Page:The reign of William Rufus and the accession of Henry the First.djvu/410



The result was that, in the words of the Chronicler, "God's Church was brought low." The great ecclesiastical offices, as they fell vacant, were either kept vacant for the King's profit, or else were sold for his profit to men who, by the very act of buying them, were shown to be unworthy to hold them. We are distinctly told that this practice was an innovation of the days of Rufus, and that it was an innovation of which Flambard was the author. The charge of simony, like all other charges of bribery and corruption, is often much easier to bring than to disprove; but it is not likely to be spoken of as a systematic practice, unless it undoubtedly happened in a good many cases. We have come across cases in our earlier history where it was at least suspected that ecclesiastical offices had been sold, or, what proves even more, that they were looked on as likely to be sold. And that the practice was common among continental princes there can be little doubt. But there is nothing to make us believe that it was at all systematic in England at any earlier time, and the Conqueror at all events was clear from all scandal of the kind. But the chain of reasoning devised by Flambard would make it as fair a source of profit for the king to take money on the grant of a bishopric as to take it on the grant of a lay fief. And there is no reason to doubt that Rufus systematically acted on this principle, and that, save at the moment of his temporary repentance, he seldom or never gave away a bishopric or abbey for nothing. The other point of the