COURTS
447
COURTS
transferred to the See of London, 12 Sept., 1375. In
1377 Pope Gregory XI issuetl a Bull of excommunica-
tion aguinst the Florentines, and Courtenay published
it at Paul's Cross. The result was that the Floren-
tines in London were attacked hy the populace; the
magistrates had to interfere, and the king extended
his protection to the foreigners. Courtenay was ac-
cused of violating the law by pul>lishing the Bull.
^Vhen called upon to retract what ho had published,
his answer was made through an official, who declared
from the pulpit that the bishop's words had been rais-
understood, and there the matter ended. When the
Convocation was summoned in 1377, the archbishop,
in the interests of John of Gaunt, omitted to summon
the_ Bishop of Winchester. Courtenay protested
against this and succeeded in getting Wykeham's
rights recognized. Then followed his attempts to re-
press the Lollards, and Wyclif was cited to appear be-
fore the archbishop at St. Paul's. Wyclif came ac-
companied by John of Gaimt, who insisted upon a
seat being provided for the accused ; an altercation en-
sued which resulted in the court breaking up in con-
fusion. Courtenay's authority alone restrained the
citizens from using violence towards Lancaster.
Again, in obedience to the pope. 18 Dec, he sum-
moned Wyclif, but nothing came of the summons, and
the Lollards continued to increase in numbers and in-
fluence. Some think that about this time the pope
jfTered to create Courtenay a cardinal; whether this
tv-as so or not, he was never raised to that dignity, but
3n 30 July, 1381, he became Archbishop of Canter-
3ury'. Then followed his appointment to the cliancel-
orship of the kingdom 10 Aug., 1382, an office which
ie shortly afterwards resigned (18 Nov., 1382).
Urged by Parliament he again turned his attention to the Lollards, calling a coimcil which condemned iheir heretical opinions. Rigge, the Chancellor of Ox- 'ord and a leading Lollard, retracted and sued for par- ion on his knees, but on his return to the univer- sity continued as before. The Oxford Lollards were inally brought to submission on 18 Nov., when the •ecantation of their leaders was received at St. Fridc- !widc's. The archbishop then obtained a statute com- nanding sheriffs and other officers of the king to im- jrLson heretics when certified as such by a bishop, rhough this law was rejiealed the next year, he still lad the royal sanction allowing bishops to detain leretics in their own prisons. After the subjugation )f Oxford he turned to Leicester (1389), placed the »wn under an interdict, and in the end received the ■ecantation of the leaders. About 1382 he began a jeneral visitation of his province and met with much mposition; his interference was appealed against by .he Bishops of Exeter and Salisbury, though both inally submitted. The Benedictine "abbots also or-
- anized a strong opposition to his proposed visitation
)f Gloucester College, Oxford (1389); on his arrival le was treated with due respect, but they so firmly ■efused to acknowledge his right that he abandoned lis design. Though a strong defender of the rights of he Church in England, he was always true and loyal o the pope. He so fearlessly condemned the extrava- pnce of the king that he once (1385) had to take efuge in Devonshire to escape the royal anger. iVhen the relations between king and Parliament be-
- ame so strained as almost to lead to war, it was
Courtenay who acted as mediator and averted the langer. He was first buried at Maidstone, where he lad founded the College of St. Mary and All Saints; ifterwards his body was removed to rant<?rbury and )uried, in the king's presence, at the feet of the iBlack iVince, near the shrine of St. Thomas.
^fummfn^a Academira. ed. Anstet (Ix)ndon. 1868), I. 229; 'a.iCTr!//i' Zizaniorum. ed. .Shirlf.y (London, 1858), xxix, 272-5, KM-Q. .3.56. 493: Hook. Liim of Archbishops of Canterbury London. 1860-73). IV, 31.5-98; Stcbbs. ron.ililulion<d His- ory of Enolanil (I/Ondon. 1857-80), 11. 428-38, 460-N8; III, 30. 356; fcoxe. Acts and Monuments (London, 1684) I, 495-
500; Green. History of the KnutM People (London. 1895). II,
G. E. Hind.
Courts, Ecri.E.siA.sTirAT,.— I. JuDiriAL Powder in TUB CH0RCH.— In instituting the CInirch as a perfect society, distinct from the civil power and entirely independent of it, Christ gave her legislative, judicial, and executive power to be exercised over her mem- bers without any interference on the part of civil society. It does not fall within our scope to prove that the Church is a perfect society, consequently endowed with the above-mentioned' power. If one admits the Divine institution of t!ie Church, and the authenticity and authority of the Gospels, he mu.st acknowledge that Christ so constituted 'His Church as to enable her rulers to make laws and regulations for the faithful conducive to the attain- ment of eternal happiness. Moreover, as John XXII (1316-34) wisely remarks: "It would be folly to make laws unless there were some one to enforce them" (Cap. un. de Judiciis, II, 1, in Extra vag. Comm.). It is evident, therefore, that Christ in conferring legislative power upon the Church also gave judicial and coercive power. In proof of this we have, besides theological arguments, the practice of the Church which explicitly claimed such power, as well in the beginning (II Cor., x, 8; xiii, 2 sqq., etc.) as during the subsequent centuries of her ex- istence; and, moreover, made frequent use of it. Suffice it to recall the institution of canonical pen- ances, the constitutions and laws of so many pontiffs and councils, containing not only positive enactments, but also sanctions to be incurred ipso jacto by the rebellious and obstinate, or to be inflicted upon them at the discretion of ecclesia-stical superiors.
Now the infliction of punishment certainly pre- supposes evidence of the crime, since, according to the natural law, no one should be condemned until his guilt has been established. Hence the Church, in making use of her powers of legislation and coercion, nmst have also exercised judicial power. It is, moreover, historically evident that the Church often exercised these powers either through the Roman pontiff alone, by the agency of his delegates, or through councils, individual bishops, or other judges, ordinary or delegated. St. Paul plainly refers to a perfect judicial procedure when he cau- tions his disciple Timothy (I Tim., v, 19) not to receive an accusation against a priest except in the presence of two or three witnesses. In the next centurj', Marcion, after being expelled from the clergv-, vainly appealed to the Apostolic See for restoration to his office. In the trial, degradation, and excommvmication of Paul of Samosata by the Council of Antioch (c. 268) we meet with a formal ecclesiastical trial. The Council of Elvira (c. 300) threatens with excommunication every accuser of a bishop, a priest, or a deacon who fails to prove his charge. The Third Council of Carthage (397) dis- cusses regulations regarding appeals, and the Fourth Council of Carthage (398) prescribes the manner in which bishops are to exerci.se judicial authority. Finally, in the Apostolic Con.stitutions, which cer- tainly are representative of the ancient practice of the Church, we find that certain days are set for con- ducting trials; the mode of procedure and other details are also clearly set forth. For later periods evidence abounds.
II. The Hi.storical Develop.ment of This Power. — In the early centuries, when the Christians were still few in number; when their new faith and new moral life constrained the followers of Christ to carry out all His precepts (especially the one by which He wished them to be distinguished from all other men in this period); and when there existed, generally, among the faithful one heart and one soul!
