DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6886#0044
\% HISTORY OF
William of Malmsbury, very soon after the time of Sulcardus, mentions this
monastery as having been founded by Mellitus, Bishop of London* : and, within
forty years after him, Ailred, Abbot of Rievalle, ascribes its foundation to King
Sebertf. From that time, the different writers who have considered the subject,
have very generally agreed, that Westminster Abbey is indebted for its origin
to that monarch.
Bishop Stillingfleet, an acknowledged scholar among our modern antiquaries,
gives an air of plausibility to the opinion, by very ingeniously suggesting, that this
monastery, as well as all others which were founded at that period, was intended,
by Pope Gregory the Great, to be a seminary for persons brought up in the way
of devotion and learning, and to become a nursery for the East Saxon church^.
It appears that institutions were then formed for such purposes, under the protec-
tion of monastic foundations, by the express injunctions of the popes; but the semi-
narial character cannot be considered as applicable to the foundations themselves.
Nevertheless, that this, as well as the other accounts given of the foundation of
this church, is very questionable, will appear from this circumstance, that venerable
Bede is altogether silent on the subject. He mentions, in his Ecclesiastical History,
the foundation of the Cathedral of St. Paul by King Ethelbert; but not a word
escapes him respecting that of Westminster. It is not only improbable, but it is
not even credible, that Bede, who was himself a monk, and entertained so high
an opinion of the monastic character, considering it, to use his own words, as the
highest perfection of the Christian state, should have been silent on such a sub-
ject. He mentions, in the preface to his curious work, that he was very much
* De Gestis Pontificum, lib. iii,
+ Inter decern Scriptores, col. 10.
X Stillingfleet on the True Antiquity of London.
William of Malmsbury, very soon after the time of Sulcardus, mentions this
monastery as having been founded by Mellitus, Bishop of London* : and, within
forty years after him, Ailred, Abbot of Rievalle, ascribes its foundation to King
Sebertf. From that time, the different writers who have considered the subject,
have very generally agreed, that Westminster Abbey is indebted for its origin
to that monarch.
Bishop Stillingfleet, an acknowledged scholar among our modern antiquaries,
gives an air of plausibility to the opinion, by very ingeniously suggesting, that this
monastery, as well as all others which were founded at that period, was intended,
by Pope Gregory the Great, to be a seminary for persons brought up in the way
of devotion and learning, and to become a nursery for the East Saxon church^.
It appears that institutions were then formed for such purposes, under the protec-
tion of monastic foundations, by the express injunctions of the popes; but the semi-
narial character cannot be considered as applicable to the foundations themselves.
Nevertheless, that this, as well as the other accounts given of the foundation of
this church, is very questionable, will appear from this circumstance, that venerable
Bede is altogether silent on the subject. He mentions, in his Ecclesiastical History,
the foundation of the Cathedral of St. Paul by King Ethelbert; but not a word
escapes him respecting that of Westminster. It is not only improbable, but it is
not even credible, that Bede, who was himself a monk, and entertained so high
an opinion of the monastic character, considering it, to use his own words, as the
highest perfection of the Christian state, should have been silent on such a sub-
ject. He mentions, in the preface to his curious work, that he was very much
* De Gestis Pontificum, lib. iii,
+ Inter decern Scriptores, col. 10.
X Stillingfleet on the True Antiquity of London.