text, ftom Alfred's version of Bede, in which ealooɲ always anfwers to princeps, and from the original fermon of St Auguftine, (Sermo 13, de verb. Dom.) from which this paffage was borrowed by the homilist, and which has the words, principatum tenens.

(I)-p. 166.

THE reader has already feen, that the council of Clovefhoe was convoked in obedience to the command of the pontiff, and to avoid the fentence of excommunication, with which he had threatened the Anglo-Saxon prelates. I fhall proceed to notice the manner, in which Henry has undertaken to prove, from the fame council, that the English church was independent of the church of Rome. He was urged to the attempt by the apparent success of Inett, (vol. i. p. 177): but he applied to the work with greater boldness; and the master must be content to yield the palm to his scholar.

In Henry's ingenious narrative we are told-1, that the council was held, probably, at the fuggeftion of St Boni face 2, that its canons were, for the most part, taken from thofe of the fynod of Mentz, which that prelate had tranfmitted to Archbishop Cuthbert: 3, but that the English council made a very important alteration in the canon respecting the unity of the church. In that formed by St Boniface, the bishops profeffed their obedience to St Peter and his vicar: in that published by the English prelates, no mention was made of the church of Rome, but it was declared that "fincere love and affection ought to be among all the clergy "in the world, in deed and judgment, without flattery of "any one's perfon." "This remarkable caution,” adds the hiftorian," in the language of the canon, is a fufficient proof "that the clergy of England were not yet difpofed to bend

"their necks to the intolerable and ignominious yoke of "Rome." Hen. vol. iii. p. 225.

It must be confeffed, that the art with which this narrative is compofed, does honour to the ingenuity of its author. The idea, that the fynod was affembled at the fuggeftion of St Boniface, and that the canons were selected from those, which had been tranfmitted from Germany to the Saxon metropolitan, is well calculated to justify the inference which he was fo anxious to establish. The only defect is, that the whole fyftem has been raised on a treacherous foundation; on the fpeculations of a modern writer, instead of the documents of ancient hiftory. Henry's account is contradicted, in every particular, by the very acts of the council. 1. In the prooemium the bifhops affert, that they had assembled, not at the fuggestion of St Boniface, but at the peremptory command of pope Zachary. 2. The canons fent from Germany were only nine in number, and were comprised in a few lines, (Wilk. p. 91): those published at Clovethoe amounted to thirty, and are, many of them at leaft, of confiderable length. (Ibid. p. 95-100.) How the latter could be selected from the former, it is difficult to conceive. In reality, there are only two or three paffages in which they bear any resemblance to each other. 3. The English bishops made no alteration in the canon respecting the unity of the church. There is no fuch canon in either collection. As the bishops affembled at Mentz, had been fent into Germany by the popes, to labour in the converfion of the pagans, it was natural for them to exprefs their obedience to the apoftolic fee: but the English prelates were in different circumstances, and no reason can be affigned why they should adopt the fame conduct. They therefore did not tranfcribe the firft canon of the council of Mentz; much lefs did they make any alteration in it. To give fome colour of plaufibility to his ftory, Henry has had re

course to a rufe de guerre, which is fometimes employed by controverfial writers. He has framed a new title for the fecond of the canons of Cloveshoe, omitted its commencement, and interpolated it in an important paffage. The true title is not the unity of the church, but the unity of peace, (De unitate pacis. Wilk. p. 95): and the object of the canon is to inform us that the bishops had figned an engagement to live in peace and amity among themselves, without interfering with each others rights, or flattering any particular perfon. The engagement which reftrains the meaning of the canon to the contracting parties, Henry has prudently omitted: and, to extend its operation, has ingeniously inferted the words, "all the clergy in the world.” Ipfi præfules, fay the acts, ad fe ipfos verba mutuæ exhortationis verterunt, et fecundo loco fub teftificatione quadam confirmaverunt, ut pacis intimæ et finceræ charitatis devotio ubique inter eos (all the clergy in the world, in Henry's tranflation), perpetuo permaneat, atque ut una fit omnium concordia in omnibus juribus ecclefiafticæ religionis, in fermone, in opere, in judicio, fine cujusquam adulatione perfonæ. Wilk. ibid.

"So

But the hiftorian has another argument in referve. "careful," he adds, "were the prelates to guard against the "encroachments of the popes on the independency of the "church of England, that applications to Rome in difficult "cafes were discouraged by the twenty-fifth canon, and "bishops directed to apply only to their metropolitan in a "provincial fynod." As Henry has not tranflated this canon, and I am unable to discover in it the discouragement, of which he speaks, I fhall content myself with tranfcribing it for the perufal of the reader. Unufquifque epifcoporum, fi quid in fua diœcefi corrigere et emendare nequiverit, idem in fynodo coram Archiepifcopo, et palam omnibus ad corrigendum infinuet. Wilk. p. 98. Did

Henry really believe that this canon was framed "to guard against the encroachments of the popes?" If he had read a letter to which he fometimes refers, he would have known that it was originally compofed by St Boniface, who adds immediately after it: Sic enim, ni fallor, omnes epifcopi debent metropolitano, et ipfe Romano pontifici, fi quid de corrigendis populis apud eos impoffibile eft, notum facere, et fic alieni fient a fanguine animarum perditarum. Ep. St Bonif. ad Cuthb. Archiep. apud Wilk. p. 91.

(K)-p. 182.

ST WILFRID, by his earnest endeavours to introduce the canonical obfervances among his countrymen, and his fuccessful appeals to the juftice of the pontiffs, has been rewarded with the fevereft reproaches, by the enemies of the church of Rome. To paint his character in the most odious colours, has been a favourite theme with modern writers. Among a host of competitors, I have affigned the precedency to Carte and that the reader may form fome notion of his merit, I shall subjoin a few passages from his work, and confront them with the original history of Eddius.

1. According to Carte, (p.) 250), "Wilfrid's appeal ap"peared fo new and fingular, "that it occafioned a general

1. Eddius (c. 24. p. 63) fays, not that the appeal excited either furprise or ridicule, but that the flatterers of the king, expreffed their joy by their laughter. Adulatoribus cum rifu gaudentibus. They laughed at Wilfrid's difgrace. Qui ridetis in meam condemnationem. Ibid.

laughter, as a thing quite "ridiculous." He refers to Eddius, c. 24. Henry thought this obfervation fo important, that he was careful to copy it.

2. Carte accufes Eddius of 2. The affertion of Eddius mifrepresentation, when he is confirmed by Wilfrid's pefays, that Wilfrid was advised tition to the pontiff, in which to appeal by his fellow-bifhops he obferves, that though fe(cum confilio co-epifcoporum veral bifhops were present fuorum. Ed. c. 24, p. 63); with Theodore, not one of because no one but Winfrid, them affented to his measures. the depofed bishop of Mercia, In conventu Theodori, aliocould give fuch advice. Carte, rumque tunc temporis antistip. 250. tum ..... abfque confenfu cujuflibet epifcopi. Ed. c. 29, p. 66.

3. Carte afferts, that the king of Northumbria would not restore the depofed prelate, because he conceived the conduct of the pontiff to be derogatory to the rights of the crown, (p. 251.)

4. According to Carte, (p. 252,) the king offered him a of his former diocefe, if part be would renounce the authority of the papal mandate. He refers to Eddius, c. 25.

5. If we may believe Carte (p. 254), Wilfrid made his fubmiffion to Theodore, and employed the good offices of the bishop of London to pro cure a reconciliation. His authority is Eddius, c. 42.

3. According to Eddius, the ground of the objection was, that the papal decree had been purchased with mo. ney; pretio redempta. Edd. c. 33, p. 69.

4. Eddius informs us, that the king offered him a part of his former diocefe, if he would acknowledge the papal mandate to be a forgery. Si denegaret vera effe. Ed. c. 35, p. 70.

5. If Eddius is to be credited, it was Theodore, who, actuated by remorse for his paft injustice, sent for Wilfrid and the bishop of London, and folicited the forgiveness of the man whom he had injured. Ed. c. 42, p. 75.

6. To prove that this reconciliation was not owing to any respect which the metro-authority of the pontiff as politan paid to the papal au

6. Theodore, in his letter to king Ethelred, affigns the

the

cause of his reconciliation.