God, because he hath exasperated his mother; "and his very foundation shall be rooted up, ac"cording to what is written in the same book "The mother's curse rooted up the foundation.' "If these secular princes and judges would escape this malediction, let them acquiesce in the wisdom "of Solomon, where he saith†, 'My son listen to "the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the "law of thy mother, that grace may be added to

66

.66

thy head, and a chain of gold to thy neck.' Now, whose instruction doth he so carefully enjoin us to hear, and whose law doth he bid us "beware of forsaking, but those of God our Father, "and of the church our mother? For, how can he enjoin us not to forsake the law of our carnal "mothers, seeing these latter, though empresses "and queens, have not a power to make laws?

66

66

"It being therefore evident, from so many "testimonies, that secular princes and judges can "neither frame laws contrary to the law of God, or the ordinances of the church, nor execute those already framed against them, without rebelling against God their Father, and their holy mother, "the church, to their own eternal damnation, and "to the forfeiture of their temporal administration, "it behoves you, who are admitted to the king's "familiarity, to share his judiciary power, as you "regard the king's eternal salvation and your own "obedience and union with the holy roman-catholic "church, to labour, by all possible means to reform, the model of the divine and ecclesiastical

upon

* Ecclus. c. 3, v. 11.

+ Proverbs, c. 1, v. 8.

law, all the laws contrary thereto, which have "hitherto prevailed in the king's courts, to the "dishonour and injury of the eternal king; and to

resolve, for the future, manfully to oppose the "making and the exercise of all such, so to rescue our lord the king, yourself, and other secular judges of the realm, from the burnings of eternal "fire."

66

We have inserted this passage at length, that the reader may see from it the state of the ultramontane doctrine in the middle ages respecting the spiritual and temporal power of the ministers of the church, and how it was exhibited and proved by one of its ablest and wisest defenders *. This statement of the sentiments of Grossetete will not, we believe, raise him in the opinion of many of our readers but we must observe, that, by confining the whole power of the ministers of the church to concerns merely spiritual, and by denying to them a right to the personal exercise of temporal power, the notions of the prelate fell very short of those which were asserted by the higher flyers of those times; as these ascribed to the pope both supreme spiritual and supreme temporal power, and a right to the personal exercise of both, as well in temporal as in spiritual concerns. Compared with these extravagances, the system

* It is translated from the prelate's letter to Raleigh, the 23d in Browne's collection (Fasciculus, vol. ii. p. 320). The same opinions and mode of argument are expressed, by John of Salisbury, (Polycraticon, lib. iv. cap. 1, 2, and 3); see Ceillier, tom. xxiii. p. 273.

of Grossetete is moderate, and approaches to what we shall notice in a future page, the more qualified, yet still reprehensible system of cardinal Bellarmine. The advance to truth is slow; but every step to it, however small, is important and a benefit to posterity.

Great good sense, spirit and method, appear in the letters of our prelate; the diction of them is nervous, but inflated, and, though they abound in classical allusions, the style is that of the times. The incessant introduction into them of scriptural phraseology, is very unpleasing.

The same remarks may be applied to the letters, which form the correspondence of St. Thomas of Canterbury. This deformity of their style would be less surprising, if the writers had been strangers to the Latin authors of antiquity: but we see that they were familiar with many of their works. Even the Latin translation of the Bible, which they heard and read every day, should have led them to a simpler and purer style.

VIII. 4.

Contests between bishop Grossetete and the Crown.

OUR prelate's first contest with the crown turned on the legitimation of children born before marriage, by the subsequent marriage of their parents, a point, which became soon afterwards the subject of a memorable legislative proceeding of the British parliament.

This legitimation is admitted both by the civil

and canon law in the former, by a rescript of the emperor Constantine, adopted by the emperor Justinian: in the latter by a constitution of pope Alexander the third, in 1160: but, in both laws, it is allowed to extend to those cases only, in which, at the time of the marriage, it was lawful for the parents to intermarry. It prevails at this time, but with different modifications as to its effects on civil rights, in France, Germany, Scotland and Holland.

It never was received into the law of England: this is generally ascribed to the notions, which the Saxons, as all other nations of German origin, entertained of the honour and purity of the marriage tie. On the promulgation of the papal constitution of Alexander, the ecclesiastics sought to introduce its provisions into the jurisprudence of England. On this occasion, bishop Grossetete addressed a letter to William de Raby, his intimate friend, then judge of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury: he discusses the point, at considerable length, and concludes in its favour. Raby replied in defence of the municipal law, and the bishop received orders to conform to it, from the king in council. He demurred, and with other prelates, endeavoured to persuade the council, held at Merton in 1236, to adopt the provisions of the canon law: "But all "the earls and barons," saith the Parliament Roll,

66

answered, with one voice, that they would not "admit the laws of England, which, till then, had "been used and approved of, to be changed." This, the writers on the constitution of England

always mention as a memorable instance of the national jealousy of the civil and canon law, and the firmness of our ancestors, even when the papal power was at its height, in opposing foreign inno

vations.

Bishop Grossetete had other contests with the crown--one, on the right of royal interference in the elections of bishops and other ecclesiastical dignitaries; one, on the immunities of the clergy, which always found in him a zealous and an able advocate; and one, on the employment of ecclesiastics in secular offices. These, he contended, the crown could not conscientiously impose on the clergy, or the clergy conscientiously accept: in this, he succeeded, so far as to procure a special mandate from Rome, in virtue of which, he promulgated a diocesan statute, which "forbad all ecclesiastics, "and all in holy orders, to exercise secular em"ployments in future."

While the council of Merton was sitting, he drew up, under eighteen distinct heads, a general list of the grievances, under which the church laboured, and presented them to the council*.

But his great contest with the crown respected the right of the state to impose subsidies on the ecclesiastical body, without its consent. At a meeting of the clergy in 1244, his majesty presented himself to them, and with threats demanded a subsidy. The prelates intimated an unwillingness to grant it: some, however, began to yield: "but * Ann. Burton. p. 396.