Page images
PDF
EPUB

our comprehension, but totally inconsistent with the Divine Nature. Having established the distinction between prescience and necessity; having proved that the former is consistent with our free agency, St. Anselm next enquires, whether the predestination of the elect, as contained in St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, contravenes that free agency. He proves, that predestination is, in reality, nothing more than prescience, by which God foresees that some free agents will fulfil, that others will not fulfil, the commands which he has given to man, and to the performance or non-performance of which he has annexed everlasting life and death. The third question, the concord of grace with free will, is no less interesting. The writer proves from Holy Scripture the necessity of grace for every good work, and the simultaneous freedom of the will. He observes the different modes of speaking on this subject in the inspired writings, which sometimes represent grace to be so efficacious, as if it alone were the cause of every good action, to the entire exclusion of free will, while at other times, they ascribe all to free will, as if grace had no operation. He contends that this distinction relates to children and to adults; that in the former, grace alone works to salvation; but that in the latter, free will must co-operate with grace. In one sense, indeed, the adult may be said to owe every thing to grace: as a creature he derives every thing from his Creator, even the power to fulfil that Creator's commands: his faculties are not his own work; but are derived from the favour of God. Without righteousness no man can be saved; whence is this righteousness derived? Not from himself, or he could obtain it by the mere exercise of his will; nor from any other creature; for what he has not another cannot have; but from the grace of God. But if grace be bestowed, it does not act through necessity, but through the concord of the will. It is the will which receives the grace, and which makes us workers together with God. On this co-operation of

the human and the divine powers, on this union of grace and free will, depends the salvation of man. Hence the propriety of that apostolic command, Work out your salvation. This condensed view of St. Anselm's opinions on a subject so abstruse, will convey a fair idea of his general manner. He is always subtle, sometimes mystical and obscure; and his cold abstractions exhibit little of that devotional fire which burns in the works of most other saints. His was the religion of the intellect rather than of the heart, a principle rather than a feeling. Of extensive learning, but still more distinguished for his dialectic powers; comprehensive in his views, yet still more conspicuous for acuteness; clear in his conceptions; connected in his reasonings; we know not any other writer of the eleventh century who will bear comparison with him.*

The troubled reign of Stephen affords us few materials for a history of the church; but that of Henry II. is prolific enough. At this period, not only did the abuses which we have so amply described subsist, but the hostility between the crown and the church was aggravated by the new disputes between the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions. In the preceding volume we have alluded to the separation of these courts, which, before the Norman conquest, were one and the same †: but as the subject is important, as a knowledge of it is necessary towards the understanding not only of our own history, but of the history of Europe, we will borrow the words of a writer who has treated it with singular eloquence and erudition.

"1. From the commencement of Christianity, its professors had been exhorted to withdraw their differences from the cognisance of profane tribunals, and to submit them to the ternal authority of their bishops. They, by the nature of

pa

Opera S. Anselmi, tom. iii. p. 179, &c. (De Concordia Gratiæ et Liberi Arbitrii). Ceillier, Histoire des Auteurs Ecclésiastiques, tom. xxi. p. 282, &c. Tiraboschi, Storia della Letteratura Italiana, tom. iii. liv. 3.

+ See page 104.

+ Dr. Lingard.

1 Corinth, vi. 1-6.

their office, were bound to heal the wounds of dissension, and by the sacredness of their character were removed beyond the suspicion of partiality or prejudice. Though an honourable, it was a distracting servitude, from which the more pious would gladly have been relieved; but the advantages of the system recommended it to the approbation of the Christian emperors. Constantine and his successors appointed the bishops the general arbitrators within their respective dioceses; and the officers of justice were compelled to execute their decisions, without either delay or appeal.* At first, to authorise the interference of the spiritual judge, the previous consent of both the plaintiff and defendant was requisite † ; but Theodosius left it to the option of the parties, either of whom was indulged with the liberty of carrying the cause in the first instance into the bishop's court, or even of removing it thither in any stage of the pleadings before the civil magistrates. Charlemagne inserted this constitution of Theodosius in his code; and ordered it to be invariably observed among all the nations which acknowledged his authority. § If by the imperial law the laity were permitted, by the canon law the clergy were compelled, to accept of the bishop as the judge of civil controversies. || It did not become them to quit the spiritual duties of their profession, and entangle themselves in the intricacies of law proceedings. The principle was fully admitted by the emperor Justinian, who decided that in cases, in which only one of the parties was a clergyman, the cause must be submitted to the decision of the bishop. This valuable privilege, to which the teachers of the northern nations had been accustomed under their own princes, they naturally established among their converts; and it was soon confirmed to the clergy by the civil power in every Chrisian country. 3. Constantine had thought that the irregularities of an order of men devoted to the offices of religion, should be veiled from the scrutinising eye of the people. With this view he granted to each bishop, if he were accused of violating the law, the liberty of being tried by his colleagues; and, moreover, invested him with a criminal jurisdiction over his own clergy.** Whether his authority was

Eusebius, Vita Constantina, iv. 27. Sozomen, Historia, i, 9. More arbitri sponte residentis. Cod. de Epis. Audientia, leg. 7. Ibid. leg. 8. + Ibid. Si qui ex consensu valentur, iii. Novel. 12. Sozom. ibid. Codex Theodos. Appen. Extravag. 1. De Epis. Judicio. Godefroy has proved that this edict should not be attributed to Constantine; but there can be little doubt that it was issued by one of his successors, probably Theodosius, to whom it is ascribed by Charlemagne.,

Capitularia Regum Francorum, vi. 366.

Concilium Carthaginense, iii. 9.

Justin. Novel. lxxix. 1. lxxxiii. In Novel. cxxiii. 21., he added the li berty of appeal from the bishop's sentence within ten days. **Niceph. Hist. vii. 46. Conc. Carthag. iii. 9.

confined to lesser offences, or extended to capital crimes, is a subject of controversy. There are many edicts, which without any limitation reserve the correction of the clergy to the discretion of the bishop *; but in the novels of Justinian a distinction is drawn between ecclesiastical and civil transgressions. With the former the emperor acknowledges that the civil power has no concern†; the latter are cognisable by the civil judge. Yet, before his sentence can be executed, the convict must be degraded by his ecclesiastical superior; or if the superior refuses, the whole affair must be referred to the consideration of the sovereign. That this regulation prevailed among the western nations after their separation from the empire, is proved by the canons of several councils §; but the distinction laid down by Justinian was insensibly abolished; and whatever might be the nature of the offence with which a clergyman was charged, he was, in the first instance at least, amenable to none but an ecclesiastial tribunal. It was thus that on the Continent the spiritual courts were first established, and their authority was afterwards enlarged; but among the AngloSaxons the limits of the two judicatures were intermixed and undefined. When the imperial government ceased in other countries, the natives preserved many of its institutions, which the conquerors incorporated with their own laws; but our barbarian ancestors eradicated every prior establishment, and transplanted the manners of the wilds of Germany into the new solitude which they had made. After their conversion, they associated the heads of their clergy with their nobles, and both equally exercised the function of civil magistrates. It is plain that the bishop was the sole judge of the clergy in criminal cases; that he alone decided their differences **, and that to him appertained the cognisance of certain offences against the rights of the church and the sanctions of religion.†† But as it was his duty to sit with the sheriff in the court of the county, his ecclesiastical became blended with his secular jurisdiction; and many causes which in other countries had been reserved to the spiritual judge, were decided in England before 2 mixed tribunal. This disposition continued in force until the Norman conquest; when, as the reader must have formerly noticed, the two judicatures were completely separated by the

Codex Theodos. de Episcop. et Clerica, leg. 41, 42. Codex Justin. de Epis. et Cler. 1.

Justinian, Novel. lxxxiii. 1. See also Conc. Chalced. iii.; Codex Theod. De Religione, leg. 1.

Justinian, Novel. cxxiii. 21.

Synod Parisien, v. can. 4. Synod Matiscon. ii. can. 10.

See Capitul. Reg. Francor. i. 38. v. 378. 390. vii. 347. 422. 436.

Leges Saxonicæ, 51-111. 115. 129. v. 140. xi. 151.

** Leg. Sax. 83.

tt Leg. Sax. 12. 34. 53. 142.

new sovereign; and in every diocese 'courts Christian,' that is, of the bishop and his archdeacons, were established, after the model, and with the authority of similar courts in all other parts of the Western church.* The tribunals created by this arrangement were bound, in the terms of the original charter to be guided id their proceedings by the 'episcopal laws,' -a system of ecclesiastical jurisprudence, composed of the canons of councils, the decrees of popes, and the maxims of the more ancient fathers. This, like all other codes of law, had, in the course of centuries, received numerous additions. New cases

perpetually occurred; new decisions were given; and new compilations were made and published. The two which at the time of the Conquest prevailed in the spiritual courts of France, and which were sanctioned by the charter of William in England, were the collection under the name of Isidore, and that of Burchard bishop of Worms.† About the end of the century appeared a new code from the pen of Ivo, bishop of Chartres, whose acquaintance with the civil law of Rome

* Leg. Sax. 192. There can be no doubt that the existence of these courts was confined, as often as our kings confined in general terms the liberties of the clergy. Blackstone, misled by an ambiguous passage in an old collection of laws, supposes that Henry I. abolished "the courts christian," (comment. iii. 5.) but the same collection frequently mentions them as in existence, and says expressly, in the words of St. Ambrose, Sancitum est in causis fidei vel ecclesiastici alicujus ordinis cum judicare debere, qui nec munere impar sit, nec jure dissimilis. Leg. Sax. 237.

+ It is evident from the Anglo-Saxon councils that that they followed a collection of canons, which was termed Codex canonum vetus ecclesiæ Ro manæ. I suspect it was that of Martin bishop of Braga, sent by pope Adrian to Charlemagne; as at the same time the legates of that pontiff came to England, and held two councils for the reformation of ecclesiastical discipline. In the beginning of the ninth century, Riculf, bishop of Mentz, brought into Gaul a new compilation by a writer who called himself Isidore (Hinemari Opus. xxiv.), but this compilation contained decrees which had been hitherto unknown. Former collections began with the decisions of Siricius: Isidore added many said to have been given by his predecessors. It is now acknowledged that they are forgeries; and from their tendency, they seem to have been framed for the particular purpose of withdrawing prelates accused of crimes from the immediate jurisdiction of the archbishop and the provincial synod, and placing them in the first instance under the protection of the pontiff. In an age unacquainted with the art of criticism, no one doubted the authenticity of these spurious decrees: the enemies of the innovation only contended that, whatever might have been decided by the first pontiffs, the contrary had afterwards been established by their successors (Frodoard, iii. 22.). But the interests of the bishops coincided in this case with that of the pontiffs; by their united influence, the opposition of the metropolitans was borne down; and the decrees in the compilation of Isidore were admitted as laws of the church. About 1010, Burchard made a new collection, into which they were also introduced, Whether they had been followed in England, we have not the means to ascertain; but in France their authority was no longer doubted; and by the Leges Episcopales, the Norman bishops would certainly understand the laws contained in the two compilations of Isidore and Burchard. I have added this note, because some writers seem to suppose that it was not till after the decretum of Gratian that the false decretals were admitted in this kingdom.

« PreviousContinue »