professed to restore the ancient usage of election by the clergy and people; but no such enactment was really issued until the reign of Louis the Pious, while it is certain that in the appointment of bishops the great emperor practically followed the example of his predecessors, and that he was imitated by his descendants." In Spain, the fourth council of Toledo, in 633, enacted that a bishop should be chosen by the clergy and people of his city, and that the election should be approved by the metropolitan and synod of the province. But at the twelfth council of the same place, in 681, the appointment of bishops by the royal authority alone is mentioned as a matter of settled custom. The process by which this change was effected is unknown." q A.D. 796. In England, although Wihtred, king of Kent, in 696, disclaimed the right of appointing bishops, the royal authority influenced their appointment, as they were chosen by the wittenagemote of each state in the presence of the king." And here, as in other countries, the influence of the crown gradually became more absolute. From letters written by Alcuin, a century after Wihtred's time, on a vacancy in the archbishoprick of York, it appears that the ancient freedom of election was then giving way; that kings assumed an increased control over the choice of bishops, or even disposed of sees by gift. In the ninth century, the nomination of bishops had passed into the hands of the sovereign, while a shadow of the earlier system was kept up in a formal election of the person so appointed, and in the publication of his name from the pulpit of the cathedral, to which announcement the people replied by acclamations and wishes of long life to their new pastor. (3.) The Frankish sovereigns, in their continual movements, required a staff of clergy to attend on them for the performance of Divine service. At the head of this body was placed the Archchaplain, whose office became one of great importance. Sometimes it was filled by a presbyter; sometimes by a bishop, who, in such a case, required a special dispensation for absence from his diocese ; but, whether bishop or presbyter, the archchaplain stood next in dignity to the family of the sovereign, and at synods he took precedence even of archbishops. Combining the functions of chancellor with those of chaplain, he acted as a minister of the crown for spiritual affairs; he received reports from the bishops as to the state of their churches, prepared the king's ecclesiastical capitularies and other documents, and conducted his correspondence on matters which concerned the church." Such being his position, it depended on individual character whether the archchaplain should sway the prince in the interest of the hierarchy, or the prince should by means of him obtain a control over the administration of the church.x (4.) The mixture of clergy and laity in the Frankish councils has been already mentioned. The capitularies bear a marked impress of clerical influence; but it was often possible for sovereigns, by the help of their lay vassals, to overrule the proposals of the bishops as to ecclesiastical affairs, or to carry measures notwithstanding their opposition. Sometimes, however, the clergy were assembled by themselves, as at Verne or Verneuil, in 755, where abbots for the first time appear as members of a Frankish council.b a In Spain, from the time when king Recared and his nobles appeared at Toledo, for the purpose of arranging the change from Arianism to the catholic faith (A.D. 589), mixed councils of clergy and laity, summoned by the sovereign, were frequently held. At the earlier sessions of these, from the seventeenth council of Toledo, in 694, the affairs of the church were first discussed by the bishops and abbots, without the presence of the laity; but on the fourth day, the nobles, the judges, and others, were called in to take a part in their deliberations.d Among the Anglo-Saxons, the kings and other laymen attended ecclesiastical synods, while the bishops sat in the wittenagemotes, or national assemblies. The part which the laity took, however, u Adalhard. de Ordine Palatii, ap. Hincmar. t. ii. 206-8; Thomass. I. ii. 110; Pagi, xiii. 169; Planck, ii. 150; Luden, v. 152-3; Ducange, s. voc. Capellanus, where a list of the archchaplains is given. x Planck, ii. 149-152; Guizot, ii. 32. y See vol. i. 556; vol. ii. Sismondi, ii. 176-8; Guizot, ii. " Planck, ii. 148. b Rettb. ii. 626. c Conc. Tolet. IV. A.D. 589, c. 4; Lembke, i. 85. d Conc. Tolet. XVII. c. 1; Schröckh, xix. 462; Planck, ii. 144; Gibbon, iii. 420-2. On the clerical influence traceable in the ancient Spanish laws, see Guizot, i. 488. in councils, did not extend to matters purely spiritual, although it was for the wittenagemote to confirm, by the authority of law, the decisions of the clergy in such matters. Bishops took precedence of the lay nobility; and sometimes the archbishops signed the acts of synods before the king himself, as was the case at Chalchythe in 785.f k (5.) The claims of the ecclesiastical and secular judicatures in France were variously settled by successive enactments. It may be said in general, that, while the elergy were not amenable to secular judgment in questions between members of their own. order, or in the case of ecclesiastical offences, the trial of questions between clerks and laymen belonged to a mixed tribunal of lay and spiritual judges." Priests and deacons were in no case to be tried except with the bishop's knowledge or co-operation; and in important criminal charges, this privilege was extended to the lower clergy. The principle of mixed tribunals was approved by Charlemagne;' and although he seems to have in some of his laws exempted the clergy from all secular judgment in questions which concerned their own persons, this exemption was far short of that for which the high hierarchical party contended at a later time. For in cases which related to the possessions of clergymen, the secular judges still had a share; the right of judicature was not regarded as inherent in the episcopal office, but as granted, and therefore revocable, by the sovereign, so that in the ninth century bishops are threatened with the loss of it if they neglect to exercise it rightly;" and from metropolitans, as from secular judges, the appeal lay to the emperor, beyond whom there was no appeal. Among the Franks, as formerly under the Roman empire, there were many canons to prohibit clerks from carrying their grievances to the sovereign, without abiding the judgment of their immediate superiors, or obtaining the leave of these." e 127. Joyce, England's Sacred Synods, f Johnson, i. 284; Planck, ii. 146; Soames, 267. * Conc. Paris. A.D. 614, c. 4; Edict. Clotar. ap. Hard. iii. 654; Capit. Aquisgr. A.D. 789, c. 28; Planck, ii. 162-8; Rettb. ii. 640. h Pertz, Leges, i. 34; Rettb. ii. 640-1. It i Capit. Francof. A.D. 794, c. 30. is agreed that Charlemagne was not the author of a law ascribed to him, and dated in 810 (Hard. iii. 940-1), renewing the pretended law of Constantine, by which one party in a suit might compel the other to submit to the bishop's m Clotaire II., in his edict of 614, ordered that no such recourse to the king should be allowed, except in order to sue for pardon; but the royal letter of pardon was a protection against all punishment, and the bishops were bound to obey it.a In Spain, canons are found which forbid ecclesiastics to judge in cases of blood, or to inflict mutilation of the members." In England, the judgment of clerks was as yet on the same footing with that of the laity. But this was before a mixed tribunal-the bishop sitting in the county-court, with the ealdorman or earl, as the priests of the old Saxon heathenism had done. The papal legates at the council of Chalchythe objected to this custom, as tending to implicate the bishops too much in worldly affairs." Notwithstanding their remonstrance, however, the practical usefulness of the system secured its continuance, until the spiritual jurisdiction was separated from the secular by William the Conqueror, at the instance of his Norman ecclesiastical advisers.* III. The Hierarchy.-Administration of the Church. (1.) The metropolitan organisation had originally grown out of an analogy with the civil divisions of the Roman empire. In the Frankish kingdom, where no such division existed, the system fell into decay, and, although Boniface, under the authority of Pope Zacharias, and with the countenance of Pipin and Carloman, attempted to restore it, his success was very imperfect. Charlemagne, when at Rome in 774, was urged by Adrian to undertake the revival of the metropolitan jurisdiction, and established it not only in his original dominions, but in those which he acquired." But the new metropolitans had not the same influence as those of earlier times. In the national assemblies the metropolitan met the suffragan bishops as his peers, and a suffragan might by character or ability become more important than his ecclesiastical superior; while the growing connexion between France and Rome, and the increase of the papal power, drew the Frankish clergy to Conc. Rem. A.D. 625 (or 630), c. 18; Hard. iii. 554. Against the construction which would limit the effect of the pardon to civil offences, see Planck, ii. 190-2. Conc. Tolet. IV. A.D. 633, c. 31; Conc. Tolet. XI. A.D. 675, c. 6. • Planck, ii. 175; Kemble, ii. 437. Lingard, A. S. C. i. 101; Lappenb. i. 577; Kemble, ii. 385. u Conc. Chalch. A.D. 785, c. 10. Lingard, A. S. C. ii. 102; Kemble, ii. 384. See below, Book V. c. v. y See vol. i. p. 556. 2 See Zachar. Ep. 8, c. 1 (Patrol. lxxxix.); Conc. Vern. A.D. 755, c. 2; Pagi, xii. 495; Thomass. I. i. 33; Planck, ii. 639-641. a Adr. Ep. 55 (Patrol. xcvi.) b Capit. A.D. 779 (Pertz, Leges, i. 36); Capit. A.D. 789, c. 8; Pagi, xiii. 98. look beyond their metropolitans to the yet higher authority of the popes. (2.) In the eighth and ninth centuries we find frequent mention of Chorepiscopi-a title which in this period has some variety of application. Of those who were subject to the diocesan bishops, some had episcopal consecration, while the greater number were merely presbyters, enjoying a delegated authority in rural places. But besides these, there are frequent denunciations of chorepiscopi who were in the habit of wandering about, without any local authority, and of interfering with the rights of the established bishops by conferring orders and performing other episcopal acts. The chorepiscopi of this class who disturbed the Frankish church were for the most part from Ireland,' where the peculiar system of the Church encouraged the multiplication of bishops without local jurisdiction ; while others may have been consecrated by chorepiscopi who had themselves received consecration as assistants to the diocesan bishops. But even when the original appointment and consecration were regular, chorepiscopi were often disposed to presume beyond their proper function. Charlemagne, in a letter, states that the proceedings of these persons had caused great trouble and scandal; that priests, deacons, and subdeacons, who had been ordained by bishops, denied the validity of orders conferred by chorepiscopi; and that Pope Leo had disallowed the acts of these intruders. They are (he continues) not really bishops, since they neither have been consecrated by three bishops, nor possess episcopal titles to sees. Ordination, confirmation, veiling of nuns, consecration of churches and of altars, belong only to diocesan bishops, and not to chorepiscopi or presbyters, who correspond to the seventy disciples, and not to the Apostles. The emperor says that chorepiscopi had been made by bishops in ignorance of ecclesiastical decrees, and from a wish to devolve their own labour on others; and he forbids that any should be made in future. But in the following century we again meet with notices of this class e Planck, ii. 649-650. d Zachar. Ep. 8, c. 1; Pagi, xiii. 552-3. Comp. vol. i. p. 161. Conc. Vern. A.D. 755, c. 13; Giesel. II. i. 68. f Mabill. III. xx. See p. 66. The third council of Chalons, A.D. 813, speaks of "Scots" as ordaining irregularly, and declares such ordination to be void. (c. 43.) A council at Chalchythe, in 816, forbade "Scots" to officiate in English dioceses, "because we are not certain how or by h Hard. iii. 948-950. |