DA 
 
 228 
 
 G8 
 
 R6 
 
 MAIN 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 B E fl31 SS7 
 
 jEitstoncai ji^apcrs: 
 
 f^ASlMU 
 
 I) BY THE REV. SYDNEY F. SMITH, SJ. 
 
 No. XXI. 
 
 ;rt grosseteste, 
 
 [SHOP OF LINCOLN. 
 
 |5Y MGR. W. CROKE ROBINSON. 
 
 Third Thousand. 
 
 LONDON : 
 JCATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY, 
 
 21 Westminster Bridge Road, S.E. 
 b : 245 Brompton Road, S.W.; 22 Paternoster 
 Row, E.C. 
 
 Price Twopence. 
 
ifliiii 
 
EDITED BY THE REV. SYDNEY F. SMITH, SJ. 
 
 No. XXL 
 
 ROBERT GROSSETESTE. 
 
 BISHOP OF LINCOLN. 
 
 BY MGR. W. CROKE ROBINSON. 
 
 Third Thousand. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY, 
 
 21 Westminster Bridge Road, S.E. 
 
 Depots : 245 Brompton Road, S.W.; 22 Paternoster 
 
 Row, E.C. 
 Price Twopence. 
 
PRICE ONE SHILLING EACH. 
 SCIENCE AND SCIENTISTS. 
 
 BY THE REV. JOHN GERARD, S.J. 
 
 1. Mr. Grant Allen's Botanical 4. ''Behold the Birds of the 
 
 Fables. Air." 
 
 2. Sir John Lubbock on Flowers 5. How Theories are manu- 
 
 and Insects. factured. ^ 
 
 3. Some Wayside Problems. 6. Instinct and its Lessons. 
 
 SCIENCE OR ROMANCE? 
 
 BY THE REV. JOHN GERARD, S.J. 
 
 1. A Tangled Tale. 4. The Empire of Man. 
 
 2. Missing Links. 5. The New Genesis. 
 
 3. The Game of Speculation. 6. The Voices of Babel. 
 
 A Mother's Sacrifice. By A. M. Clarke. 
 
 The Life and Letters of Father Damien. Cloth, 
 
 gilt extra, 2s.; fancy boards, is. 
 
 Fifty Catholic Tracts. Boards. 
 
 Forty Catholic Tracts. Boards. 
 
 Stories of the Seven Sacraments. By L. E. Dobree. 
 
 A Sevenfold Treasure. By the same. 
 
 Father Perry, the Jesuit Astronomer. By the 
 
 Rev. A. L. Cortie, S.J. Cloth, gilt, 2s. ; boards, is. 
 
 Trial of Margaret Brereton. By Pleydell North. 
 Mere Gilette. By the Author of An Old Marquise. 
 Under a Cloud. By M. R S. 
 The Little Flowers of St. Francis. Boards, is.; 
 
 cloth, IS. 6d. 
 
 The Tug of War. By L. E. Dobree. 
 
 A Runaway Marriage. By Mrs. William Maude. 
 
 Manual of Prayers for Youth. Edited by the 
 
 Rev. J. Morris, S.J. 
 
 The Temperance Speeches of Cardinal Manning. 
 
 Boards. 
 Joan of Arc. By Lady Amabel Kerr. Wrapper, is.; 
 cloth, IS. 6d. 
 
 Ethics or Anarchy. By B. F. C. Costelloe, M.A. 
 
 Wrapper, is.; cloth, is. 6d. 
 
 A Protestant Converted by her Bible and 
 
 Prayer-book. By Mrs. Pittar. 
 
 The Land of Mist and Mountain. By Katherine 
 
 Tynan Hinkson. Wrapper, is. ; cloth, is. 6d. 
 
 Reasons for Rejecting Anglican Orders. By the 
 
 Rev. S. F. Smith, S.J. Wrapper. 
 
 Eight Lectures on the Position of Catholics in 
 
 England. By Cardinal Newman. Wrapper. 
 
 Catholic Truth Society, 21 Westminster Bridge Road, S.E. 
 
IRobert (Brossetcste, Bisbop of Xincoln. 
 
 BY MGR. W. CROKE ROBINSON. 
 
 Robert Grosseteste, the famous Bishop of Lincoln 
 (a.d. 1235 — 1253), is claimed by all sorts and con- 
 ditions of Protestants as the great medieval champion 
 of British ecclesiastical rights against the so-called 
 encroachments of Rome. He is commonly quoted 
 as evidence of the fact that Papal jurisdiction never 
 sat comfortably upon the English nation. His 
 example is of peculiar value for this purpose (so it 
 is maintained), because being for a great part of his 
 life an ardent supporter of the claims of the See of 
 Rome, at the last he was forced, in spite of himself, 
 to give up his allegiance, and died in violent opposi- 
 tion to the Papal system. Such is the account given 
 in ordinary Protestant histories and biographical 
 articles ^ of the life of this celebrated man. 
 
 Canon Perry, of Lincoln, in his Life and Times of 
 Grosseteste^ does not shrink from stating that 
 
 Robert Grosseteste was the Protestant of the thirteenth 
 century, but he was a Protestant on the highest Church 
 principles, and from the conviction that the Papal system 
 
 ^ See, for instance, Chambers' Enryclopcrdia, article "Grosseteste.'' 
 ^ Published by the Society for Promoting Christinn Knowlediio^ 
 This book is often quoted by Anglicans. 
 
 (xxi a) 
 
 229822 
 
•. I <2*5- >/-•••'*: : Rahert- Grosseteste^ 
 
 in its practical working was anti-Christian and destructive of 
 
 souls. ^ 
 
 Again, on the same page, he says : 
 
 He was the most ardent supporter of Rome of his day, but 
 he died, if not excommunicated, yet cursed and reviled by 
 the Pope. 
 
 Again :^ 
 
 His extreme hierarchical views led him, for the greater 
 part of his career, to pay the most complete deference to 
 the Pope as the head of the Church on earth, and to be 
 ready, without scruple or fear, to listen to his commands 
 rather than to those of the King or State. But, together 
 with extreme views as to Church power, Grosseteste also 
 held the most intensely earnest opinions as to the obliga- 
 tions of the clerical office and the pastoral care. For a 
 long time he strove ,to reconcile these deep, practical con- 
 victions with the theory which assigned so high a place to 
 the Pope and the Court of Rome. At length, the manifest 
 iniquities tolerated and upheld by the Pope, produced in 
 him a complete revulsion. From being, in his view, the 
 representative of God, the Pope became the very minister 
 of Satan. 
 
 Finally,^ we are told that, 
 
 had his life been a few years .prolonged, it may be easily 
 believed that he would have been the leader in a general 
 rejection by England of the preposterous claims of Rome. 
 
 Dr. Creighton, Bishop of Peterborough, in a 
 lecture delivered in St. Paul's Cathedral en November 
 21, 1895, seems practically to adopt the same view, 
 in language moderate indeed, but most misleading. 
 If correctly reported,^ he concludes that "GrossetestCj 
 devoted to the ecclesiastical system as he was, and 
 
 ^ P. 6. 2 //^/^^ p^ 292. ^ /did. p. 295. 
 
 * Church Times J November 29, 1895. 
 
Bishop of Lincoln. 129 
 
 an absolutely devout son of the Pope, was driven, 
 in spite of himself, into antagonism to that system^ 
 Observe here the delightfully vague expression which 
 we have italicized. If it means that Grosseteste 
 opposed several acts of Papal administration con- 
 cerning his own diocese, or even the English nation 
 at large, we have no contention with Dr. Creighton. 
 If, however, it is designed to convey the impression 
 that Grosseteste died in virtual denial of Papal 
 prerogative in general, then we do not think that 
 Dr. Creighton is to be congratulated upon the 
 fallacious argument from the particular to the 
 universal. 
 
 In reply to these Anglican contentions, we shall 
 try specially to keep two points in view: (i) what 
 was the attitude of Grosseteste towards the Holy 
 See in the earlier part of his life ; (2) and whether 
 it became changed to any extent in his later years. 
 
 It will be well to begin with some sketch of the 
 authorities on which we may rely. 
 
 Of primary importance, as collecting the materials 
 for our history, is the edition of the Epistles of 
 Grosseteste by Henry Richards Luard, M.A., late 
 Fellow and Assistant Tutor of Trinity College, 
 Cambridge. The author for many years made 
 Grosseteste his special study, and pursued his re- 
 searches not only in the libraries of these countries, 
 but also in that of the Vatican, where a large part 
 of these epistles is preserved. It may be as well to 
 mention that Luard, though a fair-minded man and 
 a scholar, shows no bias in favour of the Catholic 
 Church. 
 
 Next in importance are the editions, by the same 
 J 4 
 
130 Robert Grosscfeste, 
 
 author, of the Annals of Winchester, Waverley, 
 Dunstable, Bermondsey, Osney, Thoma-s de Wykes 
 (probably a chronicler of Osney), and Worcester. 
 These, with the epistles of Grosseteste, under the 
 title o{ Annales Monastici, form part of the CJironicles 
 and Memorials of Great Britain and Iixland^ published 
 by the authority of Her Majesty's Treasury, under 
 the direction of the Master of the Rolls. An admir- 
 able Index, forming the fifth volume of the series, will 
 indicate the various passages concerning Grosseteste. 
 Belonging to the same series is the edition of 
 Franciscana Monumenta, by H. S. Brewer, containing 
 numerous references to Grosseteste. 
 
 Next may be consulted The Life of St. Edmund 
 of Canterbury^ by Dom Wilfrid Wallace, O.S.B., and for 
 German scholars, Dr. Felten's Life of Grosseteste, a 
 notice of which may be found in the Dublin Review} 
 Two articles in The Month'^ may be studied with 
 great advantage.^ 
 
 A very little research into the subject will discover 
 that a large proportion of the history of Grosseteste 
 is taken from Matthew Paris. But what is the exact 
 worth of Paris as an historian of the inter-relationship 
 of Rome and England? Modern criticism universally 
 pronounces that very cjualified credence must be 
 given to many of the statements of this pugnacious 
 monk of St. Alban's. His intense nationalism ran 
 
 ^ Dublin Reviczv, January, 1888, p. 230. 
 
 - The Month, August, 1880, and March, 1895. 
 
 ^ Students who wish to exhaust the subject will find references 
 to original MSS. in lAiard's Preface, pp. xci. — xcviii. Those who 
 require a slighter account of the life and times of Grosseteste, may 
 be referred to The History of the Church in England, vol. i., by 
 Miss Allies, who hits off the character of the sturdy Bishop very 
 Iiappily. 
 
Bishop of Lincoln. 131 
 
 away with much of his devotion to the Holy See, 
 upon which he heaps abuse whenever occasion arises, 
 with such vehemence and acrimony that it becomes 
 manifest to every sober and impartial student of 
 history that in great part Matthew must be drawing 
 from his imagination. Dr. Lingard says of him : 
 
 It may seem invidious to speak harshly of this favourite 
 historian. But this I may say, that when I could confront 
 his pages with authentic records or contemporary writers, 
 I have in most instances foand the discrepancy between 
 them so great as to give to his narrative the appearance of 
 a romance rather than a history.^ 
 
 Another critic wTites of him thus : 
 
 Matthew Paris is a writer of many merits, and we could 
 ill spare the fruits of his laborious industry. At the same 
 time, among those merits no competent historian would set 
 down a striking absence of prejudice, or a scrupulous regard 
 for accuracy in his language about those against whom his 
 prejudices biassed him. . . . Particularly he was prone to 
 say things spiteful against any Bishop, Sovereign, or Pope 
 who ventured to make the monks of St. Alban's pay money 
 out of their treasury.^ 
 
 Whereas Canon Perry and Dr. Creighton in great 
 part rely upon Matthew Paris for their telling points 
 against Rome, their history of Grosseteste must 
 evidently be accepted with a very liberal number of 
 the proverbial grains of salt. 
 
 Let us now proceed to the life of the great Bishop. 
 He was born at Stradbrook,^ in Suffolk, about the 
 year 1 175, according to the best authorities, and of 
 
 1 Lingard, vol. ii. p. 237, in note. 
 
 '^ The Month, March, 1895, p. 406. 
 
 ^ His family name was Copley ; the name of Grosseteste, or Great- 
 head, was given him in France during his studies there. (Le Neve, 
 Fasiij vol. ii. p. 10.) 
 
132 Robert Grosseteste, 
 
 humble parents. To his lowly origin we find allusiort 
 in the Lanercost Chronicle and in Matthew Paris, who 
 states that in the subsequent quarrel of the Canons 
 of Lincoln with Grosseteste, they expressed their 
 regret that a man of such humble origin should have 
 been raised by them to so high a dignity. Of his 
 early life we know scarcely anything. He was sent 
 to Oxford by his friends, where he studied law 
 and medicine. All modern authors state that from 
 Oxford he proceeded to Paris, though this is not 
 mentioned in any contemporary history ; and there,, 
 probably, he was grounded in Greek and Hebrew- 
 It was not long before he returned to Oxford, where 
 he graduated in Divinity, and became Master of the 
 School, or Chancellor,^ as is proved by a paper in the 
 Registry at Lincoln of the year 1294. How long 
 he remained at Oxford is uncertain ; but with the 
 University he identified himself in great measure 
 during his whole life. He saw clearly the immense- 
 influence such an institution might have over the whole 
 country, and he apparently never lost sight of this. 
 For this reason, among others, he was led to patronize 
 the two Orders of Friars, the Dominicans and Fran- 
 ciscans, who came, as will be seen later on, into 
 England during his early career at Oxford. It is. 
 most probable that he was the means of introducing 
 to Oxford the Franciscans, to whom he was especially 
 devoted. By their help he hoped to carry out his; 
 reforms, expecting that their teaching and example 
 would stimulate the other clergy to greater devoted- . 
 ness of life. Soon after becoming Doctor (in 1224) 
 
 ^ The Chancellor in those days was always resident, and Director* 
 General of the studies of the whole University. 
 
Bishop of L incoln, 133 
 
 he became the first lecturer to the Franciscans, as 
 well as their first Rector, and probably continued in 
 this office till his election to the see of Lincoln. At 
 this time he began that series of writings which evince 
 his prodigious learning, and which it will be opportune 
 here once for all to particularize. Besides innumer- 
 able sermons and theological treatises, he wrote a 
 large number of works on both physical and mental 
 philosophy, commentaries on Aristotle and Boethius, 
 translations from the Greek, French poems, works on 
 husbandry, &c. He possessed considerable know- 
 ledge of medicine and of music, and played with 
 great skill on the harp. It is difficult to understand 
 how a man of such active habits and constant occu- 
 pation could have found time to master, far more to 
 write, so much. Doubtless many books and tracts 
 have been fathered upon him, as is constantly the 
 case with voluminous writers of the middle ages. 
 Yet so many undoubted works proceeded from his 
 pen, that there can be no question of the universality 
 of his genius and his well-merited fame as an author, 
 in the age — be it remembered — of St. Thomas Aquinas 
 and Albertus Magnus.^ And yet, as will be seen, 
 his fame in our own days, at all events till quite 
 recently, has been kept green by one single letter ; '^ 
 a very small proportion of his works having been 
 published.^ 
 
 To proceed with his life. He was made Arch- 
 deacon of Wilts in 1214 ; became Archdeacon of 
 
 ^ St. Thomas Aquinas died in 1274, and Albertus Magnus in 1280. 
 
 2 No. cxxviii. The numbers by which Grosseteste's letters are 
 referred to are those in Luard's collection. 
 
 ^ A list of these may be found in the Appendix to Brown's Fasciculus 
 Rerum Expetendaru?nj written towards the close of the sixteenth century. 
 
134 Robert Grosseteste^ 
 
 Northampton, and then of Leicester. He held the 
 prebend of CHfton in Lincoln Cathedral, and was 
 parish priest of Abbotsley, in Huntingdonshire. In 
 1232, however, he was seized with a violent fever, 
 and possibly in consequence resigned all his prefer- 
 ments except his prebend at Lincoln. Nothing from 
 that time is known of him till 1234, when he is 
 ascertained to have been at his beloved Oxford. 
 In February, 1235, Hugh de Wells, Bishop of Lincoln, 
 died, and the Chapter at once elected Grosseteste as 
 his successor. After some dispute as to the place of 
 his consecration between the monks of Canterbury 
 and the Archbishop, he was consecrated at Reading 
 by St Edmund on June 3rd, 1236, and enthroned 
 about Candlemas, 1237.^ 
 
 The diocese of Lincoln was at this period of 
 enormous size, comprising the archdeaconries of 
 Lmcoln, Leicester, Stowe, Buckingham, Huntingdon, 
 Northampton, Oxford, and Bedford. Not only might 
 the ordinary administration of such a diocese make 
 the episcopal heart quail, but, alas ! to this must be 
 added the rectifying of abuses which had been allowed 
 to exist under the laxer rule of some of his prede- 
 cessors. Nothing, however, appeared to daunt the 
 "terrible Bishop." He set to work at once with 
 characteristic vigour to purify that portion of the 
 heavenly vineyard committed to his care. 
 
 Meanwhile let us endeavour to determine the 
 general condition of things with which he had to deal. 
 
 As has been well remarked : 
 
 The monks had been the factors of civilization to the 
 English people, but had worked exclusively in the country. 
 ^ Le Neve's Fasti^ vol. ii. p. 10. 
 
Bishop of Lincoln, 135 
 
 The towns still awaited their missionaries. In social status 
 they were at a very low ebb, whilst they were not richer in 
 material appearance or construction than the most remote 
 Irish or Scotch village of to-day, the municipal element 
 was highly developed. Self-government existed to an 
 extraordinary extent with ignorance, squalor, and unsani- 
 tariness. The Mendicant Orders were made for the town 
 just as the monks for the country; and of none is this 
 truer than of the Franciscans.^ 
 
 The introduction of the Friars was the providential 
 remedy for existing social evils, and Grosseteste, as we 
 have already observed, was not slow to recognize it, 
 and avail himself of their aid. Of the Franciscans, 
 or Grey Friars, who came to England in 12 19, of the 
 Dominicans, or Black Friars, introduced into England 
 in 1 22 1, of the Carmelites, or White Friars, whose 
 arrival was in 1240, Grosseteste was the devoted 
 friend, but chiefly of the Franciscans. 
 
 Wherever he went he took some of them with 
 him. In one of his epistles^ he begs of the Minister- 
 r-eneral of the Franciscans that, as there are no such 
 valuable assistants as the Friars Minor, two or four of 
 them may be always with him. 
 
 Next we have to deal with the clerical order and 
 the abuses already alluded to. Doubtless manifold 
 miseries and scandals existed at this period, as indeed 
 at every period of ecclesiastical history. They v/ere 
 forecast by our Lord as in the first place permitted 
 by Divine providence, and then as being certain to 
 occur. But it may well be questioned if the picture 
 is altogether so black as is painted, especially by 
 
 ^ Cr. Brewer, Monumenta Franciscana^ rreffce, p. xiv. Rolls 
 Series. 
 
 ^ See also epp. xl. xli. Iviii. lix. 
 
136 Robe7't GrossetestCy 
 
 those whose melancholy interest it is to defame the 
 Spouse of Christ. Anyhow, we shall confine our- 
 selves in this inquiry chiefly to those evils which 
 Grosseteste himself in his various epistles has occasion 
 to rebuke and reform. These are to be found in 
 epistle xxii. of the year 1236, in epistle Hi. of the 
 year 1238, which includes his Constitutions, and in 
 epistle cvii. of the year 1244 (probably). The Bishop 
 condemns in the strongest terms the presence of 
 the clergy at " scot-ales," ^ or ale-parties, which 
 oftentimes during these ages were held not only for 
 convivial purposes, but to raise money for charitable 
 objects. Again he sternly prohibits the abuse known 
 as "the Feast of Fools," ^ as did not only Grosseteste, 
 but also most of the Popes and Bishops all along 
 the middle ages. This " Feast of Fools " was in 
 reality the old heathen festival of the January kalends. 
 The first day of the new year from time immemorial 
 and among all peoples was set apart as a day of 
 general " license " and levity, in which, e.g.y the slave 
 reclined on his master's seat at table, the master 
 waited on his slave, and society for the moment 
 seemed to be turned upside down. This pagan feast 
 was gradually introduced into ecclesiastical obser- 
 vance, probably with the view, in the first instance^ 
 o( weaning the minds of converts from these pagan 
 
 1 For an account of these, see Discipline of Drink, p. 107, by 
 Father Bridgett, C.SS.R. Burns and Gates. 
 
 ^ For the Feast of Asses and Feast of Fools, see Maitland's Dark 
 Ages, pp. 1465 seq., where also may be found the best available exposi- 
 tion of the absurdity, as well as wickedness, of accounting things like 
 these as evidence of the depravity of the times. It need scarcely be 
 said that Maitland was not a Catholic. His famous book was written 
 in 1848, whilst he was Librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury at 
 Lambeth. See also an excellent article in Chambers' Encyclopcedia^ 
 vol. iv. p. 721. 
 
Bishop of Lincoln, 137 
 
 ceremonies. It is easy to see what watchfulness was 
 required to preserve such institutions from abuse. 
 
 Again, the vigils of saints' days, funerals, cele- 
 brations of patronal feasts, were at times made into the 
 occasions of riot and debauchery, through the negli- 
 gence of the pastors of the flocks. Here and there, too, 
 were to be found priests who recited their Breviary 
 very badly or not at all ; others, jealous of the Friars, 
 prevented the people from confessing to them ; others 
 exacted a sum of money in return for Holy Com- 
 munion. But the most serious abuse is to be found 
 in epistle cvii., where the Bishop writes that — 
 
 He has heard from good authority {ex relatu fide dignc 
 audivimus) that several priests of a certain archdeaconry 
 are guilty of immorality {focarias habeiit\ though in his 
 visitation of the archdeaconry he himself has not been able 
 to discover it, because probably the offenders are screened 
 by those who ought to bring them to justice, and who 
 would not shrink from perjury for that purpose. 
 
 Still the phrase, ex relatit fide digno audivimus^ must 
 fairly be taken as implying the comparative infre- 
 quency of such offences, and would scarcely be used by 
 the Bishop, if they were so wide-spread and notorious 
 as we are asked to believe by some authors. 
 
 In another epistle^ we find Grosseteste remon- 
 strating with the importation from abroad of certain 
 immoral monks into the monastery at Minting. 
 Dr. Luard remarks upon these : " The way in which 
 they are spoken of would incline us to believe the 
 case an exceptional one." ^ 
 
 In an earlier epistle^ is contained a vehement 
 exhortation to an immoral clergyman. 
 
 \ Ep. cviii. 2 Grosseteste' s Letters, Preface, p. xxv. n. 2. ^ Ep. x. 
 
1 38 Robert Grossetcste, 
 
 Finally,^ we find one more possible allusion to 
 abuses of this nature in the phrase, illecti foedis vohip- 
 tatibus. These are the only passages, as far as we 
 know, to be found in the epistles oi Grosseteste, which 
 refer to any licentiousness among the clergy of his 
 day. From other sources, especially the epistles of 
 Adam de Marisco,^ the famous Franciscan theologiaa 
 and precursor of the Franciscan schoolmen, who was 
 the life-long friend and adviser of Grosseteste, we 
 gather that, whilst on the one hand the zeal of tiie 
 . Reformers seems to have preserved every nauseous 
 scrap and morsel of anecdote or ballad that could 
 reflect on the morals of the priests and monks f 
 this period ; yet, on the other hand, undoubtedly a 
 dark account of the times remains. As regards 
 Giraldus Cambrensis, Welsh ecclesiastic and historian 
 of the period, who is commonly quoted by non- 
 Cathojic authors as irrefragable evidence of the 
 utter corruption of the age, we may "reduce his 
 universal propositions to particulars, his plurals 
 to singulars, yet in many respects he is not far 
 wrong." ^ We do not wish to withhold a particle 
 of truth in this unsavoury matter ; but we affirm, 
 with all who are worthy of the name of scholars, 
 that the day has gone by for No-Popery invective 
 against abuses which all right-minded men, whether 
 Catholic or Protestant, deplore, but which, under the 
 Divine permission and through human frailty, can 
 never be altogether suppressed. The time is also 
 happily gone by for arguing from particular abuses 
 
 ^ Ep. cxxx. 
 
 '^ See especially Brewer's Monumenta Fra7icisca7ia^ vol. i. ep. xlix. 
 Rolls Series. 
 
 ^ See The Mo7ith (August, 1880), article by Father John Rickaby, S.J. 
 
Bishop of Lincoln, 139 
 
 to universal degradation ; for reading epistles and 
 constitutions of this or that bishop directed against 
 certain existing scandals, and then dubbing the whole 
 body ecclesiastical as scandalous. Canon Perry's 
 work on Grosseteste is on this account completely 
 out of date. Let it be remembered that, if abuses 
 did exist, the remedy was always at hand. Let it 
 be remembered too that in this very age, when 
 the whole head is represented by non-Catholics 
 to be sick, and the whole heart faint, no less than 
 three canonized Saints appear on the page of 
 English history, St. Edmund of Canterbury (died 
 November 16, 1242), St. Richard of Chichester 
 (April 3, 1253), and St. Thomas of Hereford (August 
 25, 1382), whilst, outside our own shores, there were 
 doing battle for Holy Church, St. Francis, St. 
 Dominic, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, 
 St. Louis of France, St. Ferdinand of Castile, and 
 3t. Elizabeth of Hungary. Is it not altogether more 
 reasonable to affirm with the editor of the second 
 volume of Franciscaji Mojiuments} that the many 
 vocations to the religious life of this period. 
 
 Can be signs of nothing less than a rallying of the 
 strength of that piety which has never in the darkest times 
 died out from the Church to so great an extent as her 
 enemies are eager to assert ? 
 
 To proceed with our story. 
 
 In the year 1237 was held the great Council of 
 London,"^ under the presidency of Cardinal Otho, in 
 which a strenuous attempt was made to deprive 
 
 1 Mo7tiuneiita Franciscaiia^ vol. ii. Preface, p. x. Rolls Series. 
 ^ Vi^ilkins' Concilia, vol. i. p. 647 ; see also Lyndwoocl's Provinciah 
 in the Appendix ; also Collier, vol. ii. p. 453. 
 
T40 Robert Grossetesie, 
 
 pluralists of all their benefices but one, and Consti- 
 tutions and Canons were promulgated which seem 
 long to have been the principal rules for the Church 
 in England. It was on the strength of these Conciliar 
 regulations that Grosseteste sent his own Consti- 
 tutions^ through his diocese. If we are to believe 
 Matthew Paris, it was in consequence of the severity 
 of his efforts to carry them into effect that the Bishop's 
 life was attempted by poison, from which he recovered 
 with great difficulty. 
 
 It soon became manifest that no power on earth, 
 neither Papal nor regal, neither ecclesiastical nor civil, 
 could induce the Bishop to institute to a benefice one 
 whom he considered incompetent. It was not, as is 
 generally maintained, that he was opposed only to 
 Papal provisions, nor was he actuated by a stupid 
 national prejudice against foreigners as such ; for he 
 once desired a Franciscan friar to provide six or 
 
 1 Luard, ibid. pp. 154, seq. Among these are several which give 
 great scandal to Protestant historians. Thus almost all of these writers 
 draw particular attention to the prohibition of the custom of saying 
 Mass with vinegar. Here we have a ludicrous instance of the mis- 
 leadings of prejudice. The prohibition in question merely means that 
 in those days when good wine was scarce, and perhaps expensive, and 
 even the best was liable to grow sour far more quickly than the wine 
 of modern days, priests must be very careful to renew it frequently. 
 This is why the same prohibition so frequently occurs in the canons of 
 • contemporary synods and episcopal Constitutions. We need not, then, 
 vex our souls about the alleged enormous scandal and detriment to 
 spiritual interests of invalid consecrations. In his Histoiy of the Holy 
 Eucharist^ Father Bridgett tells us (vol. i. p. 171) that although foreign 
 wine could be always procured in England even from the times of the 
 Roman invasion, yet until the union of the vine-growing provinces of 
 France with the English crown, it was native wine that was in general 
 use. Even as far north as Derbyshire the vine was grown. Yet, he 
 adds, it is probable that the native wine was rather pure than excellent. 
 Sour or poor wine could be mixed with honey and spices for table 
 use. Of course no mixture of this sort was allowed in altar-wine, 
 and care is frequently recommended in the Canons that it should not 
 be too sour. 
 
Bishop of Lincoht. 141 
 
 seven foreign clerks, by whose exemplary conduct 
 he might benefit his diocese, even if they could not 
 speak English. Thus, says Eccleston, he refused the 
 nominees of the Pope and Cardinals, not because 
 they were foreign and ignorant of English, but 
 because they sought only temporal things.^ 
 
 These energetic and probably somewhat intem- 
 perate proceedings ^ naturally raised a storm of oppo- 
 sition from the King, the barons, the clergy, and from 
 his own Chapter. In the year 1239 began the famous 
 quarrel between the latter and Grosseteste. Among 
 other visitations of his diocese he included that of the 
 Dean and Chapter. This claim was at once vehe- 
 mently opposed by that body, on the ground that it 
 had never been heard of before from the earliest 
 times.^ They produced a document stating that when 
 the see of Lincoln was founded under William Rufus, 
 it was settled that any delinquent member of the 
 Chapter should in the first instance be visited and 
 punished only by the Dean or the Chapter, the 
 Bishop's authority being invoked, and behind the 
 Bishop's, the King's, only in the eventuality of the 
 delinquent member resisting the Dean or Chapter. 
 This settlement, according to the document in 
 question, was ratified by two Cardinal Legates who 
 had received Apostolic authority for the purpose. 
 Luard regards this document as a forgery, and thinks 
 the Chapter must have known it to be such. Matthew 
 
 1 Life of St. Edmund. By Dom W. Wallace, O.S.B., p. 178. 
 
 ^ Luard's Epistles of Grosseteste^ Preface, p. xlvii. 
 
 ^ The complete organization of a modern or medieval Chapter — 
 the Bishop, the qtiatiior personct^ i.e., dean, precentor, chancellor, and 
 treasurer — the archdeacons and canons, &c., is not found till the 
 lN"orman times and the twelfth century. (Smith's Dictionary of Christian 
 Antiquities^ vol. i. p. 349 ; but see Note A. ) 
 
 I 
 
142 Robei't Grosseteste^ 
 
 Paris, however, does not make any such suggestion, 
 nor does the document purport to be more than a 
 memorandum of certain historical facts. It does not 
 purport to be the authoritative charter itself. What 
 may have been the real truth about this claim cannot 
 nowadays be determined. According to modern 
 ecclesiastical law the Bishop's claim would be un- 
 impeachable. But it was such as might have been 
 over-ridden by long-established custom or formal 
 Papal privilege such as was invoked.^ 
 
 The case excited a great deal of attention in 
 the country, each diocese feeling that these pro- 
 ceedings would settle the question for itself also. 
 It appeared at the first as if the dispute would be 
 easily settled. Otho, the Papal Legate, imagined 
 that he had only to appear before the contending 
 parties, when the strife would cease. It very soon 
 became evident that recourse must be had to the 
 Pope. The Chapter took the initiative : appointed 
 in secret an agent at the Papal Court, and issued a 
 mandate to the vicars and chaplains ministering in 
 the prebends and churches belonging to the Chapter, 
 to refuse submission to the Bishop if he attempted 
 to visit them. Eventually it was agreed between the 
 disputants that application should be made to the 
 Pope to commit the whole question to the Bishop 
 of Worcester, Walter de Cantilupe, and the Arch- 
 deacons of Worcester and Sudbury, who were either 
 to decide on the entire case without allowing any 
 appeal ; or, after the cause had been sufficiently 
 investigated, by a certain day to be named by the 
 Pope, to submit it to him to be finally settled, each 
 
 1 Chronica Majoj'a, iv. p. 1 5 5- 
 
Bishop of Lincoln, 143 
 
 party in the meantime ceasing from exercising any 
 visitatorial power.. It was thought tliat by this 
 arrangement the business was at an end, but for six 
 long and weary years the life of the Bishop was 
 embittered by the sad contention. At the end of 
 that time, Pope Gregory IX. had died, as likewise his 
 successor, Celestine IV., in the same year, 1241. 
 Innocent IV. (1241 — 1254) now occupied the Papal 
 Chair. To Innocent, whose residence was then at 
 Lyons, whither he had been driven from Italy by the 
 impiety and treachery of Frederic II., the German 
 Emperor, Grosseteste with his friend, Adam de 
 Marisco, set out at the age of seventy — at which 
 time, by-the-bye, we have been told^ by Canon Perry, 
 that he had "ceased to look upon the Pope as 
 the representative of God," and had even come to 
 regard him " as the very minister of Satan ; " and by 
 Dr. Creighton,^ that he was driven, in spite of himself, 
 into antagonism to the Papal system. 
 
 Almost immediately upon his arrival (January 15, 
 1245), Boniface of Savoy was consecrated Archbishop 
 of Canterbury in succession to St. Edmund, who had 
 died in 1240, the see having remained vacant for five 
 years ; and Roger de Weseham, Dean of Lincoln, was 
 consecrated^ Bishop of Lichfield. And here Luard* 
 and Dr. Creighton find it difficult not to suspect 
 unfair dealings between Grosseteste and Roger de 
 Weseham. The triumph of the Bishop was com- 
 plete as far as the right of visitation was concerned. 
 But does it not look as if Grosseteste obtained the 
 
 ^ Life and Times of Grosseteste. By Canon Perry, p. 292. 
 
 ^ See above, pp. 128, 129. 
 
 ^ Rege penitiis inconsulto^ is the expression of the ancient chronicle. 
 
 * Ibid. p. Ixii. 
 
 (xxi b) 
 
144 Robert Grosseteste, 
 
 episcopate for Roger on the understanding that ihe 
 latter would withdraw his claim and that of his 
 Chapter from any further contention ? There does 
 not, however, seem sufficient reason for this unfavour- 
 able suspicion of Luard. The exact circumstances 
 whereby the Bishop gained his cause cannot be 
 ascertained. What we do know is that the honesty 
 and straightforwardness of Grosseteste is the pro- 
 minent feature of his character, and that it is only 
 fair to suppose that he was true to himself all through 
 the transaction. 
 
 We must not omit to notice, in the course of these 
 hostilities between Bishop and Chapter, a striking 
 piece of evidence as to the intimate knowledge of 
 Holy Scripture, in an age, be it remembered, one 
 hundred and forty years before the production of the 
 so-called 1 Wickliffe's Bible. We cannot do better 
 than quote Luard. Of the letter^ of Grosseteste to 
 his Chapter, Luard writes :^ 
 
 It is a very singular specimen of the mode of thought 
 of the time. If the arguments seem weak and fanciful to 
 us now, we must remember that not only are they such 
 as appeared w^eighty to Grosseteste, but also such , as he 
 expected would influence his Chapter ; and thus they give 
 a curious insight into the mediaeval mind, and the thorough 
 familiarity with the Old Testament is perhaps only what 
 we might expect ; but the use of all the characters of 
 Scripture and the forced, sometimes outrageous way, in 
 w^hich they are used to illustrate his argument, show how 
 thoroughly biblical the age was. 
 
 1 See article in Dublin Review, July, 1894, on the Pre- Reformation 
 English Bible, by Dom Aidan Gasquet, O.S.B. 
 ^ Ibid. n. cxxvii. 
 ^ Ibid. Preface, p. xlvii. 
 
Bishop of Lincoht, 145 
 
 We will now proceed as briefly as may be with 
 our history ; and, for convenience' sake, we will con- 
 sider the relations of Grosseteste first with the King 
 and then with the Holy See ; by which time we shall 
 be able to determine on the whole what is the true 
 estimate to be formed of our good Bishop as a 
 champion of the rights of Holy Church against State 
 encroachment, and as a loyal son and servant of the 
 Vicar of Christ. 
 
 In 1 241, the prebend of Thame in Lincoln Cathe- 
 dral becoming vacant, Grosseteste conferred it upon 
 Simon de London, the penitentiary of the Bishop of 
 Durham. The King, meanwhile, had given the pre- 
 sentation to John Mansel, one of his clerks. Henry 
 was relying on a Papal provision which had been 
 granted to him, but it seems ^ that, on a former 
 occasion, in a dispute of this nature, Grosseteste had 
 obtained a privilege from the Holy See whereby he 
 was empowered to disregard any subsequent Papal 
 provision which did not contain a special clause 
 derogating from his privilege. As there was no such 
 special reference in the Papal provision pleaded by 
 the King, Grosseteste at once threatened Mansel with 
 excommunication. Mansel being, as it seems, a man 
 of peace, resigned his benefice ; and the Bishop over- 
 weary of royal interference, seriously contemplated 
 his own resignation and exile. The King, however, 
 gave way, and the affair was compromised. 
 
 In 1242, Henry imposed severe exactions upon 
 the country in order to prosecute his foolish war with 
 France, then under St. Louis IX. Grosseteste vehe- 
 jnently exhorted his Chapter to make a common 
 
 ^ Matthew Paris, vol. i. p. 374. Bohn's Edition. 
 
 K 4 
 
146 Rohe7't G7'osseteste^ 
 
 stand with himself against the King, who is probably 
 referred to in the purposely ambiguous language of 
 his letter. 
 
 In 1243 occurred the famous contest between the 
 Bishop and the Chapter of Canterbury. Truly if 
 the life of man is one of storm, that of Grosseteste 
 was one of hurricane. The said Chapter during the 
 long vacancy of five years claimed metropolitical 
 power, and undertook to receive appeals from the 
 provinces. The validity of their claim is discussed 
 in Note B. 
 
 A clerk, whose name does not appear, sued the 
 Abbot of Bardney, in Lincolnshire, for the recovery 
 of a debt. The Abbot disputed the debt, upon which 
 the clerk appealed to the Archdeacon, who seconded 
 him in applying to Grosseteste to enforce the claim. 
 The Bishop sent lay visitors to the monastery for this 
 purpose, but the monks shut the door in their faces^ 
 and stoutly defied the Bishop's right to interfere. 
 Grosseteste would certainly seem to be within his 
 rights : his prudence and tact do not seem quite so 
 clear. The Abbot, hearing of the claim of the Canter- 
 bury Chapter, appealed to them. At this juncture 
 of events the King, recognizing the validity of the 
 sentence of deposition which was now pronounced 
 by Grosseteste, proceeded to seize the temporalities 
 of the vacant abbacy, upon which the Bishop turned 
 round upon the King and threatened him with the 
 fate of Ozah, who perished for touching the ark.^ 
 The Canterbury monks then proceeded solemnly to 
 excommunicate the Bishop with bell, book, and 
 candle. This only intensified the quarrel, the censure 
 ^ 2 Kings vi. 7, 
 
Bishop of Lincoln, 147 
 
 being received by Grosseteste with contempt. Event- 
 ually appeal was made to Innocent IV., who had just 
 been elevated to the Papacy, and Innocent directed 
 the monks to withdraw their excommunication, and 
 sought a peaceable adjustment of the conflicting 
 claims. Grosseteste, however, complained of the 
 action of the Pope in directing the Canterbury monks 
 to annul their sentence. It seemed to him as if the 
 Pope thereby more or less gave colour to their pre- 
 posterous claim. But Innocent's object was clearly 
 to shelve an examination which would have required 
 long delays, and settle matters by an exercise of his 
 own unquestioned superior authority. The letter of 
 Grosseteste to Cardinal Otho on this occasion is note- 
 worthy.^ He calls the episcopal dignity the greatest 
 upon earth. The Pope himself, he says, is not more 
 than a Bishop, although within the sphere of the 
 episcopate he holds the very summit and the plenitude 
 of power, from which plenitude the other Bishops 
 receive what they possess. Here is proof positive 
 that up to the age of sixty-eight Grosseteste is as 
 orthodox in his faith and allegiance to the Holy See 
 as can possibly be. 
 
 In 1244 a serious disturbance between the scholars 
 and the Jews arose at Oxford. ^ Wood's quaint remark 
 — nescio an de ustcris — probably indicates the cause. 
 Grosseteste took the scholars' part, though the precise 
 mode of the settlement of the affair is uncertain. 
 What is certain is that the Bishop, in what he 
 
 1 No. ex. " Dignitas episcopalis est maxima qua Christus homo usus 
 €st in terris : qua nee majorem gestat apex papalis licet in hac locum 
 obtineat summi verticis et plenitudinem potestatis : de qua plenitudine 
 ceteri quod habent, recipiunt." 
 
 2 Wood's Athena Oxonieitses, i. p. 233, 
 
148 Robei^ Grosseteste^ 
 
 did, laid the foundation of the jurisdiction of the 
 University. For we find that shortly afterwards the 
 King issued a privilege to the Chancellor and Univer- 
 sity, recognizing and ordaining that for the future, 
 
 all clerical causes respecting loans given or received, or the 
 taxation and letting of houses, or matters regarding food 
 and clothing or any contract whatever of movable goods in 
 the municipality or suburbs of Oxford should be decided in 
 the Court of the Chancellor of the University, and the. 
 King's prohibition was not to be in force. 
 
 The year 1244 was one of perpetual friction between- 
 Grosseteste and the King. The interference of the 
 latter with the filling up of the vacant sees of Win- 
 chester and Chichester, successfully resisted by the 
 Bishop, and the royal demand for subsidy likewise 
 refused by the Bishop's influence, may be found 
 related in Luard's Preface.^ It is impossible within 
 our prescribed limits to enter into details of these 
 transactions. 
 
 The next dispute, however, between Grosseteste 
 and the King deserves particular attention. In 1246 
 the financial condition of the see of Canterbury was 
 in a deplorable state : a great part of its debts arising 
 out of the expenses attending the Translation of the 
 relics of St. Thomas in 1220. Boniface, the Arch- 
 bishop, appealed to the Pope in his distress, and was 
 authorized to appropriate the revenues of the first 
 year of all the benefices falling vacant during the 
 next seven years in the city, diocese, and province 
 of Canterbury, until the sum of ten thousand marks 
 should have been collected. Boniface thereupon 
 applied to Grosseteste for his help in procuring the 
 
 ^ Ibid. pp. Iviii. seq. 
 
Bishop of Lincoln. 149 
 
 money, a matter of great difficulty, for the demand 
 was highly resented by the King and his subjects, 
 Grosseteste at first refused to help the Archbishop. 
 In epistle Ixxxix.,^ in terms of the utmost respect 
 and good-will, he begs to be excused from interference 
 in the matter. He says that he would thereby 
 offend his fellow-suffragans by acting independently 
 of them, and make himself odious to his clergy, 
 already overtaxed by Papal and royal exactions. 
 However, shortly afterwards, perhaps in consequence 
 of the King's strenuous opposition, we find Grosseteste 
 acceding to the request of Boniface, upon which 
 Henry was forced once more to give way through 
 fear of the sturdy Bishop. 
 
 Almost at the same time Pope Innocent himself 
 was compelled to demand a subsidy. Upon this 
 particular point we defer for the present any com.- 
 mentary. Later on will be seen an apology for the 
 Holy See in this and similar appeals to the English 
 purse. Once more the King was enraged beyond 
 measure, and wrote to each Bishop peremptory orders 
 forbidding them to levy the " tallage,"^ as it was called. 
 The reply of Grosseteste to the King is memorable, 
 and gives us proof positive, that at any rate six years 
 before his death his loyalty to the Holy See is 
 unimpaired. The great change in the Popery of the 
 Bishop, as alleged by Canon Perry, is yet to be. We 
 quote from the Bishop's letter : ^ 
 
 The Bishops are bound to collect the tallage [he writes], 
 for they as well as I myself are compelled by the authority 
 
 ^ Luard, p. 276. 
 
 ^ Derived from an obsolete French word, iaillage or tax. 
 
 ^ Letter cxix. Luard, p. 341. 
 
150 Robert Grossetestey 
 
 and precepts of the Sovereign Pontiff, whom not to obey 
 "is the sin of witchcraft," in whose wish not to acquiesce 
 is hke the "crime of idolatry." ^ . . . For we see our 
 spiritual father and mother,- to whom we are bound incom- 
 parably more than to our parents in the flesh — by way of 
 honour, obedience, and reverence and every kind of relief 
 in their necessities — relegated to exile, persecuted, despoiled, 
 and deprived of wherewith to be sustained according to 
 their state. 
 
 He goes on to threaten the King with the evils 
 that are sure to fall upon the kingdom, unless they 
 succour the '' spiritual father of all upon earth." Once 
 more the King is foiled and Holy Church triumphs 
 under the leadership of " Lincolniensis." 
 
 In 1248 we find Grosseteste present in the Parlia- 
 ment convened in London for the real, though not 
 expressed, purpose of obtaining supplies for the 
 King's impoverished condition. 
 
 The Parliament refused to comply with the King's 
 demand for the present. It would seem that for 
 three or four years the royal subsidies remained in 
 abeyance. In October, 1252, the King produced a 
 Papal mandate, authorizing him to receive for three 
 years an entire tenth of the revenues of the Church 
 in England to provide for the necessities of the royal 
 pilgrimage to the Holy Land under the banner of 
 the Cross. According to Matthew Paris, and, as far 
 as can be seen, to no other author, Grosseteste 
 protested against this demand of Pope and King, 
 even whilst some of the prelates were inclined to 
 give way. The ground of Grosseteste's objection 
 was that the exaction was excessive, and would 
 
 ^ I Kings XV. 23. 
 
 - By these words, which occur fre(juently in the Bishop's letters, he 
 means the Pope and the Roman Church. 
 
Bishop of Lincoln, 151 
 
 become a dangerous precedent. Whilst refusing 
 to give credence to the exaggerated account of 
 Paris, it is probably true that the Bishops, with 
 Grosseteste as their guiding spirit, at first refused 
 compliance. We see no reason why they should 
 not have done so, nor what point is gained by our 
 opponents in such an admission. Eventually, however, 
 the Bishops met in council and offered to come to 
 terms with the King. They proposed to concede the 
 grant of money on condition that he would keep 
 inviolate Magna Charta. Besides which he was to 
 grant a charter undertaking that this exaction should 
 not be used as a precedent, and that the money should 
 be applied bona fide to the exact purpose for which 
 it was demanded. The King swore that he would 
 not submit to such slavery, whereupon the Council 
 and Parliament broke up with the matter unsettled. 
 
 In May of the next year, 1253, another Parlia- 
 ment was held in which, at the instance chiefly of 
 Grosseteste, the King was forced to submit to the 
 terms offered him ; and once more the royal arbitrari- 
 ness was kept at bay. And what does the weary 
 recurrence of friction between mitre and crown prove? 
 What would have been the history of the English 
 people all along the line of Norman, Angevin, and 
 Plantagenet Kings — sad enough as it is — without the 
 benign and effective power of Holy Church to roll 
 back the ever-recurring tide of arbitrary and despotic 
 kinghood ? What was it that made the tyrant Tudor 
 possible, but the gradual withdrawal, by the Black 
 Death, Lollard fanaticism, and civil wars, of the re- 
 straining power of the Catholic Church? The yoke 
 of Jesus Christ was cast off, and exchanged for the 
 
152 Robert Grosseteste, 
 
 yoke of Caesar. When will mankind learn the lesson 
 that a yoke of some kind they cannot escape? It 
 must be either that of Christ "which is sweet,"^ or 
 else that of Csesar: unless indeed it be that of Demos, 
 more terrible still. 
 
 We have no space here to narrate in detail the 
 different acts of Grosseteste in the administration of 
 his diocese. It will be sufficient to state that he was 
 chiefly occupied in making visitations^ with his charac- 
 teristic thoroughness and severity : that in conse- 
 quence he was in perpetual conflict with Chapter and 
 beneficed clergyman, with abbot and prior, with monk 
 and nun. Indeed, so frequent were the complaints 
 about the conduct of "the terrible" Bishop, that 
 Luard^ is obliged to remark several times in his 
 Preface that he -cannot acquit him of hastiness, in- 
 temperate zeal, and lack of judgment in many of his 
 transactions ; whilst Matthew Paris, in support of the 
 rights of monasteries, occasionally pours forth the 
 vials of his wrath upon him. 
 
 It only remains for us to give an account of the 
 dealings of our good Bishop with the Holy See. 
 We have reserved this part of our history to the 
 conclusion of our tract, because it is of supreme 
 importance, as determining mainly the estimate we 
 shall have finally to make of the character and ortho- 
 doxy of Robert Grosseteste. We shall confine our 
 attention almost entirely to the letters of the Bishop 
 
 1 St. Matt. xi. 30. 
 
 ^ E.g. , of Godstow, where the Abbess is deposed pi'opter culpas suas r 
 of Dunstable and Caudwell, where the Priors were likewise degraded : 
 of Oxford, Lichfield, and Coventry, &c. (Luard, Preface, pp. Ixix. seq.) 
 At Ramsey he inspected the dormitories, " forcing open anything that 
 was shut." {Ibid. p. Ixxv.) 
 
 ^ E.g.^ pp. Ixxi. Ixxv, See also p. xlviii. 
 
Bishop of Lincoln, 153; 
 
 as the incontestable sources of evidence ; whilst, for 
 reasons already stated, we discard in great measure 
 the biassed and indeed fabulous narrative of Matthew 
 Paris. 
 
 First, let us see from the said letters what was 
 the faith of Grosseteste from the beginning to the end 
 of his life as regards the See of Rome. 
 
 The first reference made to that See is in a letter^ 
 written to William de Raleigh, treasurer of Exeter 
 in the year 1236: i.e.^ in the sixty-second year of 
 his age, and the first of his episcopate. 
 
 The princes of this world [writes the Bishop] ought to 
 know that either sword,^ the temporal as well as the spiritual,, 
 is the sword of Peter. But it is the Heads of the Church, 
 who occupy the place and office of Peter, who of themselves 
 use the spiritual sword ; it is the same Heads of the Church 
 who use the material sword by the hand and ministry ot 
 secular princes ; who ought to unsheath or sheath it accord- 
 ing to the design and disposition of ecclesiastical chiefs. 
 
 In epistle xxix. of the same year Grosseteste 
 writes to King Henry to say that the Pope has taken 
 under his protection the Crusaders, and has com- 
 manded the Archbishops and Bishops likewise to 
 befriend them ; and threatens with punishment those 
 
 ^ No. xxiii. Luard, p. ']6. 
 
 ^ The Bishop here uses the famous similitude of the two swords, 
 as St. Anselm did before him {Conim. in Matth. c. xxvi.), and as 
 Boniface VIII. did in the Bull Unani Sanciam (1302), which has 
 given such widespread offence. The first sword is the spiritual 
 power, the second sword is the material power, to be draw^n in support 
 of the spiritual power. The spiritual sword is drawn by the Church, 
 the civil sword directly by the State, but indirectly by the Church, 
 when she calls upon the State to draw it in her interests, as she 
 has the right to do. For the temporal authority, though perfectly 
 distinct from it, yet must be subject to the spiritual authority ; 
 because the spiritual order is of its very nature superior to the 
 temporal, as the soul is to the body. If it could be shown that 
 the Pope anywhere asserted as his prerogative, direct power over the 
 
154 Robert Grosseteste^ 
 
 prelates who disobey the Papal command. Therefore, 
 to avoid the charge of negligence and disobedience, 
 he begs the King to release from prison Richard 
 Syward, the Crusader. To this letter the same date 
 may be assigned. 
 
 In letter xxxv.,^ written to Pope Gregory IX. 
 (date uncertain) we find expressions of extraordinary 
 devotion. 
 
 Although [he writes] from the general debt of subjection, 
 by which not only the entire Christian people but the whole 
 human race is bound, and without the payment of which no 
 one can gain salvation, I also am a debtor to your most 
 holy paternity : yet the special prerogative of your virtues 
 and the singular refulgence of them stimulates me intensely 
 and strongly urges me to show forth the plenitude of 
 obedience, of reverence, honour, and fear, &c. 
 
 At the end of the letter he asks for some bodily 
 task by which he may prove his devotion. 
 
 Epistle xlix.2 is of special value for our history, 
 for it shows how Grosseteste thought it proper to 
 act when a Papal legate proposed to supersede his 
 episcopal rights. Otho, the Cardinal Legate, had 
 appointed his own clerk, Atto, to the prebend at 
 Lincoln, which had been previously held by War- 
 minster. Grosseteste not unnaturally found this 
 appointment most objectionable — first, because he 
 had himself filled up the vacancy before Otho's 
 letters reached him ; secondly, because of the inter- 
 ference with his rights as patron of the benefice. 
 
 temporal order, then offence might justly be taken. But nowhere has 
 the Pope done this. It should i)e remembered that the claim of 
 Boniface had its origin in the public law then in force. See Hergen- 
 rother's Church aiid State, vol. ii. ]). 120. E-^glish Translation. 
 ^ Luard, p. 123. ^ Ibid. p. 144. 
 
Bishop of Lincoln. 155 
 
 But, in writing back, he has no thought of resisting, 
 and even acknowledges expressly that "the Pope 
 and the Holy Roman Church have power freely 
 to dispose of all ecclesiastical benefices." What he 
 claims is only the right to protest against a use of 
 this supreme power, which he says " tends to the 
 destruction rather than to the edification of the 
 Church." And he finishes by " asking suppliantly, 
 and prostrate at the feet of your Holiness, that in 
 your kindness you will revoke the appointment to 
 this prebend." 
 
 In letter Iviii., addressed to Gregory IX. (1238), 
 we find the same loyalty to the Holy See, with an 
 earnest request that the Pope will not suffer the light 
 of the Franciscan Order to be extinguished. Another 
 letter, No. Iviii., to the same Pope,MS in a similar 
 strain. (1238.) 
 
 Letter cxxvii. is one of great importance. It is in 
 reality a pamphlet, written in 1239, to his Chapter at 
 the beginning of the quarrel which, as we have seen, 
 lasted so long a time. We have already called atten- 
 tion to its intensely Scriptural character. Moses, he 
 writes, was advised by Jethro to appoint assistants in 
 his work, but he did not thereby give up or diminish 
 his power, but reserved to himself the more important 
 cases.^ The same is true of prelates : and prelates 
 only can deal with the whole diocese or Chapter if 
 they go wrong. Further, as the prelates are to their 
 Chapter and diocese, so is the Pope to the prelates. 
 As is each Bishop to his diocese, so is the Pope to 
 the whole Church. Special exemptions may be given 
 by the Pope to rural deans, abbots, chapters, &c., but 
 
 Exodus xviii. ij, seq. ; Numbers xi. i, seq. 
 
156 Robert Grosseteste, 
 
 where an exemption has not been given, as is the 
 case with the Lincoln Chapter, then that Chapter 
 must be subject to the Bishop's visitation : and the 
 Bishop cannot diminish his own powers, neither can 
 the Pope his own. This is shown in various passages 
 of Scripture,^ in which the Bishop's duty to his flock 
 is laid down, and threats are quoted to neglect on 
 their part. Now this duty cannot be done without 
 visitation. The parish priests are visores^ i.e.^ con- 
 tinually resident, and eye-witnesses of their flock. 
 The Bishops alone are visitatores, or itinerant and 
 special shepherds of the flock. The Dean is always 
 resident, and therefore is only a visor not visitator. 
 The visor es^ or 'pastors, are stimulated to zeal by the 
 fact of their being visited by the Bishops. So 
 St. Bernard writes,^ and many other examples of 
 Holy Scripture prove.^ It is impossible within our 
 limits to analyze the entire letter. Enough is here 
 set forth to supply complete evidence of the exalted 
 ideas of Papal prerogative and his own duty of 
 reverence and obedience, which pervaded the mind of 
 Grosseteste up to his sixty-fifth year. 
 
 In letters Ixxvii. to Pope Gregory, Ixxx. to 
 S. de Arden, his proctor at the Roman court, and 
 Ixxxi. again to the Pope (all of 1239), which were 
 written during the progress of his contention with 
 his Chapter, there are to be found fervid protestations 
 of his utter dependence on the Pope, " whose health," 
 
 ^ Ecclus. xxxiii. 19—24; Exodus xxix. 44; Jerem. xi. I — 4; 
 St. John X. 12; Jerem. xxiii. 1,2; Jerem. xxiii. 2; Ezech. xxxiv. 
 4, 16, and II, 12, 15, 17; Isaias x. 15, &c. 
 
 ^ St. Bernard, De Officio Episcoporiun, 35, opp. i. col. 1127. 
 
 ^ E.g., The parable of the Prodigal Son : David, Samuel, Adam and 
 Eve, Abel, Abraham, &c. 
 
Bishop of Lincoln. 157 
 
 he thus concludes, " may the most High preserve for 
 me and the Church for a long time."^ 
 
 We have now arrived at the year 1243 and the 
 Pontificate of Innocent IV. (1241 — 54.) To him in 
 letter cxi., Grosseteste writes fervent congratulations 
 and requests for help in his sufferings with his 
 Chapter. We must bear this letter in mind because 
 we shall presently have occasion to compare it with 
 the famous letter cxxviii. for the purpose of showing 
 the difference of style between a letter of the Bishop 
 to the Pope, and one to his notary. 
 
 Letter cxvii., to Innocent IV., written in 1245, is 
 of special importance. This year, be it remembered, 
 is the tenth of Grosseteste's episcopate, and the 
 eighth before his death. We give the literal transla- 
 tion of the greater part of this notable document. 
 . The inscription is as follows : 
 
 To our most holy Father and Lord in Christy Linocent^ by 
 the grace of God Supreme Pontiffs his ow?i devoted Robert^ by 
 the Divine pity the humble minister of the Church of Lincoln, 
 with most devout kisses of his blessed feet. 
 
 After my return to England, I met our Lord the King 
 returning from the districts of Wales : and in a private con- 
 versation with him, whilst, among other things, I said, as 
 well as I could, certain persuasive words about obedience, 
 fidelity, and devotion to your Holiness and the Holy Roman 
 Church — to be shown and observed and firmly and con- 
 stantly maintained, especially now, when some people are 
 trying, but by the help of God in vain, to attempt some 
 disturbance of the prevailing tranquillity — the King replied 
 to me thus: "My Lord Bishop, those things which belong 
 to the crown and our royalty we intend, as indeed we 
 ought, to preserve inviolate:^ and we desire that our lord 
 the Pope and the Church may help us so to do : and take 
 
 ^ Luard, p. 261. - See above, note, p. 153. 
 
158 Robert Grosseteste^ 
 
 it for certain, that, altogether and at all times, we will show 
 and observe obedience, fidelity, and devotion to our lord 
 the Pope, as our spiritual father, and to the holy Roman 
 Church, as our mother. ..." 
 
 This reply of my lord the King I have thought fit to 
 send to your Holiness, that it may plainly appear to you,, 
 what devotion the said lord bears towards you and the 
 Roman Church. May the most High (Lord) of the Church 
 maintain your health for many a day. 
 
 There can be no question then, that at this period, 
 which it is to be remembered is the seventieth year 
 of the Bishop's life, his devotion to the Chair of Peter 
 leaves nothing to be desired. 
 
 In the following year, 1246, we have still more 
 striking evidence of the same devotion. In letter 
 cxix., Grosseteste writes to the King, to justify his 
 action in the mafter of the tallage imposed by the 
 Pope upon the clergy. Henry is astonished that 
 Grosseteste himself proposes to collect the tallage. 
 Grosseteste replies thus : 
 
 Be it known to you that we do nothing in this matter 
 of ourselves, />., by our own authority, nor independently ; 
 for our venerable brethren in the episcopacy are doing the 
 same thing ; according to the form given to them by Master 
 Martin, the nuncio of our lord the Pope : and both they 
 and I are compelled by the authority of the supreme Pontiff, 
 whom not to obey is like the sin of witchcraft and like the 
 crime of idolatry.^ It is therefore not to be wondered at 
 that we, the bishops, are acting thus in the matter. But 
 it would be most worthy of the utmost astonishment and 
 indignation if we refused to do so much or even more. For 
 we see our spiritual father and mother to whom we are bound 
 incomparably more than to our parents according to the flesh, 
 to render honour, obedience, reverence, and help of all kinds 
 
 ^ Luard, p. 340. * i Kings xv. 23. 
 
Bishop of Lincoln. 159 
 
 in their necessities, relegated to exile, distressed by persecu- 
 tions and troubles from every quarter, despoiled of their 
 patrimony, and without means of their own whereby to 
 obtain proper sustenance. If then, to these our spiritual 
 parents in such circumstances we do not give help, it is 
 certain that we transgress the commandments of God con- 
 cerning the honour due to parents, nor shall we be long- 
 lived in the land.^ 
 
 With reference to the action of Grosseteste in this 
 matter, Dom Wallace writes i^ 
 
 Men like St. Edmund and Bishop Grosseteste, unworldly 
 men, with singleness of view, having at heart only the glory 
 of God and salvation of souls, were prepared to make any 
 sacrifice on behalf of the common father of Christendom, 
 in the straits to which he was reduced.^ ... St. Edmund 
 himself cheerfully paid whatever demands were made upon 
 ihim by the Holy See without murmur or remonstrance. 
 
 We nov^ come to the famous letter cxxviii.,* which 
 alone, as Luard remarks, has kept the memory of 
 Grosseteste green in the English mind and memory. 
 It is represented by Luard and almost all authors as 
 written to Innocent IV. We shall see shortly that it 
 was not so. The circumstances which led to its 
 composition were as follows. 
 
 Innocent IV., in a letter dated Perugia, January 
 26, 1253 (i^ine months before the death of Grosseteste), 
 ordered the Bishop to induct the Pope's nephew, 
 Frederick of Lavagna, into a canonry at Lincoln, by 
 provision, any exemption or privilege of the Church 
 of Lincoln notwithstanding. Grosseteste peremptorily 
 refused, and wrote the famous letter under considera- 
 
 ^ Exodus XX. 12. 
 
 * St. Edmund of Canterbury^ p. 313. 
 
 * What those straits were, see ibid. p. 314. 
 
 * Luard, Letters of Grosseteste^ p. 432 ; and Burton Annals ^ p. 311. 
 
 (xxi c) 
 
i6o Robert Grosseteste^ 
 
 tion, which by its outspoken defiance of the Holy^ 
 See plainly shows, according to Canon Perry, that 
 the mind of the Bishop was radically altered in its 
 allegiance to Rome, 
 
 We will give at considerable length the contents 
 of this letter. First, let us notice its title. This, as 
 it stands in the pages of Luard, is not easy to 
 translate.^ It is as follows : "' Robertus Lincolniensis 
 episcopus magistro Innocentio domino Papce salutem et 
 benedictionem — Robert, Bishop of Lincoln, to Master 
 Innocent, the Lord Pope, health and benediction."' 
 In a note^ Luard writes : This letter is usually pre- 
 ceded by another commencing : 
 
 Robert by the permission of God, bishop of Lincoln tO' 
 the Archdeacon of Canterbury and master Innocent the 
 Notary of our Lord the Pope health and benediction. 
 
 If we turn to the Burton Annals^ we find that this 
 is also the true title of the letter we are considering. 
 How then are we to account for the untranslateable 
 Latin title which is given above, and is always prefixed 
 to this letter ? How, indeed, except that the force and 
 sting of this letter would be greatly impaired, if it 
 appeared as it really is, to be not a letter to the Pope 
 at all, but to Innocent, the Pope's Notary ! We cannot 
 but think that Luard has failed in his usual impar- 
 tiality here. Dr. Creighton too, notwithstanding his 
 great reputation, falls into the same mistake. It is 
 indeed difficult to acquit these writers entirely of 
 
 1 For we cannot suppose that Grosseteste addressed Innocent IV. 
 as Master Innocent. 
 ^ Luard, p. 432. 
 3 Rolls Series, p. 311. 
 
Bishop of Lincoln. l6i 
 
 want of proper care. For if we refer to the Burton 
 Annals we read :^ 
 
 In the same year (i.e. 1253) there having been given 
 certain provisors by the Apostolic authority, viz.., the Arch- 
 deacon of Canterbury (Hugo De mortuo Mari) and a certain 
 Roman, by name Innocent., to provide for a certain Roman 
 youth the first vacant prebend in the cathedral Church of 
 Lincoln : Robert, our lord and master, bishop of the same 
 place, on the receipt of letters executory in this same 
 business from the said (provisors), wrote to them in these 
 words. 
 
 Then follows the letter cxxviii. with the intro- 
 duction given in English on the preceding page of 
 this tract, with the addition of the following : 
 
 We have understood that you have received letters from 
 our lord the Pope to this effect : " Innocent, Bishop, &c., 
 to our beloved sons in Christ, the Archdeacon of Canter- 
 bury and master Innocent our secretary, dwelling for the 
 present in England, health," &c. 
 
 The letter then proceeds as we have it in Luard's^ 
 Epistles of Grosseteste. The Burton Annals go on 
 to tell us that the Archdeacon and Innocent sent at 
 once the Bishop's letter to Innocent IV. It was 
 not unnatural that they should do this, but there is not 
 a word in the letter directing them to do it With 
 these facts before us, why do Mr. Luard, Dr. Creighton^ 
 and all non-Catholic authors, style this a letter of 
 Grosseteste to the Pope ? One would have thought 
 that a scholar of very moderate pretensions would 
 have been aware of the fact, that no suffragan Bishop 
 would dream of sending " health and benediction '* 
 to the Sovereign Pontiff, nor even to his Metropolitan 
 or brother suffragans. The reader's attention has 
 
 1 P. 311, Luard's Edit. Rolls Series. 
 
 I 
 
1 62 Robert GrossetestCy 
 
 already been drawn to the language of Grossetestd^'^ 
 when really addressed to the Pope. See letters cxi. 
 and cxvii.^ 
 
 This fact, that letter cxxviii. is written to the 
 Papal notary and not to the Pope, nor meant, so 
 far as we can see, for the eye of the Pope, removes 
 much of the sting of the Protestant indictment. 
 Father Rickaby, S.J., in The Month of August, 1880, 
 pertinently remarks, that a Bishop writing to a notary 
 might well enough pen words that he would not 
 dream of sending to the Pope. 
 
 And now, when we come to examine the contents 
 of the letter, we shall be surprised to find that instead 
 of curses it contains blessings. We venture to remark 
 that nowhere does Grosseteste show livelier faith and 
 allegiance to the Holy See. 
 
 You know [he writes] that I obey the Apostolic com- 
 mands with filial affection and all devotion and reverence ; 
 and those things which are adverse to Apostolic commands, 
 being zealous for the parental honour [of the Holy See], I 
 oppose or withstand ; being bound to obedience or opposi- 
 tion equally by Divine command. For Apostolic com- 
 mands are not, nor can be, anything else but consonant to 
 the doctrine of the Apostles and of Jesus Christ our Lord 
 Himself, the Master and Lord of Apostles, whose type and 
 person our Lord the Pope in the highest degree represents 
 in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. For our Lord Jesus Christ 
 Himself says : " He that is not with Me is against Me ; " 
 but against Him the most Divine sanctity of the Apostolic 
 See neither is nor can be. The tenor of the above- 
 mentioned letter is not consistent with Apostolic sanctity, 
 but quite the reverse. ^ In the first place, in the letter, and 
 
 ^ See above, p. 157. 
 
 ^ Luard justly observes that the style of this letter is scarcely equal 
 to its fatne. 'It is almost impossible to give the exact English equivalent 
 of its more turgid and intemperate passages. 
 
Bishop of Lincoln, 163 
 
 • 
 
 in others like it spread widely abroad, the "notwithstandings'' 
 (non obstante) which are heaped up in such vast quantity, 
 being not drawn from any necessity in observing the law of 
 nature, produce a wide deluge of fickleness, audacity, and 
 shameless insolence of lying and deceiving, a distrust in 
 believing or giving faith to anybody, and all the vices which 
 follow from those things which are innumerable, disturbing 
 and confusing the purity of religion and the social inter- 
 course of men. Moreover, after the sin of Lucifer, the 
 same with that of Antichrist, the Son of Perdition in the 
 latter times, whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit 
 of His mouth (2 Thess. ii. 8), there neither is, nor can be, 
 any sort of sin so adverse and contrary to Apostolic and 
 Evangelical teaching, so odious and detestable to our Lord 
 Jesus Christ Himself, so abominable and destructive to the 
 human race as to kill and destroy, by robbing them of the 
 pastoral office and ministry, those souls which are to be 
 vivified and saved by the office and ministry of the pastoral 
 care. . . , 
 
 He goes on to say that the sin of those who send 
 such unworthy ecclesiastics is greater than that of 
 those who are sent, referring of course to the 
 Sovereign Pontiff, and concludes as follows : 
 
 No one who is subject to the Apostolic See, and faithful 
 in immaculate and sincere obedience, and not cut off from 
 the Body of Christ and the same Holy See by schism, can 
 obey commands, or precepts, or attempts of any description of 
 such a character as this, from whatever quarter they come, 
 even if it should be from the highest order of angels, but 
 must of necessity contradict and rebel against them with all 
 his strength. Therefore, reverend sirs, out of the debt of 
 obedience and fidelity by which I am bound to the Most 
 Holy Apostolic See, as to both my parents and by the love 
 of union with it in the Body of Christ, these things which 
 are contained in the said letter, because they most evidently 
 tend to the sin which I have mentioned, are most abomin- 
 able to our Lord Jesus Christ, and most pernicious to the 
 human race, and are altogether opposed to the holiness of 
 
164 Robert Grosseteste^ 
 
 the Apostolic See, and are contrary to Catholic unity, I 
 filially and obediently disobey, contradict, and rebel against. 
 Nor can your wisdom institute harsh measures against me, 
 because every word and action of mine in the matter is 
 neither contradiction nor rebellion : but filial honour 
 due by Divine command to my (spiritual) father and 
 mother.^ 
 
 Such are the salient points of this letter, upon 
 which non-Catholics are wont alniost entirely to rely 
 in their endeavour to prove the Protestantism of 
 Grosseteste. 
 
 It is usually stated, though solely on the authority 
 of Matthew Paris, that Innocent IV. was furious on 
 the receipt of this letter from the notary, burst out 
 into intemperate language, and was only prevented 
 by the Cardinals from at once placing Grosseteste 
 under excommunication. Other writers affirm that he 
 actually did so. But Luard says that he can find 
 no authority for the fact ;^ and we need not trouble 
 ourselves about the highly-coloured story of Matthew 
 Paris. Doubtless the Pope was displeased ; but he 
 knew very well his man, and loved and respected 
 him, and actually ordered the vehement protests 
 of the Bishop to be read aloud in a consistory of 
 Cardinals.^ 
 
 Neither need we be concerned with the ordinary 
 account of the Bishop's death, in which he is made 
 
 ^ Sed filialis divino mandato debita patri et matri honoratio ; which 
 Canon Perry translates thus : " But the filial honour due to the Divine 
 commandment as to (?) my parents." This is feebleness itself. it will 
 be observed that Grosseteste throughout his letters is perpetually 
 writing about his "spiritual father and mother," meaning thereby the 
 Pope and the Roman Church. 
 
 ^ Preface to Epistles of Grosseteste, p. Ixxxi. in note, where he gives 
 his reason for discrediting the excommunication. 
 
 ^ Lingard, vol. ii. p. 248, note. 
 
Bishop of Lincoln. 165 
 
 to pour forth violent complaints and accusations 
 against the Holy See. Canon Perry has wrought 
 this episode of Grosseteste's career into high relief. 
 An illustration is given of the death-bed, and five or 
 six pages are devoted to the last words of the dying 
 prelate. He is made by the Canon to define the sin 
 -of heresy, and to convict the Pope of that sin, and 
 to condemn him to everlasting flames. 
 
 The avarice, simony, usury, and cheating, the lustfulness, 
 vgluttony, vanity, and worldliness which reigned in the Papal 
 Court were present in sad array to the thoughts of the 
 Bishop. At last, worn out with his vehement protests, 
 the voice and breath together ceased, the eloquent tongue 
 was still, the zealous and earnest heart ceased to beat, and 
 the great Bishop went to receive his reward.^ 
 
 Let us hope that there were not wanting other 
 thoughts to the dying man, such as those of con- 
 trition, and faith, and hope, wherewith to meet his 
 particular judgment. However, as the Canon has 
 taken every word from Matthew Paris, and from him 
 alone, we need not trouble ourselves to make further 
 •comment upon them. So, also, as regards the famous 
 ghost story, according to which Robert of Lincoln 
 appeared to Innocent IV., when that Pontiff was 
 thinking of casting the bones of the Bishop outside 
 the church ; and in which we are told that the ghost 
 pummelled poor Innocent with the butt-end of his 
 pastoral staff. Here, again, Paris is responsible for 
 the story.2 Jq ^\ ^f ^^is, and such as this, 
 enlightened scholarship will give but sparse credence. 
 
 One epistle alone remains to be noticed, viz., that 
 
 1 Perry, pp. 284—290. 
 
 2 For further amusing embellishments see Dr. Milman's Latin 
 Christianity ^ bk. x. ch. 5. 
 
1 66 Robert GrossetestCy 
 
 which is numbered cxxxi. in Luard's edition. In 
 this document, the Bishop is represented as caUing 
 upon the nobles of England, the citizens of London, 
 and the whole community " to resist with arms, the 
 various oppressions, provisions, impositions of the 
 Apostolic See." 
 
 Before dealing with the attitude towards the Holy 
 See adopted by the writer of this letter, one would 
 like to have some evidence that Grosseteste himself 
 was the writer. This document is not found along 
 with the other letters of Grosseteste, but comes to us 
 from a wholly disconnected source. It is to be found 
 in a bundle of other ancient letters in the Library of 
 Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. We have fortu- 
 nately been able to secure the services of a friend 
 who has recently examined the document. He 
 reports that it occupies but one sheet of paper, is 
 thrown casually among other miscellaneous writings, 
 is not in the form of a letter at all, and has a title 
 which is quite unique. Every letter of Grosseteste 
 (that has been published, at any rate) has the prefix 
 of " Robert, by the grace of God Bishop of Lincoln," 
 or of words to that effect ; this letter alone is without 
 it. It is styled Lincolniensis proceribus Anglice. Till 
 further research, if any is possible, has established 
 the authorship of Grosseteste, we need not concern 
 ourselves with any serious apology for it. At the 
 most it is of a piece with other letters of the same 
 kind, which do not affect Papal prerogative, but 
 merely certain acts of Papal administration. Besides 
 which, being written, according to Luard, in 1252, it 
 is not the last expression of the mind and attitude of 
 Grosseteste towards the Ho1v See. 
 
Bishop of Lincoln, 167^ 
 
 What then is our final conclusion upon the various 
 controversial points which have arisen in our short 
 history of Robert Grosseteste ? 
 
 I. As to foreign holders of benefices. Whence 
 the universal condemnation of these, but either from 
 ignorance or bigotry? In this indictment we include 
 even Luard, notwithstanding his manifest and honour- 
 able attempts to avoid partiality and passion. For 
 instance, on page xlviii. of his Preface, he writes 
 thus : 
 
 The same year, 1240, is remarkable for the audacious 
 attempt of the Pope to attach the Roman citizens to himself 
 by giving them English benefices. 
 
 He then quotes Matthew Paris, who declares the 
 number of such foreigners to be three hundred. If 
 this be true, and here again Paris is our sole infor- 
 mant, we do not find any author whom we have 
 consulted attempt to judge the matter from the 
 Pope's point of view. Nor do we find any mention 
 of a Bull of Innocent IV. in which he speaks of his 
 great reluctance to impose such burdens on the 
 people of England, but pleads his own distress as 
 compelling him so to do.^ We maintain that, in these 
 days of enlightened historical research, we have a 
 right to complain of such one-sided presentment of 
 facts. The truth is, the Popes were not free in such 
 matters. It must never be forgotten that the Pope is 
 Supreme Head upon earth of the Catholic Church, 
 that is to say, the Church gathered into one unity out 
 of all nations. In this capacity he has the right, and 
 sometimes the duty, to require one part of his flock 
 
 1 Wilkins' Concilia^ vol. i. p. 700; Rymer's Foedera, vol. i. p. 471, 
 
1 68 Robert Grossetestey 
 
 ^ 
 
 to bear the burdens of another. Now, at this period, 
 the hostility of the German Emperor, the feuds of 
 Guelph and Ghibelline, the consequent relaxation of 
 morals and discipline, the impoverishment of Church 
 endowments, the decrease in the offerings of the 
 faithful — all these things had thrown upon the 
 Pope's hands a multitude of starving ecclesiastics. 
 Innocent IV. himself was an exile for ten years at 
 Lyons, without any resources but contributions from 
 the clergy. What then was he to do } Is it wonderful 
 that he should have cast his eyes upon England, 
 already a wealthy nation,^ and called upon it to help 
 him in his distress ? If, beyond merely appealing, he 
 also by his authority demanded, or even exacted 
 relief, and used his supreme jurisdiction in the dispo- 
 sition of benefices, was he not acting within his 
 rights ? As regards subsidies demanded from the 
 nation at large, as distinguished from the clergy, it 
 must be remembered that, whether we approve of it 
 or not, England had been made over as a fief to the 
 Holy See, by the express will of the barons^ as well as 
 of the clergy and King John. 
 
 No one can justly blame the Pope for holding 
 the English nation to their compact. Doubtless 
 abuses arose both in the amount of the subsidies 
 demanded, their mode of collection, and oftentimes 
 in the number ^ and fitness of foreign ecclesiastics for 
 tenure of English benefices. But abuses will arise, 
 and cannot be avoided ; and wherever Grosseteste 
 
 ^ That he was ignorant of the true financial condition of England is 
 clear from the Burton Annals. (Rolls Series, second edition, p. 280.) 
 
 ^ For the statement that the incomes of foreigners in 1252 
 amounted to 70,000 marks, upon which so much stress is laid by 
 Protestant authors, Matthew Paris alone is responsible. 
 
Bishop of Lincoln. 169 
 
 opposed a genuine abuse, he was perfectly right in 
 what he did, as we should be to-day in similar 
 circumstances. 
 
 The Papacy [it has been well said] would not be the 
 most tremendous burden upon earth, as indeed it is, if the 
 Pope were divinely preserved from making a mistake in 
 the conduct of his business, or committing a sin by the 
 abuse of his power. CathoHcs are not bound to uphold 
 every Papal act in history as wise, considerate, or even 
 justifiable.^ 
 
 But what is proved by resistance to an unjust 
 Papal demand ? Does it mean the denial of Papal 
 right to make any demand ? Does resistance to an 
 unjust taxation involve the denial of the power of 
 the State to impose taxes ? or is resistance to unkind 
 treatment on the part of a parent the same thing as 
 the denial of parental authority? This confusion of 
 thought runs through the pages of almost all non- 
 Catholic historians, in particular those of Canon 
 Perry, whose Life of Grosseteste is before us. He is 
 simply throwing dust into the eyes of his Anglican 
 readers. Let him show, if he can, one solitary 
 instance where Grosseteste ever denied the Papal 
 prerogative among his not infrequent acts of resistance 
 to Papal admi7tistration. 
 
 n. We do not however justify every act of 
 Grosseteste in his work of reform. The fact is that, 
 as Luard frequently remarks, intense zeal for souls 
 was not always tempered with discretion. His was 
 a rugged and somewhat imperious nature. He was 
 not distinguished for over-refinement, nor would 
 patience be reckoned as his predominant virtue. The 
 
 1 The Month, A\xgVi?>i, 1880. 
 
170 Robert Grosseteste^ 
 
 maxim — " things will right themselves "* — is about 
 the very last he would acknowledge ; and yet who 
 that is versed in government does not recognize its 
 wisdom in a variety of cases ?^ Contrast Grosseteste 
 with his contemporary, St. Edmund of Canterbury. 
 There was a mediaeval saying upon this point : Dilexit 
 Dominus Edmnndum in odorem benignitatis, et dilexit 
 Dominus Robertum in odorem fidelitatis — *' The Lord 
 hath loved Edmund for an odour of sweetness, and 
 Robert for an odour of fidelity." St. Edmund was 
 raised to the altars of the Church, and Grosseteste 
 was not. May it not be that there was wanting to^ 
 the latter that patient endurance of evils which cannot 
 be remedied, that toleration of wrongs which cannot 
 be redressed ; that spirit of, hi Te Doniine speravi : 
 non confundar in ceternuin ; that absolute uncon- 
 sciousness of being necessary, or, indeed, of any 
 consequence to the welfare of Holy Church ; in short, 
 that utter effacement of self which distinguishes the 
 Saint from the holy Bishop ? 
 
 III. As regards the excommunication of Grosse- 
 teste, we have already shown that Luard denies it. 
 But, as Dr. Felten remarks on this point, is it not 
 quite certain that Matthew Paris would be sure ta 
 pounce upon the fact, and turn it to his own anti- 
 Papal partisanship, if it had been true? whereas 
 Paris makes no mention whatever of it.^ 
 
 Again, the Primate with two other Bishops, several 
 abbots, and an immense multitude of the faithful, 
 
 1 See this point very well put by Miss Allies : History of the Churck 
 in England, pp. 231, seq. 
 
 ^ Collier {Church History, vol. ii. p. 509) refers to the Annals of 
 Lanercost for the excommunication, and seems to connect Matthew 
 Paris with the statement. But Matthew Paris has not a word about it. 
 
Bishop of Lincoln, 171 
 
 assisted at Grosseteste's funeral ; and the Dean and 
 Chapter of St. Paul's in the year 1307, petitioned his 
 . canonization. 1 These facts are irreconcilable with 
 his excommunication. 
 
 IV. As regards the famous letter cxxviii., we 
 finally remark as follows : 
 
 (i.) It is the very last expression of the mind of 
 Grosseteste about the Holy See ; being written in the 
 spring of 1253, a few months before his death, which 
 fell on October 9 of that year. Luard, in his article 
 upon Grosseteste in the Encyclopcedia Britannica, 
 affirms that, " this letter expresses the utmost 
 reverence for the Pope and the Roman See." We 
 say rather that something more than mere reverence 
 is manifested by it ; that the argument which per- 
 vades the letter, is the most absolute demonstration 
 of his consummate faith. He says that this proposed 
 appointment by the Pope of his nephew to the 
 Lincoln canonry is an unrighteous one ; therefore it 
 does not come from the Apostolic See, which cannot^ 
 as such, do unrighteous acts. And considering the 
 irritation of the Bishop as he penned this epistle, we 
 cannot conceive or desire stronger proof of his Papal 
 orthodoxy. To say then with Canon Perry that this 
 letter is an evidence of the Bishop's change of mind 
 and faith in Rome is about as true as that yes is no, 
 or that light is darkness. But once more : fas est et 
 ab hoste doceri. Luard in his Preface to the Epistles 
 of Grosseteste writes thus i^ 
 
 Grosseteste has been styled one of the harbingers of the 
 ReforQiation. ... If this implies that he had any tendency 
 towards the doctrinal changes then brought about in the 
 
 i Wilkins' Concilia, vol. ii. p. 287. ^ P. xiv. 
 
172 Robert Grosseteste^ 
 
 1 
 
 of 1 
 
 Church, or that he evidenced any idea of a separation of 
 the Church of England from that of Rome, a more utterly 
 mistaken statement has never been made. . . . 
 
 To judge him by the ideas prevalent in the sixteenth 
 century, or to expect to find him influenced by similar 
 motives to those which were influencing men's minds then, 
 is to do him great injustice : and such a view of his character 
 can only arise from ignorance of the actual facts. 
 
 (ii.) The absurd blunder, by which Innocent the 
 Notary is confounded with Innocent the Pope, has 
 been pointed out. Therefore this famous Epistle of 
 Grosseteste to Innocent IV. is a myth, and must 
 never do duty again among scholars. 
 
 V. Not only by words or letters, but by acts all 
 through his life, did Grosseteste proclaim his Papal 
 allegiance. He made two painful seven-weeks' 
 journeys to the Pope's presence — the second when he 
 was an old man of seventy-five and over. Further, 
 in his differences with the Canterbury monks, with 
 his own Chapter, and with Boniface of Canterbury,, 
 that is to say three times, he appealed to Rome. He 
 exhorted Henry as we have seen to fidelity to Rome ; 
 he championed the Papal subsidy. If this is not to 
 uphold Papal Supremacy, we are at a loss to know 
 what is. 
 
 And now, we think, that enough has been written 
 to vindicate the Papal orthodoxy, from beginning tc^ 
 end, of our most holy, and zealous, and unmistakeably 
 Catholic Bishop, Robert Grosseteste. 
 
Bishop of Z.in*:oJHi "'** '***-'^ 173.. 
 
 NOTE A (see p. 141). 
 
 The controversy between Grosseteste and his Chapter is 
 plainly a case of conflict between the jus commune (or General 
 Law) of the Church (of which a remarkable revival took place 
 in the twelfth century) and the old Norman and English 
 " customs " which dated from a period before that revival. 
 By the jus co7nmune the Bishop had from earliest times 
 the right" to visit his Chapter ; by the " customs " spoken 
 of, certain exemptions from such visitation came to be 
 attached to particular Chapters. This was due, it is supposed, 
 to the fact that St. Osmund of Salisbury before his death 
 gave to his Chapter a considerable amount of autonomy 
 with which the Bishop was expected not to interfere. These 
 privileges became extended to the other two great secular 
 Cathedrals of York and Lincoln. By degrees these powers 
 of self-government, extending to the vicars and prebendaries, 
 were looked upon as a body of rights, and were vaguely 
 known as "customs and Hberties." Indeed, we are told 
 by Henry Bradshaw in his memorandum to the Liber Niger 
 of Lincoln, that the chapters thus constituted had granted^ 
 to them immunities "by Bishop after Bishop, confirmed 
 too by successive Popes, until by a.d. 1250, even the 
 Bishop's ordinary duty of visitation had come to be looked 
 upon as an intolerable infringement of the right of the 
 Chapter." 1 There do not, however, seem to be any instances^ 
 of Papal grants explicitly exempting the Chapters from 
 visitation. Grosseteste stood upon the ground of the jus 
 commune^ and potestas episcopalis^ which no Bishop could 
 diminish, or renounce, or forfeit by neglect. He declares 
 that the Pope could exempt anybody from visitation : 
 which shows he thought that in this instance the Chapter 
 could not plead such exemption. Grosseteste was evidently 
 
 ^ Lincoln Cathedi-al Statutes^ p. 37, by Bradshaw and Wordsworth.- 
 Cambridge University Press, 1892. 
 
1 74 ]R.ob£rt Qrosseteste. 
 
 in the whole transaction reviving his undoubted rights, while 
 the Chapter was pleading the prescriptive force of "customs 
 and liberties." 
 
 NOTE B (see p. 146). 
 
 Before the Council of Trent, Primates or Archbishops 
 had powers to suspend, inhibit, or excommunicate their 
 suffragans. This was generally regarded as part of their 
 ordinary jurisdiction. 
 
 A Chapter, when the see is vacant, succeeds to the 
 ordinary power of episcopal jurisdiction (with certain 
 reservations), and has power to inflict censures and to 
 excommunicate. In this particular case the Chapter of 
 Canterbury, the see being vacant, considered that, inherit- 
 ing the ordinary jurisdictional power of the late Archbishop, 
 they could like him' excommunicate throughout \h& province, 
 Grosseteste contended that, whilst this principle held true 
 with regard to the Archbishop's own diocese, it did not 
 extend to the archiepiscopal powers over his suffragans. 
 He^ distinguishes between the Archbishop as Bishop of 
 his own see, and the same as Archon, or head of the 
 Bishops. So far as we know, there is not any recorded 
 instance of the recognition of this claim of the Canterbury 
 Chapter by the Holy See, although its action in this very 
 case shows that it treated it as not altogether impossible. 
 Shelving, as has been explained, the controversy just then, 
 the Pope preferred to use his own higher authority and 
 supersede the Chapter's excommunication. 
 
 \ Letter cxxvii., which is well worthy of attentive study. 
 
The Catholic's Penny Lilsrary. 
 
 Doctrinal and Controversial Series. 
 
 The Blessed Sacrament the Centre of Immu- 
 table Truth. By Cardinal Manning. 
 The Old Religion in England. By the Rev. P. 
 
 Lynch. 
 Before and after Gunpowder Plot, By E. Healy 
 
 Thompson. 
 A Voice from the Dead: Being a Letter to an 
 AngHcan Friend, by the Count de Montalembert. 
 The Continuity of the English Church. By the 
 
 Very Rev. Canon Croft. 
 The Popes and the English Church. By the 
 
 Rev. W. Waterworth, S.J. 
 Was Barlow a Bishop? By Mr. Serjeant Bellasis. 
 189: or the Church of Old England protests. 
 
 By the Rev. J. D. Breen, O.S.B. 
 The Faith of the Ancient English Church con- 
 cerning the Holy Eucharist. By the Very 
 Rev. J. S. Provost Northcote. 
 Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries. By 
 
 Cardinal Manning. 
 The Church Catholic. By B. F. C. Costelloe. 
 Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction. By Rev. J. Morris, S.J. 
 Church Defence — First Series. This comprises the 
 following Leaflets, which may he also had separately : 
 The English Church always Roman Catholic. 2s. 100. 
 How Henry VIH. robbed England of the Faith. 2s. 100. 
 Church Endowments — Whose are they? is. 100. 
 Was the British Church Roman Catholic ? is. 100. 
 The Reformation under Queen Elizabeth, is. 100. 
 Plain Truths in answer to Transparent Falsehoods, is. 100. 
 
 Church Defence — Second Series. Comprising : 
 
 Are they Priests? 3s. 6d. 100. 
 
 The Four Doctors. 2s. 100. 
 
 "CathoHc not Roman Catholic." is. 100. 
 
 Popery in the First Century. 2s. 100. 
 
 Questions and Answers — Comprising : 
 
 Friendly Advice, is. 100. 
 
 Why am I a Roman Catholic ? is. 100. 
 
 Why are you a Protestant? is. 100. 
 
 What does the Bible say ? is. 100. 
 
 Can both Churches be true? 2s. 100. 
 
 How can I find God's true Church? is. 100. 
 
 What do Catholics believe ? is. 100. 
 
 Questions for one whom it concerns. 6d. 100. 
 
1 i\^a . < .- 
 
 St. George. By the Rev. J. W. Reeks. 
 
 St. Patrick. By the Rev. Arthur Ryan. 
 
 St Bede, Monk and Mass-Priest. 
 
 St. Alphonsus Liguori. By a Redemptorist Father. 
 
 Don Bosco. By Mrs. Raymond Barker. 
 
 Ven. John Ogilvie, S.J. By Mrs. Francis Kerr. 
 
 B. John Fisher. By the Rev. W. H. Cologan. 
 
 B. Edmund Campion. By the Rev. F. Goldie, S.J. 
 
 Ven. Edmund Arrowsmith. By the same. 
 
 St. Ignatius Loyola. By the same. 
 
 B. Thomas More. By the Hon. Justice O'Hagan. 
 
 St. Columba. By the Rev. John Golden.* 
 
 Ven. Philip Howard. By G. Ambrose Lee. 
 
 The English Martyrs. By the Rev. J. Morris, S.J. 
 
 Leo XIII. By the Rev. Joseph Rickaby, S.J. 
 
 St. Teresa. By David Lewis, M.A. 
 
 St. Thomas of Canterbury. By Rev. F. Goldie, S.J. 
 
 St. Benedict. By the Rev. T. B. Snow, O.S.B. 
 
 St. Francis of Sales. By the Rev. H. B. Mackey. 
 
 St. Augustine. -By the Rev. A. J. Saxton. 
 
 St. Philip Neri. By G. Ambrose Lee. 
 
 St. Francis of Assisi. By Rev.J.Prendergast,O.S.F. 
 
 Ven. Margaret Clitheroe. By Rev. A. B. Gurdon. 
 
 Archbishop Ullathorne. [Scott. 
 
 Mary Queen of Scots. By the Hon. Mrs. Maxwell 
 
 Dame Marion Boyd. By the Archbp. of Glasgow. 
 
 St. Francis Xavier, Apostle of the Indies. 
 
 Father Olivaint, a Martyr of the Commune. 
 
 Ven. Julie Billiart. 
 
 Mary Howitt. By James Britten. 
 
 St. Vincent Ferrer. By Rev. B. Wilberforce, O.P. 
 
 Ven. Oliver Plunket. By Rev.O.R.Vassall,C.SS.R. 
 
 B. Juvenal Ancina. By the Rev. John Morris, S.J. 
 
 Cardinal Newman. By the Rev. Dr. Barry. 
 
 St. Vincent de Paul. By the Rev. F. Goldie, S.J. 
 
 The Cure d'Ars. By Lady Herbert. 
 
 St. Catharine of Siena. 
 
 St. Aloysius. By the Rev. F. Goldie, S.J. 
 
 St. Zita. By Lady Herbert. 
 
 Sceur Rosalie. By the same. 
 
 St. Margaret, the Penitent of Cortona. 
 
 St. Cuthbert. By Mrs. Francis Kerr. 
 
 St. Gregory. By the Rev. A. J. Saxton. 
 
 Frederick Ozanam. By B. F . C. Costelloe, M.A. 
 
 Catholic Truth Society, 21 Westminster Bridge Road, S.E.