Page 227

Page 227

227 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 9ynesius llynodal Courts

visitations (see CHURCH VISITATIONS) which had been customary since the fourth century alike in East and West. In the Frankish king-

I. Origin. dom, Boniface had insisted on their observance, which was enforced by Carloman, Pippin, and especially Charlemagne (Capitularies of 769, 789, 802, 813; cf. canon xvii. of the Synod of Arles of 8133. At these visitations each class and order was questioned as to the per formance of its special duties; and the synodal court arose out of the separation from the other visitation business of the investigation and punish ment of misconduct on the part of the laity. This development took place immediately after the close of Charlemagne's reign. The sixteenth canon of the Synod of Rouen (held probably under Louis the Pious) exhibits the synodal court as an inde pendent institution, though still connected with diocesan visitation. As to the offenses subject to the jurisdiction of this tribunal, Carloman empha sized the duty of the bishops to root out all remains of pagan superstition. Charlemagne enjoined upon his bishops the investigation of " incest, parricide, fratricide, adultery, superstitious beliefs, and whatso ever other evil things are contrary to the law of God."

In the second half of the ninth century a modification was introduced in the selection of a sort of grand jury, which was to relieve the

2. Addition bishop from the necessity of dependof jurors. ing wholly upon chance evidence that an offense had been committed. He chose a number of trustworthy men from the district who were bound by oath to lay charges against all offenders in those points known to them. That this usage was still unknown in the middle of the century is shown by the eighth canon of the Synod of Mainz of 852, according to which the bishop still dealt immediately with the people at large. But the testes or juratores synodi are found in the diocese of Constance between 875 and 889. This innovation was probably copied from a similar secular institution established by Charlemagne's son Pippin for Italy, and was found north of the Alps under Louis the Pious. The accusations brought by this jury were not required to be proved by them, but the accused was expected to prove his innocence. For freemen this was done by an oath, unless there were well-grounded doubts of their credibility; in that case the Ordeal (q.v.) was resorted to. In the absence of the accused, the charge might be proved by the evidence of those who were present. After the proof of the charge, the bishop (together with such priests as were in attendance) passed sentence in terms of ecclesiastical penalties. Excommunicar tion was not an ordinary penalty, but was employed in case of stubborn refusal to attend the court or obey its rulings.

The system seems to have remained substantially the same in the eleventh century; but early in the twelfth the testes or juratores not merely appeared as accusers, but shared with the ecclesias-

3. Further tical judges in the finding of the court. Changes. This development is explicable by the fact that at this time the participation of laymen in the decision of questions affecting legal and property questions pertaining to the Church

was becoming customary. In the course of the twelfth century the lay element gained still further strength when the choice of the jurymen was taken away from the bishop. Another innovation was even more far-reaching. With the increase of the worldly state of the bishops, they became less and less able to execute their ecclesiastical duties in person. The archdeacon gradually took the bishop's place in the synodal court. In the twelfth century the representation of the bishop by his delegate had become the usual custom; the brief of Innocent II. to Provost Gerhard of Bonn (1139) exhibits the archdeacon as possessing independent power; and under Innocent III. (1211) he is denominated judez ordinarius equally with the bishop. In some places the disintegration of the synodal jurisdiction went even further, and the archdeacons were represented by the archpriests, who later claimed independent jurisdiction. In consequence of the synodal courts ceasing to be strictly episcopal, the nobility began to claim exemption from them, as they were doing from the lower secular tribunals, which exemption the bishops acknowledged in the thirteenth century. The same exemption was claimed and obtained by the ministerial class in some states; and this withdrawal of subjects led in the end to the downfall of the institution.

Throughout the greater part of the Middle Ages the offenses which the synodal court was competent to try remained practically the same; but at the end of this period a notable restriction

4. Decline. became visible. Thus a synodal ordi nance of Jalich-Berg in the fourteenth century names as offenses of this class blasphemy, drunkenness, unchastity, unlawful marriages, dis orderly housekeeping, breach of the Sunday laws, neglect of divine worship and the sacraments, and hedge-preaching-those offenses which fell directly under the secular law being excluded. The disin clination of the laity, after they had obtained an important share in the power of the court, to be bound by its decisions came partly from the feeling of competition with the civil laws, partly from un willingness to see ecclesiastical offenses made mat ter of legal proceedings. The territorial rulers also came to regard the courts as an invasion of their rights; and their importance gradually decreased. The imposition of money fines instead of the earlier penances also hurt them in the public esteem, espe cially when a portion of the fines went to their mem bers and were looked upon as a source of income. At the Reformation the whole institution was reck oned among the abuses of the unreformed Church. In the Roman Catholic districts it maintained a partial existence until the eighteenth century (the synodal court of Aachen was abolished only in 1797); but its real significance ceased with the end of the Middle Ages. (A. HAUCg.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. F. Eiehhom, Deutsche Staats- and Reehtsgeschichte, i. 706, ii. 499, 4 vols., GSttingen, 1821-23; A. J. Binterim, Denkwfrdigkeiten, v. 3, pp. 36 sqq., Mainz, 1829; H. F. Jacobson, Geschichte der Quellen des Kirchenrechts, i. 118 aqq., KBnigsberg, 1837; K. von Richthofen, Friesische Rechtaquellen, passim, Berlin, 1840; P. Hinschius, Kirchenrecht, v. 425 sqq., ib. 1895; R. Schr6der, Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, pp. 577 sqq., Leipsie, 1898; E.. Friedberg, Lehrbuch des .

Kirchenrechts, 320 sqq., ib. 1903; Rettberg, KD, ii. 742 aqq.; Hauck, KD, ii. 733 sqq., iv. 61-62.