, LORD RANDOLPH HENRY SPENCER (1840-1895), English statesman, third son of John, seventh duke of Marlborough, by Frances, daughter of the third marquess of Londonderry, was born at Blenheim Palace, on the 13th of February 1849. His early education was conducted at home, and at Mr Tabor’s preparatory school at Cheam. In January 1863 he went to Eton, where he remained till July 1865. He was not specially distinguished either in school work or games while at Eton; his contemporaries describe him as a vivacious and rather unruly lad. In October 1867 he matriculated at Merton College, Oxford. He was fond of amusement, and had carried to Oxford an early taste for sport which he retained throughout life. But he read with some industry, and obtained a second class in jurisprudence and modern history in 1870. In 1874 he was elected to parliament in the Conservative interest for Woodstock, defeating Mr George Brodrick, a fellow, and afterwards warden, of Merton College. His maiden speech, delivered in his first session, made no impression on the House.

It was not till 1878 that he forced himself into public notice as the exponent of a species of independent Conservatism. He directed a series of furious attacks against some of the occupants of the front ministerial bench, and especially that “old gang” who were distinguished rather for the respectability of their private characters, and the unblemished purity of their Toryism, than for striking talent. Mr Sclater-Booth (afterwards 1st Lord Basing), president of the Local Government Board, was the especial object of his ire, and that minister’s County Government Bill was fiercely denounced as the “crowning dishonour to Tory principles,” and the “supreme violation of political honesty.” The audacity of Lord Randolph’s attitude, and the vituperative fluency of his invective, made him a parliamentary figure of some importance before the dissolution of the 1874 parliament, though he was not as yet taken quite seriously. In the new parliament of 1880 he speedily began to play a more notable rôle. With the assistance of his devoted adherents, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, Sir John Gorst and occasionally of Mr Arthur Balfour, and one or two others, he constituted himself at once the audacious opponent of the Liberal administration and the unsparing critic of the Conservative front bench. The “fourth party,” as it was nicknamed, was effective at first not so much in damaging the government as in awakening the opposition from the apathy which had fallen upon it after its defeat at the polls. Churchill roused the Conservatives and gave them a fighting issue, by putting himself at the head of the resistance to Mr Bradlaugh, the member for Northampton, who, though an avowed atheist or agnostic, was prepared to take the parliamentary oath. Sir Stafford Northcote, the Conservative leader in the Lower House, was forced to take a strong line on this difficult question by the energy of the fourth party, who in this case clearly expressed the views of the bulk of the opposition. The long and acrimonious controversy over Mr Bradlaugh’s seat, if it added little to the reputation of the English legislature, at least showed that Lord Randolph Churchill was a parliamentary champion who added to his audacity much tactical skill and shrewdness. He continued to play a conspicuous part throughout the parliament of 1880-1885, dealing his blows with almost equal vigour at Mr Gladstone and at the Conservative front bench, some of whose members, and particularly Sir Richard Cross and Mr W.H. Smith, he assailed with extreme virulence. From the beginning of the Egyptian imbroglio Lord Randolph was emphatically opposed to almost every step taken by the government. He declared that the suppression of Arabi Pasha’s rebellion was an error, and the restoration of the khedive’s authority a crime. He called Mr Gladstone the “Moloch of Midlothian,” for whom torrents of blood had been shed in Africa. He was equally severe on the domestic policy of the administration, and was particularly bitter in his criticism of the Kilmainham treaty and the rapprochement between the Gladstonians and the Parnellites. It is true that for some time before the fall of the Liberals in 1885 he had considerably modified his attitude towards the Irish question, and was himself cultivating friendly relations with the Home Rule members, and even obtained from them the assistance of the Irish vote in the English constituencies in the general election. By this time he had definitely formulated the policy of progressive Conservatism which was known as “Tory democracy.” He declared that the Conservatives ought to adopt, rather than oppose, reforms of a popular character, and to challenge the claims of the Liberals to pose as the champions of the masses. His views were to a large extent accepted by the official Conservative leaders in the treatment of the Gladstonian Franchise Bill of 1884. Lord Randolph insisted that the principle of the bill should be accepted by the opposition, and that resistance should be focused upon the refusal of the government to combine with it a scheme of redistribution. The prominent, and on the whole judicious and successful, part he played in the debates on these questions, still further increased his influence with the rank and file of the Conservatives in the constituencies. At the same time he was actively spreading the gospel of democratic Toryism in a series of platform campaigns. In 1883 and 1884 he invaded the Radical stronghold of Birmingham itself, and in the latter year took part in a Conservative garden party at Aston Manor, at which his opponents paid him the compliment of raising a serious riot. He gave constant attention to the party organization, which had fallen into considerable disorder after 1880, and was an active promoter of the Primrose League, which owed its origin to the happy inspiration of one of his own “fourth party” colleagues.

In 1884 the struggle between stationary and progressive Toryism came to a head, and terminated in favour of the latter. At the conference of the Central Union of Conservative Associations, Lord Randolph was nominated chairman, notwithstanding the strenuous opposition of the parliamentary leaders of the party. The split was averted by Lord Randolph’s voluntary resignation; but the episode had confirmed his title to a leading place in the Tory ranks. It was further strengthened by the prominent part he played in the events immediately preceding the fall of the Liberal government in 1885; and when Mr Childers’s budget resolutions were defeated by the Conservatives, aided by about half the Parnellites, Lord Randolph Churchill’s admirers were justified in proclaiming him to have been the “organizer of victory.” His services were, at any rate, far too important to be refused recognition; and in Lord Salisbury’s cabinet of 1885 he was appointed to no less an office than that of secretary of state for India. During the few months of his tenure of this great post the young free-lance of Tory democracy surprised the permanent officials and his own friends by the assiduity with which he attended to his departmental duties and the rapidity with which he mastered the complicated questions of Indian administration. In the autumn election of 1885 he contested Central Birmingham against Mr Bright, and though defeated here, was at the same time returned by a very large majority for South Paddington. In the contest which arose over Mr Gladstone’s Home Rule scheme, both in and out of parliament, Lord Randolph again bore a conspicuous part, and in the electioneering campaign his activity was only second to that of some of the Liberal Unionists, the marquess of Hartington, Mr Goschen and Mr Chamberlain. He was now the recognized Conservative champion in the Lower Chamber, and when the second Salisbury administration was formed after the general election of 1886 he became chancellor of the exchequer and leader of the House of Commons. His management of the House was on the whole successful, and was marked by tact, discretion and temper. But he had never really reconciled himself with some of his colleagues, and there was a good deal of friction in his relations with them, which ended with his sudden resignation on the 20th of December 1886. Various motives influenced him in taking this surprising step; but the only ostensible cause was that put forward in his letter to Lord Salisbury, which was read in the House of Commons on 27th January. In this document he stated that his resignation was due to his inability, as chancellor of the exchequer, to concur in the demands made on the treasury by the ministers at the head of the naval and military establishments. It was commonly supposed that he expected his resignation to be followed by the unconditional surrender of the cabinet, and his restoration to office on his own terms. The sequel, however, was entirely different. The cabinet was reconstructed with Mr Goschen as chancellor of the exchequer (Lord Randolph had “forgotten Goschen,” as he is said to have remarked), and Churchill’s own career as a Conservative chief was practically closed.

He continued, for some years longer, to take a considerable share in the proceedings of parliament, giving a general, though decidedly independent, support to the Unionist administration. On the Irish question he was a very candid critic of Mr Balfour’s measures, and one of his later speeches, which recalled the acrimonious violence of his earlier period, was that which he delivered in 1890 on the report of the Parnell commission. He also fulfilled the promise made on his resignation by occasionally advocating the principles of economy and retrenchment in the debates on the naval and military estimates. In April 1889, on the death of Mr Bright, he was asked to come forward as a candidate for the vacant seat in Birmingham, and the result was a rather angry controversy with Mr Chamberlain, terminating in the so-called “Birmingham compact” for the division of representation of the Midland capital between Liberal Unionists and Conservatives. But his health was already precarious, and this, combined with the anomaly of his position, induced him to relax his devotion to parliament during the later years of the Salisbury administration. He bestowed much attention on society, travel and sport. He was an ardent supporter of the turf, and in 1889 he won the Oaks with a mare named the Abbesse de Jouarre. In 1891 he went to South Africa, in search both of health and relaxation. He travelled for some months through Cape Colony, the Transvaal and Rhodesia, making notes on the politics and economics of the countries, shooting lions, and recording his impressions in letters to a London newspaper, which were afterwards republished under the title of Men, Mines and Animals in South Africa. He returned with renewed energy, and in the general election of 1892 once more flung himself, with his old vigour, into the strife of parties. His seat at South Paddington was uncontested; but he was active on the platform, and when parliament met he returned to the opposition front bench, and again took a leading part in debate, attacking Mr Gladstone’s second Home Rule Bill with especial energy. But it was soon apparent that his powers were undermined by the inroads of disease. As the session of 1893 wore on his speeches lost their old effectiveness, and in 1894 he was listened to not so much with interest as with pity. His last speech in the House was delivered in the debate on Uganda in June 1894, and was a painful failure. He was, in fact, dying of general paralysis. A journey round the world was undertaken as a forlorn hope. Lord Randolph started in the autumn of 1894, accompanied by his wife, but the malady made so much progress that he was brought back in haste from Cairo. He reached England shortly before Christmas and died in London on the 24th of January 1895.

Lord Randolph Churchill married, in January 1874, Jennie, daughter of Mr Leonard Jerome of New York, U.S.A., by whom he had two sons. In 1900 Lady Randolph Churchill married Mr G. Cornwallis-West.

His elder son, Winston Churchill (1874- ), was educated at Harrow, and after serving for a few years in the army and acting as a special correspondent in the South African War (being taken prisoner by the Boers, Nov. 15, 1899, but escaping on Dec. 12), was elected Unionist member of parliament for Oldham in October 1900. As the son of his father, his political future excited much interest. His views, however, as to the policy of the Conservative party gradually changed, and having during 1904-1905 taken an active part in assisting the Liberal party in parliament, he stood for N.W. Manchester at the general election (1906) and was triumphantly returned as a Liberal and free-trader. He was made under-secretary for the colonies in the new Liberal government. In this position he became as conspicuous in parliament as he had already become on the platform as a brilliant and aggressive orator, and no politician of the day attracted more interest or excited more controversy. He was promoted to cabinet rank as president of the Board of Trade in Mr Asquith’s government in April (1908), but was defeated at the consequent by-election in Manchester after a contest which aroused the keenest excitement. He was then returned for Dundee, and later in the year married Miss Clementine Hozier.

An interesting and authoritative biography of Lord Randolph, by his son Winston (who had already won his spurs as a writer in his River War, 1899, and other books on his military experiences), appeared in 1906; and a brief and intimate appreciation by Lord Rosebery, inspired by this biography, was published a few months later. Lord Randolph’s earlier speeches were edited, with an introduction and notes, by Louis Jennings (2 vols., London, 1889). See also T.H.S. Escott, Randolph Spencer Churchill (1895); H.W. Lucy, Diary of Two Parliaments (1892); and Mrs Cornwallis-West, The Reminiscences of Lady Randolph Churchill (i.e. of the author) (1908).

(S. J. L.)

CHURCHILL (Missinnippi or English), the name of a river of the province of Saskatchewan and district of Keewatin, Canada. It rises in La Loche (or Methy) lake, a small lake in 56° 30′ N. and 109° 30′ W., at an altitude of 1577 ft. above the sea, and flows E.N.E. to Hudson’s Bay, passing through a number of lake expansions. Its principal tributaries are the Beaver (350 m. long), Sandy and Reindeer rivers. Between Frog and Methy portages (480 m.) it formed part of the old voyageur route to the Peace, Athabasca, and Mackenzie. It is still navigated by canoes, but has many rapids. Its principal affluent, the Reindeer, discharges the waters of Reindeer Lake (1150 ft. above the sea, with an area of 2490 sq. m.) and Wollaston Lake (altitude, 1300 ft). The Churchill is 925 m. long. Fort Churchill, at its mouth, is the best harbour in the southern portion of Hudson’s Bay. The portage of La Loche (or Methy), 12½ m. in length, connects its head waters with the Clearwater river, a tributary of the Athabasca, draining into the Arctic Ocean.

CHURCHING OF WOMEN, the Christian ceremony of thanksgiving on the part of mothers shortly after the birth of their children. It no doubt originated in the Mosaic regulation as to purification (Lev. xii. 6). In ancient times the ceremony was usual but not obligatory in England. In the Greek and Roman Catholic Churches to-day it is imperative. The custom is first mentioned in the pseudo-Nicene Arabic canons. No ancient form of service exists, and that which figures in the English prayer-book of to-day dates only from the middle ages. Custom differs, but the usual date of churching was the fortieth day after confinement, in accordance with the Biblical date of the presentment of the Virgin Mary and the Child Jesus at the Temple. It was formerly regarded as unlucky for a woman to leave her house to go out at all after confinement till she went to be churched. It was not unusual for the churching service to be said in private houses. In Herefordshire it was not considered proper for the husband to appear in church at the service, or at all events in the same pew. In some parishes there was a special pew known as “the churching seat.” The words in the rubric requiring the woman to come “decently apparelled” refer to the times when it was thought unbecoming for a woman to come to the service with the elaborate head-dress then the fashion. A veil was usually worn, and in some parishes this was provided by the church, for an inventory of goods belonging to St Benet’s, Gracechurch Street, in 1560, includes “A churching cloth, fringed, white damask.”

The “convenient place,” which, according to the rubric, the woman must occupy, was in pre-Reformation times the church-door. In the first prayer-book of Edward VI., she was to be “nigh unto the quire door.” In the second of his books, she was to be “nigh unto the place where the Table standeth.” Bishop Wren’s orders for the diocese of Norwich in 1636 are “That women to be churched come and kneel at a side near the Communion Table without the rail, being veiled according to custom, and not covered with a hat.” In Devonshire churching was sometimes called “being uprose.” Churchings were formerly registered in some parishes. In pre-Reformation days it was the custom in England for women to carry lighted tapers when being churched, in allusion to the Feast of the Purification of the Virgin (February 2nd), the day chosen by the Roman Catholic church for the blessing of the candles for the whole year (see CANDLEMAS). At her churching a woman was expected to make some offering to the church, such as the chrisom or alb thrown over the child at christening.

CHURCH RATE, the name of a tax formerly levied in each parish in England and Ireland for the benefit of the parish church. Out of these rates were defrayed the expenses of carrying on divine service, repairing the fabric of the church, and paying the salaries of the officials connected with it. The church rates were made by the churchwardens, together with the parishioners duly assembled after proper notice in the vestry or the church. The rates thus made were recoverable in the ecclesiastical court, or, if the arrears did not exceed £10 and no questions were raised as to the legal liability, before two justices of the peace. Any payment not strictly recognized by law made out of the rate destroyed its validity. The church rate was a personal charge imposed on the occupier of land or of a house in the parish, and, though it was compulsory, much difficulty was found in effectually applying the compulsion. This was especially so in the case of Nonconformists, who had conscientious objections to supporting the Established Church; and in Ireland, where the population was preponderatingly Roman Catholic, the grievance was specially felt and resented. The agitation against church rates led in 1868 to the passing of the Compulsory Church Rates Abolition Act. By this act church rates are no longer compulsory on the person rated, but are merely voluntary, and those who are not willing to pay them are excluded from inquiring into, objecting to, or voting in respect of their expenditure (s. 8).

CHURCHWARDEN, in England, the guardian or keeper of a church, and representative of the body of the parish. The name is derived from the original duty attached to the office,—that of the custody or guardianship of the fabric and furniture of the church,—which dates from the 14th century, when the responsibility of providing for the repairs of the nave, and of furnishing the utensils for divine service, was settled on the parishioners. Churchwardens are always lay persons, and as they may, like “artificial persons,” hold goods and chattels and bring actions for them, they are recognized in law as quasi-corporations. Resident householders of a parish are those primarily eligible as churchwardens, but non-resident householders who are habitually occupiers are also eligible, while there are a few classes of persons who are either ineligible or exempted. The appointment of churchwardens is regulated by the 89th canon, which requires that the churchwardens shall be chosen by the joint consent of the ministers and parishioners, if it may be; but if they cannot agree upon such a choice, then the minister is to choose one, and the parishioners another. If, however, there is any special custom of the place, the custom prevails, and the most common custom is for the minister to appoint one, and the parishioners another, and this has been established by English statute, in the case of new parishes, by the Church Building and New Parishes Acts 1818-1884. There are other special customs recognized in various localities, e.g. in some of the larger parishes in the north of England a churchwarden is chosen for each township of the parish; in the old ecclesiastical parishes of London both churchwardens are chosen by the parishioners; in some cases they are appointed by the select vestry, or by the lord of the manor, and in a few exceptional cases are chosen by the outgoing churchwardens.

In general, churchwardens are appointed in Easter week, usually Easter Monday or Easter Tuesday, but in new parishes the first appointment must be within twenty-one days after the consecration of the church, or two calendar months after the formation of the parish, subsequent appointments taking place at the usual time for the appointment of parish officers. Each churchwarden after election subscribes before the ordinary a declaration that he will execute his office faithfully.

The duties of churchwardens comprise the provision of necessaries for divine service, so far as the church funds or voluntary subscriptions permit, the collecting the offertory of the congregation, the keeping of order during the divine service, and the giving of offenders into custody; the assignment of seats to parishioners; the guardianship of the movable goods of the church; the preservation and repair of the church and churchyard, the fabric and the fixtures; and the presentment of offences against ecclesiastical law.

In the episcopal church of the United States churchwardens discharge much the same duties as those performed by the English officials; their duties, however, are regulated by canons of the diocese, not by canons general. In the United States, too, the usual practice is for the parishes to elect both the churchwardens.

See Prideaux’s Churchwarden’s Guide (16th ed., London, 1895); Steer’s Parish Law (6th ed., London, 1899); Blunt’s Book of Church Law (7th ed., London, 1894).

CHURCHYARD, THOMAS (c. 1520-1604), English author, was born at Shrewsbury about 1520, the son of a farmer. He received a good education, and, having speedily dissipated at court the money with which his father provided him, he entered the household of Henry Howard, earl of Surrey. There he remained for four years, learning something of the art of poetry from his patron; some of the poems he contributed later (1557) to Songes and Sonettes may well date from this early period. In 1541 he began his career as a soldier of fortune, being, he said, “pressed into the service.” He fought his way through nearly every campaign in Scotland and the Low Countries for thirty years. He served under the emperor Charles V. in Flanders in 1542, returning to England after the peace of Crépy (1544). In the Scottish campaign of 1547 he was present at the barren victory of Pinkie, and in the next year was taken prisoner at Saint Monance, but aided by his persuasive tongue he escaped to the English garrison at Lauder, where he was once more besieged, only returning to England on the conclusion of peace in 1550. A broadside entitled Davy Dycars Dreame, a short and seemingly alliterative poem in the manner of Piers Plowman, brought him into trouble with the privy council, but he was dismissed with a reprimand. This tract was the starting-point of a controversy between Churchyard and a certain Thomas Camel. The whole of the “flyting” was reprinted in 1560 as The Contention betwixte Churchyard and Camell.

In 1550 he went to Ireland to serve the lord deputy, Sir Anthony St Leger, who had been sent to pacify the country. Here Churchyard enriched himself at the expense, it is to be feared, of the unhappy Irish; but in 1552 he was in England again, trying vainly to secure a fortune by marriage with a rich widow. After this failure he departed once more to the wars to the siege of Metz (1552), and “trailed a pike” in the emperor’s army, until he joined the forces under William, Lord Grey of Wilton, with whom he says he served eight years. Grey was in charge of the fortress of Gaines, which was besieged by the duke of Guise in 1558. Churchyard arranged the terms of surrender, and was sent with his chief to Paris as a prisoner. He was not released at the peace of Cateau Cambrésis for lack of money to pay his ransom, but he was finally set free on giving his bond for the amount, an engagement which he repudiated as soon as he was safely in England. He is not to be identified with the T.C. who wrote for the Mirror for Magistrates (ed. 1559), “How the Lord Mowbray ... was banished ... and after died miserablie in exile,” which is the work of Thomas Chaloner, but “Shore’s Wife,” his most popular poem, appeared in the 1563 edition of the same work, and to that of 1587 he contributed the “Tragedie of Thomas Wolsey.” These are plain manly compositions in the seven-lined Chaucerian stanza. Repeated petitions to the queen for assistance produced at first fair words, and then no answer at all. He therefore returned to active service under Lord Grey, who was in command of an English army sent (1560) to help the Scottish rebels, and in 1564 he served in Ireland under Sir Henry Sidney. The religious disturbances in the Netherlands attracted him to Antwerp, where as the agent of William of Orange he allowed the insurgents to place him at their head, and was able to save much property from destruction. This action made him so hated by the mob that he had to fly for his life in the disguise of a priest. In the next year he was sent by the earl of Oxford to serve definitely under the prince of Orange. After a year’s service he obtained leave to return to England, and after many adventures and narrow escapes in a journey through hostile territory he embarked for Guernsey, and thence for England. His patron, Lord Oxford, disowned him, and the poet, whose health was failing, retired to Bath. He appears to have made a very unhappy marriage at this time, and returned to the Low Countries. Falling into the hands of the Spaniards he was recognized as having had a hand in the Antwerp disturbance, and was under sentence to be executed as a spy when he was saved by the intervention of a noble lady. This experience did not deter him from joining in the defence of Zutphen in 1572, but this was his last campaign, and the troubles of the remaining years of his life were chiefly domestic.