From very early times, and almost throughout the middle ages, the clergy are found occasionally taking part in warlike enterprises;--one principal reason of which may have been, that, by personally heading their contingent, they escaped from the exactions and caprices of the vicedomini. Their presence in battle and siege is proved, not only by the direct testimony of cotemporary writers, but by the prohibitions that from time to time were issued against the practice. From Gregory of Tours we learn, that at the siege of Comminges by the Burgundian monarch, the bishop of Gap often appeared among the defenders of the town, hurling stones from the walls on the assailants. Hugh, abbot of St. Quentin, a son of Charlemagne, was slain before Toulouse, with the abbot of Ferrière; and at the same time, two bishops were made prisoners. The Saxon Chronicle, under the year 1056, says:--"Leofgar was appointed bishop. He was the mass-priest of Harold the earl. He wore his knapsack during his priesthood until he was a bishop. He forsook his chrism and his rood, his ghostly weapons, and took to his spear and his sword after his bishophood; and so went to the field against Griffin, the Welsh king: and there was he slain, and _his priests with him_." At the Council of Estines, in 743, it is forbidden "to all who are in the service of the Church to bear arms and to fight, and none are to accompany the army but those appointed to celebrate mass, to hear confessions, and to carry the relics of the saints." The Council of Soissons, in 744, records a similar prohibition against the abbots:--"Abbates legitimi hostem non faciant, nisi tantum homines eorum transmittant." The capitularies of Charlemagne contain similar ordinances: the priests are forbidden to combat "even against the pagans." The Anglo-Saxon clerics seem to have been no less belligerent than their neighbours; and Mr. Kemble sums up this part of the question in the following words:--"Though it is probable that the bishop's _gerefa_ was bound to lead his contingent, under the command of the ealdorman, yet we have ample evidence that the prelates themselves did not hold their station to excuse them from taking part in the just and lawful defence of their country and religion against strange and pagan invaders. Too many fell in conflict to allow of our attributing their presence on the field merely to their anxiety lest the belligerents should be without the due consolations of religion; and in other cases, upon the alarm of hostile incursions, we find the levies stated to have been led against the enemy by the duke and bishop of the district[19]."