Changes, too, were made in doctrine and ritual, for which no authority could be alleged, in contravention of established custom and the teaching of the Church.  So far was this carried that Samson was accused by his opponents of being a heretic and an idolator because he permitted the marriage of cousins; dissented from the view that God was ever enclosed in the chambers of the Virgin’s heart;[6] asserted the omnipresence of God, even in idols and the Devil, and this in an actual, not a metaphysical, sense;[7] and denied that God sat upon an exalted throne above his creatures.  From this it is clear that Hostegesis and those who thought with him[8] were infected with the anthropomorphite heresy.

    [1] Samson, “Apol.,” Bk. ii., Pref. sec. 2.

[2] See “Letter to Saul,” sec. 3—­“Poterant enim quovis asserente canonice incohationis vestrae primordia comprobari, si quadringenti solidi non fuissent palam eunuchis vel aliis exsoluti.”  Dozy, ii. 140, adds that the money was guaranteed on the episcopal revenues, but this is a conjecture.

    [3] Samson, “Apol.,” ii.  Pref. sec 5; Dozy, ii. 268.

    [4] Alvar ad Saulum, sec. 3—­“Sine testimonis, sine connibentia
    clericorum.”

    [5] Ibid.

    [6] Samson, “Apol.,” ii.  Pref. sec. 7 and iii.—­“Cubiculum
    cordis Virginei.”  This appears to be a quotation from the
    Gothic liturgy.

    [7] “Per substantiam, non per subtilitatem.”—­Ibid.

    [8] Romanus and Sebastianus, Samson, Pref, sec. 6.

Not only did many of the clergy hold heretical views, but their depravity was notorious.  Hostegesis did not blush to spend the produce of the church tithes and offerings, which he had with difficulty extorted from his flock,[1] in bribing the court officials and the king’s sons, giving them feasts at which open and flagrant vice was indulged in.[2] The clergy were not above pretending illness in order to avoid paying the monthly tax to their Moslem rulers.[3] Some, even in the highest positions in the Church, denied their Saviour and apostatized to the Moslems; one of these renegades being Samuel, Bishop of Elvira, the uncle of Hostegesis’ mother, who, with a pervert’s zeal, persecuted the Church he had deserted, imprisoning the clergy, taxing his former flock, and even forcing some to embrace Islam.[4]

It is not surprising, therefore, that bishops and clergy were sometimes deposed.  Samson, indeed, underwent this disgrace at the hands of a hostile faction under Hostegesis, on the ground of his pretended heresy; and, similarly, Valentius,[5] Bishop of Cordova, was deprived of his see because he was a supporter of Samson.  But these instances reflect more discredit on the deposers than on their victims.  Instances of deposition are not wanting, in the free states the North.  Sisenandus, seventh Bishop of Compostella (940), was deposed by King Sancho for dissolute living, and malversation of Church moneys.[6] On the king’s death he recovered his see, driving out his successor.  Pelayo, another bishop of Compostella, suffered the same punishment.[7]