|We again leave the stricken fieldthe
battle of the warrior with its garments rolled in bloodand enter the royal closet,
where we find in full and energetic play those subtle forces which do more to mould the
character of a people and fix their destinies, than the rude contests of the sword which
are carried on with so much noise, and fill so large a space in history. The combatants
before us are no mailed warriors who wear iron visor and wield steel glaive. On the
contrary, there stands before us a royal lady, queenly in air as in station, comely in
person, and sweet and gracious in manner. Around her is a group of pale-faced and
soft-voiced ecclesiastics, of courtly manners and foreign aspect: and standing in a row,
face to face with them, is a small body of Columban clergy, grave-featured men, in the
usual habits of their sacred order. They are dressed in cowl, grey woollen robe, and
sandals. Their speech is Gaelic. It is their mother tongue.
The place where this company has assembled is the
Malcolm Tower at Dufermline. Strength and not magnificence has been consulted in the
erection of this keep. It is strong, massive, and square, and its walls, which are of
great thickness, are built of hewn blocks. Its site adds to its strength and security. It
is placed on a rocky plateau, around which on the west and the south, nature, as if in
foresight that here the kings of Scotia were one day to dwell, has dug a formidable
ravine, seventy feet in depth, its face bristling with rocks and its bottom the bed of a
summer rivulet, which in winter grows into a torrent, and thunders along with loud rough
roar. Behind it, landward, rises a clump of trees, tall and strong of stem, as if to bar
the advance of foe, and shade with their summer foliage the royal inmates of the
"forest tower." It was every way fit for the dwelling of a king in unsettled
times, and yet it was only the beginning of what was soon to grow into a magnificent
palace and a sumptuous monastery, and which, after sheltering four Scottish kings, have
left their broken and ruined walls as memorials to our day of the style in which our
monarchs were housed in the eleventh century.
One day as Malcolm Canmore rested in his
tower, a messenger brought him word that the royal family of England had arrived in his
dominions, and that the ship that carried them lay moored in the Forth, almost underneath
his palace windows. Malcolm hastened to the shore, only some six miles off, and invited
the illustrious exiles to his castle. Driven from England by the terror of William the
Conqueror, they had come to throw themselves on the protection of the Scottish monarch.
The party consisted of Eadgar Aetheling, heir of the English throne, his mother Agatha,
and his sisters Margaret and Christina. With them, forming their retinue, came a
considerable number of Anglo-Saxon nobility. The high birth and great misfortunes of those
to whom we see Malcolm Canmore extending the hand of welcome and leading the way to his
castle, appealed touchingly to one who himself had been disinherited, and compelled to eat
the bread of an exile and seek the protection of strangers. Of the party now become guests
in the King Malcolms palace, one in particular began to find special favour in the
eyes of the gallant monarch. This was Margaret, the elder sister of Eadgar Aetheling. This
royal lady brought with her to Malcolms court the refinement and grace of the south,
to which she added what neither courts nor climate can impart, sweetness of disposition
and great goodness of heart. She possessed a vigorous understanding, a firm will, a
sympathetic nature, and a graceful and copious eloquence. These endowments of mind and
character made her stand out, doubtless, from the Scottish maidens of that day, who had
not Margarets opportunities of acquiring refinement and polish. Two centuries
earlier Scotland could boast a deeper and richer civilisation than England. There was then
a powerful principle of refinement at the heart of the Scottish nation, but the influence
of the Culdee element had declined, and the ruggedness incident to the northern land had
begun again to assert itself. From the day Margaret entered it there was a new light in
the "forest tower" of Dunfermline, and a new brightness on the face of its royal
master. Margaret became Malcolm Canmores wife, and Queen of Scotland. The marriage
drew after it most important consequences to the nation of the Scots.
We must spend a few moments in the
contemplation of a woman who had so large a share in the moulding of the Scotland of the
following centuries, and those influence has not even yet perhaps quite passed away. Queen
Margaret undoubtedly possessed great decision and elevation of soul. Standing between two
eras she was representative of both, combining what was best in the one, with not a little
of what was worst in the other. Pious she was, but not after the type of the Columban
Church. She went for her ideals of devotion and her models of sanctity to the deserts of
the Thebaid rather than to the school of Columba and the "elders of Iona." Her
religion was a rule to walk by, a formula to be observed, rather than an indwelling
principle, spontaneously developing in a life of good works, and a character of
evangelical virtue. Margaret did not take into account that right relations to God is the
key to all right relations to man. Much of Margarets worship consisted of that
"bodily exercise which profiteth little." Every year she kept a literal fast of
forth days before the advent of Easter, and another of equal length when Christmas came
round. How much more easy is it to robe the body in sackcloth than the soul in penitence!
How much more easy to rend the garment than to rend the heart, to strike upon the breast
than to break in pieces the idol enshrined within it!
In Margarets creed good works
held a higher place than "faith." We do not wonder that she mistook the
right order of the two. It was the common error of her age. The teaching of Paul on the
point had been lost, and Luther had not yet arrived to proclaim to Christendom that
"it is not the good works which make the good man, but the good man that makes the
good works." This truth we fear Margaret did not understand. She filled her life with
a beautiful and virtuous deeds. This must be acknowledged, unless indeed Bishop Turgot,
her friend and confessor, has given us a romance pure and simple instead of a "life."
Her biography, as it comes from his pen, is that of a perfect woman! It is the life of
one in whose character no imperfection existed, in whose soul no virtue was lacking, in
whose deportment no blemish or fault ever was found; it is the life of one who left no day
without its deed of charity, and no hour without its act of piety. A beautiful picture if
only it be true! We askIs this a possible life? It goes without saying that Bishop
Turgot has not given us the real Margaret. How then are we to judge of her? We shall take
Malcolm Canmores queen as Turgot has painted her, clothed in virtues as other queens
in jewels, and see whether it be a fact that in this perfect character there is neither
flaw nor fault. The radical defect in Queen Margarets piety, we venture to think, is
that it is faultless. She rises to Bishop Turgots ideal, is a low one. It is
sensuous, not spiritual The better half of her religion is an outside development, not the
working of an inward principle. It is stiff and artificial. It has the musty odour of the
religion of the Pharisee, and like his too, it is done before men. The impression it
leaves is that of the good works making the good woman, to be followed of course by a
reward to be counted not of grace but of debt.
To care for the widow and orphan as Margaret
did, and to deal her bread to the hungry, were truly Christian acts, and sprang doubtless
from that principle which is the source of all really good works. We cannot say the same,
however, of some other services in which Queen Margaret showed great regularity and
devotion, as, for instance, in her washing daily of the feet of so many paupers or
vagrants. "When the office of Matins and Lauds was finished," says Turgot,
"she, returning to her chamber, along with the king himself, washed the feet of six
poor persons, and used to give them something wherewithal to relieve their poverty. It was
the chamberlains special duty to bring these poor people in every night before the
queens arrival, so that she might find them ready when she came to wait upon
We like better the act with which Margaret
began the day. It is more genuinely kind. "When it was morning," says her
biographer, 2 she rose from bed and devoted a considerable time to
prayer and the reading of the Psalms, and while reading the Psalms she performed the
following work of mercy. She ordered that nine little orphans utterly destitute should be
brought in to her at the first hour of the day, and that some soft food, such as children
at that tender age like, should daily be prepared for them." When these children had
been duly fed, there followed the gathering of three hundred people into the royal hall,
and when they had been seated at table, "the king on the one side," says Bishop
Turgot, "and the queen on the other waited upon Christ in the person of His poor, and
served them with food and drink." Queen Margaret was a punctual observer of
"holy days," and passed their hours in the prescribed litanies of the "Holy
Trinity," the "Holy Cross," and "Holy Mary," as also in the
recital of the Psalter, and in the hearing of five or six masses. After these prolonged
services she again "waited on twenty-four poor people, whom she fed." 3
Her fasts were frequent and very rigorous; in fact she weakened and ultimately broke her
constitution by her abstinences.
There is much artificiality and toil in all
this; but as regards the good accomplished, it comes to very little in the end. The power
and grandeur of a life spring out of the principles on which it is founded. The man who
plants at the foundation of society some great principle which is a permanent cure of its
evilssome principle which regenerates the society as a whole, and not merely
benefits a few of its membersis the real benefactor. Margarets good deeds were
local and temporary alleviations, not lasting reforms. They were a drop in the bucket of
Scotlands necessities, and they were counterbalanced a hundredfold by the evil she
initiated when she planted at the heart of the Scottish nation a principle which was at
war with all the elevating forces which till her day had been acting on the country. She
turned Scotland backwards.
By and by Margaret took in hand weightier
matters than the distribution of the palace alms. She essayed to act the role of the
national reformer. Scotland needed a reformation; it was the true idea. This alone would
bring back the grand Scotland of the Columban age. Margaret might deal out alms to all the
beggars in her husbands dominions. She might wash the feet of every vagrant in the
kingdom: what better would Scotland be? The next day or the next year would bring more
beggars and more vagrants. She was but rolling the stone of Sisyphus. What Scotland needed
was to have its dying lamp relit, that the men who were stumbling in the dark might see
where their happiness lay, and find their road to it. Margaret, in her mistaken zeal, was
more likely to put that lamp out than rekindle it.
Nevertheless the Queen of Malcolm Canmore put
her hand to the work of reforming the Scottish Church. We return to the council in the
Palace of Dunfermline, convoked by her husbands orders, to "travail" in
this matter. It was composed of a few Culdee pastors on the one side, and three English
ecclesiastics on the other, chosen and dispatched by Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury,
at Margarets request.4 The archbishop, himself a learned disputant, knew the
right men to send on a mission of this sort, where a kingdom was to be won to the papal
interest. The Queen came to the front in the debate, but as she could speak only Saxon,
and the Culdees understood no language but Gaelic, Malcolm, who could speak both languages
with equal facility, acted as interpreter. The conference lasted three days. Margaret soon
let it be seen that what she aimed at was a reformation on the model of Canterbury, that
is of Rome. The restoration of the ancient Scottish Church was not what she desired. What
she sought and hoped to accomplish was rather its overthrow, and the erection of a foreign
ecclesiasticism in its room. "Observing," says Bishop Turgot, "that may
practices existed among the Scottish nation which were contrary to the rule of the right
faith, and the holy customs of the universal church, she caused frequent councils to be
held, in order that by some means or other she might, through the gift of Christ, bring
back into the way of truth those who had gone astray. Among these councils the most
important is that in which for three days she, with a very few of her friends, combated
the defenders of a perverse system with the sword of the Spirit, that is to say, with the
Word of God. It seemed as if a second Helena were there present."5
As regards the points raised in the debate,
Bishop Turgot gives with considerable fulness and force the defections charged upon the
Columban clergy, but he omits to give with equal fulness their explanations and defences.
He permits Queen Margaret and her Saxon assessors to be heard, but he shuts the mouths of
the Culdee pastors, or affords them liberty of reply to only the extent of bowing assent.
It may be very judicious in Bishop Turgot thus to enjoin silence upon one of the parties,
but in a conference lasting for three days it is absurd to suppose that the spokesman were
ally on the one side. Still the fact that a debate took place is itself a most important
admission, as we shall immediately see.
The points raised were these: uniformity of
rite, the Lenten fast, the observance of the Sabbath, the practice of marriage, the
celebration of the eucharist, and the time of the observance of Easter. The Scottish
Church and her clergy were charged on all these points, as being in error, and needing to
be "brought back into the way of truth." Is not this a clear admission that the
Columban Church in the end of the eleventh century still occupied separate ground from
Rome? that she refused to receive the Roman laws and customs, and that she was not subject
to the Roman jurisdiction, but on the contrary maintained her ancient independence? And
does it not cut the ground from beneath the feet of those who assert that the Scottish
Church by this time was, and had for some centuries previous, been one with the Church of
Rome in doctrine and worship? Surely Queen Margaret would not have convoked a conference
to bring about a union between two churches if they were already one and the same? A more
decided proof there could not be of the independence and anti-Romanism of
the Scottish Church of the eleventh century.
Let us look a little more closely at the
points of difference betwixt the two churches as they were brought out in this discussion.
The Queen opened the conference by insisting on uniformity of rite as essential to
uniformity of doctrine. "All who serve God in one faith with the Catholic
Church," said Margaret, "ought not to vary from that church by new or
far-fetched usages."6 No church has so often employed this argument, and no
church has so often contradicted it by her example as the Roman Church. Within her pale an
iron uniformity of rite has always existed with a boundless latitude of opinion. But the
point to be noted here is that Margarets remonstrance carries in it that neither in
rite nor in faith did the Columban Church and the Roman Church agree.
The Queen next charged the Culdees with
having fallen into grievous heterodoxy in the matter of the Lenten fast. "Our Lord
fasted forty days," Margaret urged, "so does the Roman Church; but the Scots by
refusing to fast on the Sabbaths in Lent, shorten their fast to thirty-six days."
Margaret told them that they sinned in so abbreviating this fast. Margaret, if any one,
had a right to call the Culdees to repent of this heinous transgression, seeing she
herself was so very exemplary in the observance of the duty of fasting. According to
Turgot, the pastors professed penitence and a promised amendment.
We very much doubt the accuracy of
Turgots statement on this head. The historic presumption is against the bishop. The
Culdee pastors were not likely to profess penitence oar promise amendment in a matter in
which they stood fully acquitted in the eyes of their Church. It is important to observe
here that the Scottish Church followed the Eastern usages in their fasts and festivals,
and by the ordinances of the Eastern Church all fasts were severely prohibited on
Sabbath (Saturday) and the Lords Day (Sunday).7 Besides,
"Fasting" was not the supremely meritorious observance in the eyes of the
Culdees which it was in those of Queen Margaret. Even granting that they were not able to
take full advantage of the liberty which the Gospel gives to Christians, especially in the
matter of bodily mortifications and ceremonial observances, they would not have burdened
their consciences, we are disposed to think, with a day more or a day less in the matter,
or regarded themselves and their fellow church members as shut out of the kingdom of
heaven because they fasted thirty-six days only instead of forty, in the holy season of
After this came up the question of Culdee
observance, or rather neglect, of the Lords Day. "It was another custom of
theirs," says Turgot, "to neglect the reverence due to the Lords Day by
devoting themselves to every kind of worldly business upon it, just as they did upon other
days."8 It startles one to hear that the Columban clergy had
sunk so low on this vital point. If they had turned the day of sacred rest into a day of
ordinary labour: if they yoked the plough, worked the scythe, carried home the harvest,
and did all their work on that day, as the words of Turgot appear to imply, the verily
deserved the sharpest censure which Margaret could administer. The matter, however, is
susceptible of a satisfactory explanation. The practices of the Eastern and Western
Churches differed very considerably as regards the keeping of the Sabbath, or rather as
regards the day obser4ved by them as that of holy rest and worship. Saturday was the
Sabbath or Holy Day of the Eastern Church: not indeed to the entire exclusion of the first
day of the week, on which it was their custom to sing hymns and celebrate divine service.
The Western Church observed the Lords Day or Sunday. Britain, including Scotland,
received its first evangelisation from the East, and it continued to follow generally the
usages of the Eastern Church. The historian Socrates, speaking of the usual times of the
public meeting of the members of the Eastern Church, called the Sabbath and the
Lords Day, that is Saturday and Sunday, "the weekly festivals on which the
congregation was wont to meet in the church for the performance of divine services.9
In the early Irish Church we come on traces of this custom, that is, of the observance of
Saturday as the day of weekly rest and worship. We find such traces also in the history of
the Scottish Church.
A well-known instance is that of Columba, as
related by Adamnan. Bering come to his last day, he said this day is named the Sabbath,
which means rest; and this day I shall enter into my rest. He died as he had foretold, On
Saturday, at midnight. This aspect of the matter completely exonerates the Columban clergy
from the rather serious accusation, for which it seems at the first blush, which Turgot
preferred against them, and serves to bring out the fact that the Culdees claimed
relationship with an older church than Rome.
The Roman Church followed the Western usage,
that is, it observed, not the seventh but the first day of the week, the Lords Day,
the day of resurrection, as the day of rest and holy worship. What Margaret wished was to
get the Culdees to adopt this practice, and so break them into conformity with the Roman
and Western Church.
The marriage customs of the Scots were next
passed in review in this conference. Here again we are startled by the strong language of
the Queen, as if the Scots were plunged in dreadful immoralities by their Culdeeism.
"Next she proved," says Turgot, "how utterly abominable, yea more to be
shunned by the faithful than death itself, was the unlawful marriage of a man with his
stepmother, as also that the surviving brother should take to wife the widow of the
deceased brother." 10 We have here another link betwixt the Culdees and the
East, and another proof that the Christianity of the Scots did not come to them by way of
Rome. It was enjoined in the Old Testament, ion certain circumstances, that a man should
marry the widow of his deceased brother. It is for this the Scots are here blamed. Their
real offence, we are persuaded, consisted in their opposition to the marriage law of Rome.
The Church of Rome was enlarging her code of "prohibited degrees;" she was
changing marriage into a sacrament, and declaring all marriages unlawful which were not so
solemnised; in short, she was employing marriage as an instrument for the enslavement of
society, and in the charges thrown out against the Scots on this head we trace another
attempt on the part of Rome to bring them to submit to her yoke.
The purity of the Scots is borne witness to
by Alcuin, an English writer of the ninth century. "The Scots," says he,
"are said to lead a most chaste life, amid their worldly occupations, by rational
consideration. But it is said that none of their laity make confession to priests, whom we
believe to have received from Christ our God the power of binding and loosing together
with the holy apostles."11 And still more significant, as regards the alleged
contempt of marriage by the Irish and Scottish Christians, is what is said in the Life of
Malachy, in the twelfth century. "The most wholesome use of confession," says
he, "the sacrament of confirmation, and the contract of marriage," by
which St Malachy means the Roman sacrament of marriage, "all which they before
were either ignorant of or did neglect, Malachy did institute afresh."12
To understand that the Scots did not observe
the ordinance of marriage is to contradict all Scottish history, though Giraldus
Cambrensis has so represented the matter. And even Lanfranc and Anselm have preferred this
same accusation, which is as absurd as it is calumnious. Sedulius reckons marriage among
those things that "are gifts but not spiritual."13 The
Church of Rome, however, knows nothing of such marriages.
Finally came up the supreme question of the
eucharist. The sacrament of the Supper in the church of the West had long ceased to be the
simple commemorative ordinance which it is seen at its first celebration in the upper
chamber at Jerusalem; but neither had it as yet grown into that ceremonial of pomp and
mystery which it was one day to become, and to which it was rapidly approximating. Nothing
would have so delighted Margaret as to banish the simple Culdee "Supper," and
replace it with the operatic splendour of the Roman Eucharist, because nothing would so
conclusively seal the submission of the Scots to the authority of Rome. This was the heart
of the controversy. Here must the great blow be struck.
"The Queen," says Turgot, "now
raised another point; she asked them to explain why it was that on the festival of Easter
they neglected to receive the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, according to the
usage of the Holy and Apostolic Church?" The answer of the Culdees, as Bishop Turgot
has reported it, was that they felt their unworthiness so deeply that they feared to
"approach that mystery" This cannot have been their whole answer, for every one
sees that this sense of unworthiness would have kept them away from the holy table not
only on Easter day, but on all days and in all places. Now we know that the Culdees
celebrated the eucharist in their own churches, and kept Easter after their own reckoning.
Nay, it was made matter of accusation against them at an after stage of this same
controversy, that they did celebrate this sacrament, although in a way displeasing to
Margaret, because not "according to the usage of the Holy and Apostolic Church."
What , the, was the point of the accusation
brought against the Culdee clergy, and what was the real attitude taken up by them on the
question of the eucharist in this controversy? Turgots report has brought out
neither. The accusation was not that they neglected observance of the sacrament of the
upper. Their opponents knew that this they did not do. The accusation was that they
refused to join in the celebration of the eucharist at the Roman altars on Easter day.
Why? They "feared," they said, to "approach that mystery," that is,
they feared to approach those communion tables on which the "Supper" had become
the sacrament of the "Body and Blood" of Christ in another sense than that of
its institution. Innocent III. had not yet enacted the dogma of transubstantiation, but
after two centuries of discussion the belief of that mystery had worked itself into the
general mind of the Roman world, and the Culdees hesitated to compromise their own faith
or hurt their consciences by joining in this festival with those who believed that to be
the literal flesh and blood of Christ which they knew to be only bread and wine. Therefore
it was they eschewed the eucharistic table of Queen Margarets church.
If the Culdees "feared" they
"mystery" presented on the altars of Margaret, the Queen in her turn was shocked
at the bald simplicity of the "Supper" as seen on the Culdee communion tables.
"There were certain places in Scotland," says Bishop Turgot, that is, there were
Culdee chapels and cells, "in which masses were celebrated according to some sort of
barbarous rite contrary to the usage of the whole church."14
The Bishop does not say what these "barbarous rites" were, but we can have no
difficulty in guessing. They were the wooden communion tables of the Culdees: they were
the vessels of home manufacture used in the celebration of the Supper, and the ordinary
woollen dress of the officiating Culdee pastor. These all "were contrary to the usage
of the whole church," therefore "barbarous." The same charge might have
been brought against the first Supper in the upper chamber at Jerusalem. "Fired by
the zeal of God," says the Bishop, "the Queen attempts to root out and abolish
this custom, so that henceforth, from the whole of Scotland, there was not one single
person who dared to continue the practice" We must here understand the good Bishop as
stating what he earnestly desired or fondly hoped would happen as the result of this
debate, rather than affirming what he knew to be the fact. It is perfectly known to us,
and could not but be known to Bishop Turgot, had he taken any pains to inform himself,
that the Scottish Culdees, in many instances at least, still kept their eucharist after
the "barbarous" formula of their church, and did so for two hundred years after
all the persons who figure in this conference had gone to their graves.
Let us illustrate this point by a side light.
The Irish Culdees of the twelfth century are painted in even more odious colours than the
Scots of the eleventh, and it helps us to determine what weight to attach to the charges
against the latter to find that the former are accused of being plunged in the same
barbarity and impiety with the Scots, simply because they preferred the apostolic usages
of the primitive church to the Roman inventions of later times. St Bernard, speaking of
the Reformation set on foot by Malachy when he became Bishop of Connor, says, "Then
this man of God felt that he was appointed not over men but over beasts.
Never before had he met with men in such barbarity; never before had he found men
so stubborn against morals, so deadly to rites, so impious against faith, so savage to
laws, so stiff-necked against discipline; Christians in name, pagans in reality. Not one
could be found who would pay tithes or first-fruits; make confessions; ask for penances,
or give them; or contract lawful marriages. What was the champion of God now to do?
. . . At length, however, the fierceness yields, the barbarism begins to give way; savage
rites are done away, and the Roman rites are introduced; the usages of the church are
everywhere received, the sacraments are duly celebrated, confessions are made, concubinage
disappears; and in short all things are so changed for the better that, to-day, we may
well say of that nation, Those which in time past were not a people are now the
people of God. " 15 This is conclusive as regards the barbarity of
which the Scotch and Irish churches of that age were accused. That barbarity consisted in
their scriptural simplicity. Their accusers, who saw nothing barbarous in
transubstantiation, with all that is implied in it. Were shocked to see the Supper
administered in the simple elements of bread and wine. In their eyes no barbarism was
equal to this.
This conference in the royal palace of
Dunfermline was emphatically the "hour of temptation" to Scotland and her
Church. Whether shall the faith of Iona or the authority of Rome henceforth govern the
land? Shall Scotland forget her past? Shall she say that Columba was an impostor? That the
glory of Iona was an illusion and a mockery, and that only now had the true light risen
upon the Scots? This was the question to which Scotland was invited to return an answer in
the royal chamber at Dunfermline. All that royal authority, queenly blandishment,
ecclesiastical prestige, and trained dialect skill could do to overawe the Culdee pastors
and influence their decision was done. To abide by Iona was to incur the frown of power,
and invite a future dark with persecution. To go over to Rome was to open the road to
preferment and honour. The temptation in Eden seemed to have renewed itself in the
conference chamber of Dunfermline. The Culdees had been led, as it were, into a garden in
which grew all manner of fruits pleasant to the eye and sweet to the taste of ambitious
ecclesiastics. They were shown in prospect, dignities, titles, princedoms, bishoprics,
emoluments, in short, all the golden fruits which adorn the trees that flourish on the
Seven Hills, and drink of the waters of the Tiber. What fascination and enchantment must
the goodly show now summoned up before their eyes have possessed for these unsophisticated
pastors, "these dwellers beyond the bounds of the habitable world!" They were
invited to pluck and eat, and were assured that in the day that they did so, their eyes
would be opened and they would understand all mysteries and be replenished with celestial
potencies and heavenly graces. The Temptress was a queen. We see her hold out the golden
apple. Will the Culdees accept it? When the curtain falls on the scene, the religion of
Rome is seen to be that of the Scottish court, but not as yet that of the Scottish nation.
1. Life of St Margaret, Queen of Scotland, by Turgot, Bishop
of St Andrew's, translated from the Latin by William Forbes-Leith, S.J., p. 61. Edinburgh,
Turgots Life of St Margaret, p. 61.
Ibid. p. 63.
Turgots Life of St Margaret, p. 44. Letter of Lanfranc to Queen Margaret, Migne
Patres Latini, Saec. xi. col. 549.
Turgots Life of Margaret, p. 44.
6. Turgots Life of St Margaret, p. 45.
Caves Primitive Christianity, Part I., chap. vii. P. 175. Lond., 1672.
Turgots Life of St Margaret, pp. 49, 50.
Hist. Eccl., Lib. vi., c. 8. See also Caves Primitive Christianity, Part
I., chap. vii.
Turgots Life of St Margaret, p. 57.
Alcuin, Epist., 26. Usher citante.
Bernards Life of Malachy, c. 8.
Sedul. On Romans, chap. i. Quod donum quidem sit, non tamen spirituale, ut nupitae.
Turgots Life of St Margaret, p. 48.
Bernards Life of Malachy, chap. viii.