of the twelfth Century, 400 Years after this pretended decretal Epiftle. And he tells us in his Continuation of St. Jeroms Chronicle, that Charlemagne went to Rome in the Year 774 when Pope Hadrian held a Council and gave him this Power of Inveftitures. But neither Eginhard, who wrote the Life of this Emperor, nor any other contemporary Author mention any thing of it, nor does it appear from them that Charles did go to Rome that year. However Leo VIII. cites this Decree, and confirms the fame Privileges to Otho the Great: Which Decree is extant alfo in Gratian, immediately after the former. But whether Hadrian's Decretal Epistle be forged or not, is no material Point: For the Popes were generally very liberal in granting what they had nothing to do with, and giving to Princes and other Perfons what was their own before; that all Perfons might feem to hold all their Rights, Priviledges and Poffeffions of them. And 'tis certain that the Princes in their Contests with the Popes about this Matter, would never acknowledge that they received this Right by any Grant from his Holinefs, but always infifted upon it as an undoubted and inherent Prerogative Royal defcended to them with the Crown. And so no doubt it was. For if Bishops would have and enjoy the Feudal Lands belonging to their feveral Sees, they must be content to enjoy them on those Terms by which they were given. And indeed it must have been very prejudicial to the publick if fa many great Feuds had been given to Perfons who would not be obliged to hold them of the Soveraign by an Oath of Fealty and Homage, nor to receive them from them as others did, and and oblige themselves to serve him either in Perfon or by Proxy. It was unreasonable to think that Princes fhould fo give away their Lands as to divest themselves of the Supreme Royalty. Now Feuds (as has been faid) reverted to the Lord upon the Death of the Feudatary, (except fuch as were Hereditary, which Ecclefiaftical Feuds could never be) and upon this Reversion to the Lord it was in his Power to make a new Grant of 'em where he pleased, and poffefs all the Benefits and Profits arising from 'em till fuch Grant was made. Wherefore tho' by the Customs and Canons of the Church the Election of a Bishop belonged to the Clergy and People together with the Metropolitan and comprovincial Bishops, yet it was at the Pleafure of the Prince whether he whom they Elected fhould enjoy the Temporalities of the Bishoprick or not, because they reverted to his full Poffeffion upon the Death of the former Bishop. Upon which account, no doubt, the Electors were willing to quit their Right of Election to him, at least to Elect the Perfon he should nominate or invest; knowing that not many would like to undertake the Paftoral care, if there were no Revenucs to make the Burthen more easy. By this means after the Feudal Law was generally received throughout Europe it became a general Custom for all Soveraign Princes in the Weftern Churches to inveft whom they pleafed with the Temporalities of Vacant Bishopricks, and the Perfon fo invefted was Confecrated by the Metropolitan and Provincial Bishops. And that the Princes Approbation and Inveftiture was required before they prefumed to proceed to a Confecration is apparent from Matter of Fact almost 150 years before the Reign of Charles the great, on whom Gratian pretends Pope Adrian first conferred that Right. For we find in the Author of the Life of St. Romanus Archbishop of Roan (as I have it from (a) Du Pin) that when this Saint was Elected, (4) Vol. 16, and the great Men about the Court unani p. 31. mously advised the King to approve his Election: And that Prince (it was Clovis 2. or his Father Dagobert) having convened the Bishops and Abbots gave him the Pastoral Rod, in confequence whereof he was Confecrated. Princes continued to enjoy this Right peaceably and quietly without any Contest, that I can find, till about the End of the Eleventh Cen tury. So that they seem to have poffeffed this Royal Prerogative without disturbance for above 400 years: For Clovis 2. lived about the middle of the Seventh Century, and then it is certain from what has been faid that Princes did Invest, and it is very probable they did it fome time before. C rci Sacra. I know indeed that (b) Grotius will not al-(6) De Imper. low that Princes lay claim to the Right of No- Summ. Poteft, mination to Bishopricks from this Feudal Cu- Cap. 10. $25. ftom of Inveftiture, but attributes it to their Supreme and abfolute Authority. And it, muft be acknowledged that the Supreme Power may do any thing either in Church or State not contrary to the Law of God. But it is certain from the Edicts of Juftinian and the Decree of the Council of Arles above cited, that the Church did enjoy the Right of Elections after the Roman Emperor and other Princes became Chriftian, and I do not find that he can prove that either Emperors or Kings D d No (a) Dities and Rights of Parch Clergy. p. 231. Nominated Bishops generally (whatever they might do by their abfolute Power in fome very great Sees) before the Northern Nations had brought in their Feudal Cuftoms: And then not only Princes gave Inveftitures to Bifhopricks, but (a) Private Patrons alfo pretended the fame Right to fuch Churches as they enjoyed the Prefentations of, and would have brought thofe who had their Benefices to a kind of Feudal Service, as the late Bishop of Worcefter obferves; but this Practice being complained of was prevented by diverse Laws and Canons: However Soveraign Princes ftill continued to give Inveftitures and to require all Feudal Services. I Du Pin. (e) Can. 2t I CHA P. XVIII. Of the Contests about Inveftitures in the Empire. Ildebrand Archdeacon of Rome under the Pontificate of Alexander II, whom he Succeeded by the Name of Gregory the Seventh, began the first Contest about Investitures with Henry 4. of Germany. And afterwards A. D. 1074, is faid to have made a Decree against them in Council held at Rome, but that is not certain. However it is abfolutely decreed by him in another (e) Council held at Rome when he himfelf was Pope A. D. 1078. that No Ecclefiafticks fhall receive Inveftiture of any Bishoprick, Abby or Church 'from the Hands of Emperor, King, or any other Laick whatfoever: And that if he fhall ' receive receive it, his Inveftiture fhall be Null and Void, and he fhall be Excommunicated till 'fuch time as he has given Satisfaction for his • Offence. This Prohibition was again renewed by the fame Pope in another Council at Rome A. D. 1080. The like Decree was alfo made in the firft Canon of the Council of PoiEtiers, A. D. 1078. And indeed in almost every Council which was convened during the Pontificate of this Firebrand (as I may juftly call him) both of Church and State, there were repeated Decrees made against this longpoffeffed Royal Prerogative. ! It is to be acknowledged indeed that great Inconveniencies might, and no doubt did befall the Church by Reafon of this Custom. For Princes did not fo often regard the Vertue and Piety of those they preferred to the highest Stations in the Church as their own temporal conveniency. If a Clergy-man had any Dependance on the Prince or fome great Minifter of State, fo that he could do 'em Service in their Worldly Affairs, this certainly advanced him to a good Bishoprick whatever his other Endowments were, and how little fit foeyer he was to take the Pastoral care upon him. So that Learning, Piety, Vertue and Diligence in performing the Duties of the holy Function feldom recommended any one to Preferment. Whofoever therefore hoped for a Bishoprick applied himself rather to make his Court to the Prince by Attendance and Dependance on Great Men, and feeking to oblige them by Temporal Services rather than by Diligence in watching over and feeding Chrift's Sheep, from whence fprung, in a great Measure, that Ignorance, Barbarifm and other ftrange CorrupDd 2. tions |