« السابقةمتابعة »
K. of Eng.
travelled as far as Roxburgh, where he had a conference HENRY I. with David, king of Scots, who succeeded his brother Alexander. His business, as appears by the pope's letter, was to inform himself more fully in the controversy between the archbishop of York and the Scottish prelates, and examine the pretensions of both sides.
The cardinal having executed his commission with reference to Scotland, returned to London, and held a council there at St. Peter's, Westminster: both the archbishops were present at this synod, with twenty of their suffragans, forty abbots, and a great number of the inferior clergy.
Before I proceed to the matter determined by the council, it will not be amiss to throw in a word or two concerning the authority by whom it was convened.
Now, though the legate was the occasion of the meeting No summons of this synod, yet the summons runs only in the name of the or legatine, archbishop of Canterbury. The form sent to Urban, bishop for convening the of Landaff, gives notice to that prelate, that John, cardinal council. and legate, by the appointment and concurrence of the said archbishop, designed to hold a synod at London. The bishop of Landaff, therefore, with the archdeacons, abbots, and priors of his diocese, are commanded to make their appearance at London at the time specified, &c. Spelman Concil. vol. And here Gervasius Dorobernensis takes notice how the 2. p. 33. Ex English were disturbed at the cardinal's legatine character; Landavens. that the figure he made in the council was altogether un- See Reprecedented, and gave great offence: for, it seems, he 20. took care to shew his superiority in his seat, his throne being raised to a great distinction, with the archbishops, bishops, and temporal nobility beneath him. That upon Easter day, when he came first into England, he officiated in the cathedral of Canterbury, in the archbishop's place, sat in the highest seat, and wore the episcopal habit, notwithstanding he was no more than a priest. This sight was perfectly new, and a plain indication how much the ancient liberties of the English Church were sunk. For, as the historian goes on, it was notorious both to the English nation and their neighbours, that, from Augustine, the monk, to William, the present archbishop, all Augustine's successors were looked upon as primates and patriarchs,
and never brought under the jurisdiction of any Roman Abp. Cant. legate.
The canons decreed in this council, were, several of them, Dorobern. the same with those of the late council of Lateran. Act. Pontif.
Cantuar. p. 1663.
The first canon is against Simony.
The second forbids the demanding any money for chrism, baptism, penance, visiting the sick, for burying, or giving the holy eucharist.
The next canon orders, that nothing shall be taken for the consecration of bishops or churches, or the benediction of abbots, unless freely offered.
By the fourth, no abbot, prior, monk, or clergyman, was to receive any church or portion of tithes from any lay person, without the consent of the respective ordinaries.
By the fifth, no person was to pretend a right to a parochial cure or prebend by course of succession or hereditary title.
The sixth orders, that those clergymen who have a right to any benefice, and refuse to qualify themselves by going into orders at the bishop's invitation, shall forfeit their respective preferments.
By the seventh, no clergyman under a priest was capable of being a dean or prior.
By the eighth, none was to be ordained priest or deacon without a title; those that received orders without this circumstance were to lose the advantage of their character.
The ninth decrees, that no abbot, clergyman, or layman, should eject any person in orders out of his benefice or station without the cognizance of the diocesan.
By the tenth, no bishop was to ordain or censure any person belonging to a foreign diocese.
By the eleventh, he that communicated with an excommunicated person was to fall under the same censure himself. By the twelfth, a plurality of ecclesiastical titles or dignities were not to be bestowed upon a single person. The thirteenth forbids marriage and concubinage to priests, deacons, subdeacons, and canons.
By the fourteenth, the clergy were not allowed to take usury, or support themselves by any other discreditable methods of profit.
The fifteenth excommunicates diviners and figure-flingers, HENRY I. and those that applied themselves to them.
The sixteenth forbids matrimony to the seventh generation, with respect both to consanguinity and affinity; and that those married within those degrees should be parted. And for fear men who are willing to disengage from their wives should pretend this bar without reason,
K. of Eng.
The seventeenth canon orders the husband's testimony, Dunelor the testimony of those produced by him, should not be de Gest. received as good evidence upon this article.
Before I take leave of the council there is one remarkable Wigorn. ad passage relating to the legate which must not be omitted. An. 1125. This cardinal, before the synod met, had been richly pre- 319. sented in his progress, and treated with great respect by the The pope's bishops and abbots; and afterwards, happening to make a prised with false step, he drew a blemish upon his character. When a strumpet. the council was sitting, he declaimed against the marriage of the clergy with a great deal of satire and intemperate language, saying, amongst other things, that it was a wickedness Baronius of the highest nature to consecrate the body of our Saviour offers to diswhen a man had just taken leave of a strumpet. Now the story, but same day the legate had made this invective, and consecrated without sucthe holy eucharist, he was surprised in the evening with a wench. The proof of this miscarriage was so evident, that the fact could not be denied; and thus the cardinal's figure was spoiled, the infamy was public and notorious, and he fell under the utmost disgrace; insomuch that he was forced to get off, and went home in the greatest confusion imaginable. Huntington, by way of excuse for reporting the failings of so great a person, justifies himself by a precedent from the Holy Scriptures. And that since Moses, who was an inspired writer, recorded the vices as well as the good qualities of his ancestors; since he mentioned the intemperance of Lot, the incest of Reuben, the barbarous treachery of Simeon and Levi, and the unnatural inhumanity of Joseph's brethren: since he had so great an authority for his defence, he was resolved to take the true liberty of an historian, and touch upon the faults as well as the commendation of those that came in his way; and if this impartiality should disgust any Roman, or prelate, he advises them not
to discover their resentment, for fear they betray the same Abp. Cant. disorder of inclination with the cardinal of Crema.
Nothing can be more express and positive than this tesHistor. 17. timony of Huntington. Now this author was living when the fact was done, and intimately acquainted with Alexander, bishop of Lincoln, who, in all likelihood, was at the council. The same story is likewise told by Hoveden, Matthew Paris, Hoveden, and Matthew of Westminster, without the least mark of question as to the truth of it. Nay, Matthew of Westminster adds a circumstance more than the rest; he reports, that the legate, when he was caught, endeavoured to excuse his debauchery, by denying part of his character; he was no Histor. ad priest, he said, but only a reformer of that order. This, Baronius calls a trifling defence; and so, without doubt, it was; for he is called a cardinal priest in his credentials. He is likewise said to have consecrated the holy eucharist, by Baron. An- the historians above mentioned.
Mat. Westminster Flores.
nal. tom. 12.
sect. 14. ad An. 1125. Spelman Concil. vol. 2. p. 32.
However, Baronius takes a great deal of pains to disprove the matter of fact. He makes Hoveden, Matthew Paris, and Matthew of Westminster, mere transcribers of the archdeacon of Huntington; and that the credit of the story rests purely upon that author's testimony; but all this is nothing but bare conjecture and affirmation; for the cardinal does not offer at any proof; then, as for Huntington, he brands him with partiality in favour of the married clergy. But why Huntington should expose his memory, and bring a disbelief upon his writings, by telling a scandalous story of so great a person as the pope's legate; by telling it with so much assurance, when it was so capable of disproof, being done in his own time, and upon so very publick an occasion; why Huntington, I say, should expose himself to all this censure and detection, is more than Baronius accounts for.
The cardinal urges, farther, that if this story had been true, St. Bernard, and other authors of character of that age, would never have affirmed so unanimously, that the greater and better part of the cardinals declared for pope Baron. ibid. Innocent's election; if John of Crema, who was one of them, had misbehaved himself in so scandalous a manner. But, under favour, this way of arguing falls short of the point; for if pope Innocent II. had a majority of good men for his
K. of Eng.
electors, to what purpose should the miscarriages of a single HENRY I. person be taken notice of? And it is possible this disreputable conduct might be either hushed, or faced down beyond the seas.
Baronius proceeds in the legate's justification, and insists upon the silence of William of Malmsbury, who lived at this time, and wrote with freedom enough upon the court of Rome. Now, if Malmsbury had mentioned the London synod, at which the legate was present, there had been some colour in Baronius's objection; but since he has said nothing, either of the meeting or business of the synod, or of the legate's coming over, we have no reason to wonder at the omission of this circumstance.
Reg. 1. 5.
If it be enquired, why so considerable a writer as Malmsbury should pass over all this, we may observe, that he wrote his History of the Church after he had finished that of the state. Now, in his books De Gestis Pontificum, he Malmsb. does not come so far as the life of William Corbel, who was archbishop of Canterbury when the legate came over. Now fol. 98. Malmsbury's not reaching to the life of the archbishop, under whom the synod was held, was, in all likelihood, the reason why it is unmentioned by this historian. It is true, neither Dunelmensis, nor the continuator of Florence of Worcester, though they insert the canons, take any notice of the legate's disgrace. But then, on the other side, neither these nor any later English authors, offer anything to refute the calumny. So that, in short, we have four historians who charge the fact, and not one that pretends to disprove it. And to give Baronius his due, he is so modest as to grant that his defence falls short of a justification, and that it is very possible his holiness's representatives may sometimes fail in their morals, like other people.
After the breaking up of the synod, William, archbishop of Canterbury, took a journey to Rome; part of his business was to remonstrate against putting a foreign legate upon the English Church. He was honourably received by Hono- Continuat. rius II., who gave him a legatine commission for England and Scotland.
ad Flo. Wi
gorn. ad An.
To this year we are to assign the founding of the famous The foundabbey of Reading. It was built and largely endowed by ing of the
abbey of Reading.