ii: 1 ; ".1 j i nil lii . II ill imjmi i Part of the ADDISON ALEXANDER LIBRARY, ^ which was presented by Messrs. R. L. and A. Stitaut. BX 955 .R54 V.2 Riddle, Joseph Esmond, 1804 1859. The history of the papacy m .Vyi it cCJu^^i^^ CI 6eX^t^i^c . iutck^ ^ c^ T. //yl^ THE HISTORY OF THE PAPACY, TO THE PERIOD OF THE REFORMATION^ BY THE REV. J. E. RIDDLE, M.A. JIINISTER OP ST. PHILir AND ST. JAMES, LECKHAMPTON. IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. II. LONDON: RICHARD B E N T L E Y, ^iitUfil&rr in ©rtrmarg to l^er l^laFectp. MDCCCLIV. LONDON: PRINTED BY VT. OLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS. CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. CHAPTEE IV. FROM NICHOLAS I. TO THE ERA OP GREGORY VII. PAGE Nicholas I. (a. d. 858) :— his PoUcy - - - 2 Contest with Lothaire - - - - - 4 Contest with Hincmar of Rheims - - - 16 Other acts of aggression - - - - 21 Adrian II. : — weakness of his Pohcy - - - 22 Hincmar of Laon - - - - - 24 John VIII. (a. d. 872) _ _ _ _ 26 Charles the Bald in Italy - - - - 28 Carloman ------ 30 Boso - - - - - - -31 Parties in Italy _ _ - - - 32 Civil War - ■ - - - - - 33 Formosus (a.d. 891) _ _ - _ 34 The Tuscan Party - - - - - 35 Rapid succession of infamous Popes (to a. d. 963) - 38 Berengar, King of Italy - - - - - 39 Otho in Italy _____ 41 Advance of Papal pretensions - _ - - 43 Otho again in Italy _____ 48 Crescentius, Patrician of Rome - - - - 49 Case of Arnulf, Archbishop of Rheims - - 50 Council of Rheims (a. d. 991) ~ - - - 52 Council of Mouson (a.d. 995) - _ _ 56 Robert, King of France, yields to the Pope, concerning the restoration of Arnulf - - - - - 57 Gregory V. - _ _ - _ 53 Robert, King of France, compelled to divorce Bertha - 59 VOL. II. b IV CONTENTS. Fresh disorders in Italy - - - - 61 Three Popes in Rome - - - - - 63 Henry III. in Italy ----- 64 Council of Sutri. Clement II. (a. d. 1046) - - 65 Power of the State, and of the Pope, in the appointment of Bishops ------ 66 Power over Councils lost by the State and acquired by the Pope - - - - - - 70 Clerical Immunities _ .. _ _ 73 Exemptions of Church Property - - - - 74 Investiture of Bishops by the Sovereign - - 76 High claims of the Bishops - - - - 77 Ecclesiastical Disciphne - - - - 80 Excommunication and Anathema - - - 82 Interdict ------ 83 Church influence upon Civil Legislation - - - 85 l\elations between Church and State - - - 86 Power of the Bishops - - - - - 87 Clerical Celibacy ----- 89 Church Property - - - - - 90 Tithes - ' - - - - - 92 Property of Cathedral Chapters - - - - 93 Commutation of Penance _ _ _ - 94 Papal Absolutions - - - - - 95 Reformation of Monasteries - - - - 96 Rising Independence of Cathedral Chapters - - 98 Iiicreased power of Archdeacons - _ _ 100 Progress of Papal claims and power _ _ _ 101 CHAPTEi! V. FROM THE ERA OF GREGORY VII. TO BONIFACE VIII. Reformation of the Church designed by Henry III. - 103 The Emperor's designs carried forward by Popes of his appointment - - - - - 106 Judicious measures of the reforming Popes - - 108 Hildebrand - - - - - - 110 Relations with the Normans - - - 114 Regulations concerning Papal Elections - - - 115 The College of Cardinals - - - - 117 (X)NTENT8. V I'AGIi Opposition to this scheme - - - - 118 Victory of Hildebraud - - - - no Deposition of Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury - - 120 Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury - - _ 122 Hildebrand becomes Pope Gregory VII. (a. d. 1073) - 123 Pohcy and plans of Gregory VII. - - - 124 , Gregory directs his efforts against Simony - - 12!) He pubhshes a Decree against Lay Investiture - - 130 His plans and proceedings in support of this Decree - 132 Decree against Clerogamy - - - - . 134 Quarrel of Gregory with the Emperor, whom he excommuni- cates and deposes - - - - - 136 Humihation of Henry - - - - 133 A new turn of Affairs - - - - _ 140 Gregory supports Rodolph, who fails to supplant Henry 142 Gregory in the Castle of St. Angelo - - - 144 His death (a. d. 1085) - _ _ _ X45 Successors of Gregory VII. - _ _ _ i4g Urban II. The first Crusade (a. d. 1095) - - 148 The zeal of the Crusaders assists the Papacy - - 150 Urban quarrels with PhiUp I. of France - - 151 Philip yields, after excommunication - - - 152 Council of Clermont. Advance of the Papacy - 153 Further humiliation of Philip - - _ _ 1.54 Papal encroachments in Germany - - - 155 Henry V. resists the Pope - - - - 156 Henry V. in Italy - - - - - 157 The poUcy of Pope Paschal II. overmatched by Henry - 158 Paschal revokes his concessions _ _ _ jgQ Henry again in Italy. Death of Paschal - - - 161 Gelasius II. Calixtus II. - - - - 162 Cahxtus finds support in Germany - - - 163 The Concordat of Worms (a. D. 1122)- - - 164 The First General Council of Lateran (a. D. 1123) - - 166 Case of Thurstan, Archbishop of York - - 168 Successoi's of Cahxtus II. - - - - 169 Schism in the Papacy - - - - 170 The Second General Council of Lateran (a. D. 1139) - 171 Roger, King of Sicily - - - - 1 72 Arnold of Brescia - - - - - 173 A Repubhc proclaimed at Rome _ _ _ 175 Eugenius III. takes refuge in France - - - 176 Frederic I, in Italy- - - - - 178 VI CONTENTS. PAGE Adrian IV. (A. D. 1154) - - - - 179 Death of Arnold of Brescia - - - - 179 Humiliation of the Emperor - - - - 180 William, King of Sicily - - - - 181 The Pope quarrels with the Emperor - - - 182 Adrian grants Ireland to Henry II. of England - - 185 Eival Topes - - - - - - 188 Council of Pavia - - - - - 189 Henry II. of England and Thomas k Becket - - 191 The Constitutions of aarendon (a. D. 1164) - - 192 Council of Northampton _ _ _ _ 194 Becket in France ----- 195 The King makes terms with the Pope, with which Becket refuses to comply - - - - - 196 Murder of Becket - - - - - 198 Humiliation of Henry II. _ - - - 199 Submission of the Emperor Frederic - - - 200 End of the Papal Schism - - - - 201 Succession of Alexander III. - _ _ 202 Affairs of Sicily - - - - - 204 Critical situation of the Papacy _ _ _ 205 Accession of Innocent III. (a. D. 1198) _ - - 206 Sicily in the hands of the Pope - _ _ 207 Contest for the Crown of Germany, between Phihp of Suabia and Otho of Saxony - - - - 2O8 Philip makes large offers to Innocent - - - 209 Coronation of Otho IV. - - - - - 210 Contest of Innocent with Otho - - - 211 Contest with John, King of England - _ - £12 Defeat and humihation of King John - - - 216 Bad policy of Honorius III. _ _ _ - 2I8 Strong measures of Gregory IX. - - _ 220 Reconciliation with the Emperor - _ _ 222 Itenewcd rupture ----- 2'J3 Violent contest between the Pope and the Emperor - 224 Death of Gregory IX. - - - - 226 Subtle policy of Innocent IV. _ _ _ - 227 Council of Lyons (a. d. 1245) - - - 228 Sentence of deposition against Frederic _ - - 229 Death of Frederic (a. d. 1250) and of Innocent (a. d. 1254) 230 Successors of Innocent IV. _ _ _ - 231 Conclave of Cardinals established (a. D. 1274) - - 232 Charles, King of Sicily - - - - - 233 CONTENTS. Vll PAGB The Sicilian Vespers _ _ _ _ 234 Peter of Arragon, Kaug of Sicily - - - - 235 Kelations between Church and State _ _ _ 236 Right of Investiture _ _ _ _ 238 Appointment of Bishops _ _ _ - 241 Eegaha ------ 245 Jus Exuviarum _ - _ _ - 246 Dependence of Bishops on the Crown - - 247 Growth of large Towns - - - - - 248 Church Property - » _ - - 249 Ecclesiastical Immunities - - - - 254 Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction - - - - 255 Excommunication and Interdict lose their force - - 256 Depraved morals of the Clergy - - _ 257 Relaxed Ecclesiastical Disciphne - - - - 259 Pecimiary Piesources of the Church - - - 261 Plenary Indulgences ----- 263 Laws concerning Matrimony _ _ _ 264 Laws against Heretics ----- 265 Crusade against the Albigenses _ _ - 270 Councilof Toulouse (a. D. 1229) - - - - 271 Estabhshment of the Inquisition - - - 273 Monastic Institutions ----- 275 Spiritual Knights ----- 276 Mendicant Orders - - - - - 278 Tertiaries ------ 279 Constitutions of Monastic Orders - - - 280 Decline of Episcopal Power - - - - 282 Papal Despotism ----- 283 The Canon Law ----- 298 Reflections on the growth of the Papacy - - - 301 CHAPTER VI. FROM BONIFACE VIII. TO THE REFORMATION. Boniface VIII. (a. d. 1294) - - - - 305 Dispute with Philip (le Bel) king of France - - 308 The Bull Clericis Laicoe - - - - 309 Continued quarrel between Boniface and Philip - 312 Boniface overthrows the family of Colonna - - 314 The Bull Ausculta Fih _ - - _ 315 Vlll CONTENTS. PAGE Fresh measures of hostility - - - - 316 The Bull Unaiu Sanctam _ - - ~ 317 Further proceedings of Philip against Boniface - - 318 Boniface accused. A General Council proposed - 320 Benedict XI. (a. d. 1303) - - - - 322 His conciUatory measures _ - - - 323 ClcmeutV. (A.D. 1305)- - - - - 324 Papal Besidence fixed at Avignon _ _ - 325 Abohtiou of the Order of Knights Templar - - 326 Clement excommunicates the Emperor - - 327 Struggle for the Empire betw een Louis of Bavaria and Frederic of Austria ------ 328 Vacancy of the Roman see for the space of two years. John XXII. (A. D. 1316) - - - - 328 Proceedings of John XXII. against Louis of Bavaria - 330 Louis, become Emperor, deposes the Pope (a. d. 1328) - 331 Submission of Louis ----- 332 Deathof John XXII. (A.D. 1334) - - - 333 Negotiations between Benedict XII. and the Emperor - 334 Contest between the Emperor and the Pope continued - 334 Charles IV. Emperor ----- 336 Relations between the Papacy and England - - 337 Relations between the Papacy and France - - 338 Innocent VI. (A.D. 1352) - - - - 340 Urban V. (a. d. 1362) - - - - - 341 Gregory XI. (A.D. 1370) - _ - - 342 Commencement of the Great Schism (a. D. 1378) - - 343 Urban VI. at Rome. Clement VII. at Avignon - 344 Boniface IX. at Rome. Benedict XIII. at Avignon - 346 Attempts at pacification _ - _ - 348 Innocent VII. Gregory XII. — at Rome - - - 349 The Council of Pisa (a. u. 1409) - - - 350 Three Popes at the same time - - - - 352 The Council of Constance (a. p. 1414) - - 353 Wickhfte (John de Wychfi"e) - - - - 361 Celebrated preachers at Prague - _ - 363 John Huss ------ 304 The Council of Basle (A.D. 1431) - > - 365 Results of this Council ----- 372 Capture of Constantinople (a. D. 1453) - - 373 I{evival of Papal abuses ----- 375 IJigour of Pai)al exactions _ - - - 377 Weak opp(jsitioii to Papal pretensions _ - - 378 CONTENTS. ix Triumphs of the Papacy - - - _ 330 New Papal extortions - - _ _ _ 331 Eeservations - - _ _ _ 332 Annates, or first fruits - - - - _ 333 Other sources of Papal revenue - - - 385 Institution of Jubilees - - - _ _ 339 Rise of the Universities - - _ _ 390 Events adverse to the Papacy - - - - 391 Reasons of the failure of the Councils of Constance and Basle 392 Conclusion - - - _ _ 395 ^' PKiiTOEii^e:! ^•-^'v^m\-fi HISTORY OF THE PAPACY. CHAPTER IV. FROM NICHOLAS I. TO THE ERA OF GREGORY VII. Soon after the middle of the ninth century we see the structure of the papacy beginning to rise from the foundation which had been already laid ; but its pro- gress was often almost imperceptible, and strongly broken by impediments and reverses, resembling, in this respect, not exactly the steady and regular rising of an edifice, but rather the rising tide, which sometimes appears to be stationary, or even to recede, while vet on the whole it is making a real and sure ad- vance. We now proceed to review the progress of this spiritual dominion, with its various acts of usurpation from the middle of the ninth century to the middle of the eleventh. During the weak administration of Louis T. (the Pious), and the disorders which ensued upon the division of the empire among his sons, the bishops acted a considerable part in the deposition and restor- ation of sovereigns in the Prankish dominions, their authority in the matter having been by themselves affirmed, and by the people generally admitted, to be VOL. 11. B 2 NICHOLAS I. of the highest significance. Even under Louis I., the style of address from the monarch to the Roman pontiff was remarkably respectful and submissive. At the beginning of the reign of Louis II., Bene- dict III. was elected by the more powerful party in Rome, against the will of the emperor and his com- missioners. The two brothers, Louis the German, and Charles the Bald, in the course of their quarrels, accused each other to him ; and each, in a manner, implored his judicial decision against the other. Under these circumstances, how could a Roman bishop mistake the office which was proposed to his ambition, or how could he fail to discover the most likely means of attaining it ? In 858, after these events, and when the empire was beginning to recover from the effects of their A.D. 858. distractions, Nicholas I. succeeded to the Roman see, Nicholas I. ^^p^^^ ^^^ ^i^^^l^ ^£ Benedict III. Recognised as the • chief of those bishops who had now become so power- ful in their relations to temporal sovereigns, and already regarded by these bishops as the legislative head of the new theocracy which they found to be springing up, Nicholas felt himself enabled to assume a position of superiority with regard to the monarchs, and especially to the emperor, Louis II., who was the temporal sovereign of Italy. The policy of the Roman pontiff was now to estabhsh in the minds of princes and people the maxim, for which the way had been thus well prepared, that the head of the Church was also the superior of temporal sovereigns. Having learnt that tlie Church was their mistress, it remained for them to admit that the pope was their master : and when this lesson should have been fullv inculcated, it was manifest that th<' ])apacy HIS POLICY. 3 must receive an immense accession of power over all persons, and in all causes, whatever. This system was steadily pursued by Nicholas I. and several of his successors. No difficulty presented itself on the part of Eng- land, the only Christian state beyond the limits of the Frankish monarchy which was now of any importance. Here the ancient reverence for the E-omish see had increased rather than diminished. In 847 king Ethelwolf had made tributary to St. Peter that part of the country which had hitherto been exempt from the payment of Peter's pence. In 854 the same king sent his son Alfred, with a large retinue of English nobles, to Rome, in order to receive the bene- fit of anointing at the hands of Leo IV. And that pontiff imparted to him the still further blessing of formally adopting him in the name of the Roman Church ; thus securing to his own successors an increased power over the future king, against the exercise of which they needed not to fear any protest on his part. The emperor, Louis II., was present at the conse- cration and coronation of Nicholas (a.d. 858). This \ is the first instance on record of the coronation of a pope ; a new measure for placing him, as to outward pomp and circumstance, on a level with temporal princes, to whom he already believed himself superior as bishop. At the very commencement of his pontificate, Nicholas found a favourable opportunity for interfer- ence in the affairs of sovereigns. Lothaire, king of Lorraine, was at this time seeking a divorce from his queen Theutberga, in order that he might marry Wal- drada. The bishops had already pronounced Theut- 4 CONTEST WITH LOTHAIRE. berga innocent of the crime which the king had laid to her charge in order to procure the divorce ; but the queen was subject to a course of ill treatment by Lothaire, which even threatened to endanger her life. Her friends now appealed to Nicholas, in 859, seeking the protection of his authority. It was nothing new or unusual for the bishop of Kome to interfere in matrimonial affairs and divorces, even among sove- reigns ; and it was natural also, in the present in- stance, that he should desire to employ effectual efforts for the protection of oppressed and injured innocence. But the manner of his proceeding, his novel mode of interpretation, and the caution with which he worked in this matter, make it evident that these were not the only motives by which he was actuated, but that he cherished a still further design. The history of the whole transaction is as fol- lows. Lothaire, desirous of procuring a divorce, charged his queen Theutberga with the commission of gross crimes before marriage ; who, when brought to trial before a court of nobles, firmly denied the charge. In the mean time, the king secured to his interests Gunther, archbishop of Cologne, who induced the archbishop of Treves and other bishops to espouse the same cause. These bishops instituted a new exami- nation of the case : as a result of which the queen was ordered to undergo the ordeal of water. This was one of the solemn trials of innocence common in those days, under the name of the judgments of God, in doubtfid cas; s. The ordeal by water was as follows : — the accused stood in a church porch, and, afler having been sprinkled with holy water, having joined in certain prayers, and received an address from the priest, took a stone or a ring out of a vessel of boiling CONTEST WITH LOTIIAIRE. 5 water with the bare hand ; this hand was then sealed up with consecrated wax, and if, after a certain time, it was found to be uninjured, the party was pro-, nounced innocent, — if otherwise, declared guilty. The clergy and persons of rank had the privilege of enduring this process either in their own person or by proxy. The queen, on this occasion, appointed one of her attendants to act as her proxy ; and the result was in her favour. But Lothaire was now more embittered against her than ever. Boldly enough for the age in which he lived, he called in question the sufficiency of the ordeal, and brought forward his accusation afresh •, whereupon the queen, after a threatening address from the bishops at a council at Aix la Chapelle in 860, confessed to the archbishop of Cologne the crimes laid to her charge, and entreated permission to retire to a convent. At another council, held at the same place shortly afterwards, she threw herself at the feet of the king, and delivered to him a written confession of her crimes. Judgment was then pronounced, to the effect that, by way of penance, she should be confined in a convent for life, — the two uncles of the king, Louis and Charles, kings of the East and West Franks, consenting to the measure. A third council at Aix la Chapelle, in 862, pro- nounced sentence of divorce, with permission to the king to marry again ; the bishops who attended this council affirming, among other things, that by tears, penance, and alms, the king had expiated the sin which he had committed by having held intercourse with a concubine ; and made a collection of passages from Scripture, councils, and the Fathers, to prove that it was lawful for a man to marry again, during the lifetime of a divorced wife. 6 CONTEST WITH LOTHAIRE. Theutberga made her escape fi-om the convent before she was finally made a nun, and fled to Charles the Bald, king of the West Franks, who promised her protection. The affair had thus become involved, and began to assume a serious aspect. Confiding in the support of Charles, and probably at his suggestion, the queen laid before the pope a complaint of the ill treatment she had endured. Many of the Frankish bishops had disapproved of the proceedings against her ; and some of them, in conjunction with certain temporal lords, addressed to Hincmar, archbishop of Kheims, twenty-three questions, and seven more after- wards, concerning this disputed matter.* In 863 Hincmar ans wered these queries in a treatise (De Divortio Lotharii Regis et Tetbergse Reg.), in which, without manifesting much judgment or discrimination, he declared against the sentence that had been passed upon the queen, and maintained the suffi- ciency of the foregoing ordeal. In answer to the question whether there were witches who excite im- placable hatred between married persons, occasion an extraordinary degree of love, or interfere with the discharge of conjugal duties, he maintained the affirm- ative, and derived their power from the devil. It was to the credit of Hincmar that he boldly took uj) the cause of the injured queen ; while at the same time, at the very beginning of his treatise, he pro- fessed himself a zealous supporter of the Roman Church, which, said he, all the western Churches ought to follow in controverted matters of faith, because (according to his incorrect assumption) nearly all had been founded by Rome. Ado, who had lately been made archbishop oi' * >Jicfil. I. Ep. 22, ad Epitjcoiios Cfallia- t.t Clcnuauko (Labbc). CONTEST WITH LOTHAIRE. 7 Vienne, applied directly to the pope concerning this business. Nicholas in reply* denied that there existed any lawful opportunity for the king's second marriage, and objected even to the grounds of divorce as insufficient ; at the same time refusing to give his approbation to the proceedings of the council at Aix. He convened a council at Metz, in Lothaire's do- minions, at which, under the presidency of his legates, the matter should be examined anew ; and he re- quested the queen's uncles to send each two bishops out of his dominions, to assist in the deliberation.! When, however, he heard that Lothaire, without waiting for this decision, had married Waldrada, he was greatly indignant at this proceeding, and com- manded the bishops of both the Frankish kingdoms J to assemble at Metz, under his legates, and to smn- mon Lothaire before them, in order to deal with him according to the ecclesiastical laws, declaring him excommunicated in case of reflisal to obey the sum- mons. In a separate epistle he charged the bishops to examine the matter thoroughly, § and to send him a report of all their proceedings and decrees, in order that he might approve or rectify their sentence. In his instructions to the council, he enjoined the bishops to examine the plea of Lothaire that he had been already married by his father to Waldrada, and to investigate the charges against Theutberga ; and, if both pleas should turn out to be groundless, to com- mand the king to take back his divorced queen. The pope's injunctions were, however, disobeyed. * Nicol. I. Ep. 59, ad Adon. t Ibid. Ep. 18, ad Carol. Calvuui Rogem. X Ibid. Ep. 22, ad Episcopos GaUia; et Germauia?. $ Ibid. Ep. 23, ad Episcopos in Concil. Mat. rcsidentes. 8 . CONTEST WITH LOTHAIKE. His legates came to Charles ; but they suppressed the epistles addressed to him and to the bishops, and suffered themselves, it is said, to be corrupted by Lothaire. Hence, when the council was held at Metz, in 863, none but the bishops of Lothaire were present, and from them he easily obtained the ratifi- cation of the decrees of Aix. Two archbishops, Gunther of Cologne, and Theutgaud of Treves, v> ho had especially laboured in the interests of the king, went to Rome in order to obtain the pope's assent to this new decision. But they were ill received. Nicholas convened a council at Rome, in which the decrees of Metz were declared null and void ; he deposed the two archbishops, and promised pardon to the other bishops who had taken part in favour of Lothaire only on condition of their humble submission. This measure of the pope, in deposing two of the principal archbishops of the Frankish empire, without the consent or knowledge of their sovereign, — without the co-operation of the other bishops of their pro- vinces, — without any regard to the rights of metropoli- tans, or a national council, — and this too by the agency of a council hastily convened at Rome, consisting of such bishops as were there present, or in the imme- diate neighbourhood, — was not only a gross violation of the ecclesiastical constitution and laws, but w as also one of the first examples of the use made of the forged Decretals. Nothing but the excessive claims sup- posed to be established by those Decretals could have emboldened the pope thus to transgress the bounds of justice and equity. The two archbishops, however, did not submit to his sentence. Hastening to Louis II., Lothaire's brother, emperor, and king of Italy, who Mas then at Bcnevento, 11k v represented to him the fact CONTEST WITH LOTIIAIRE. 9 that they had been most uncanonically deposed, — that it was an unheard-of thing that a metropohtan, without the consent of his sovereign, and without the concur- rence of other bishops of the same rank, should suffer such a sentence, — and that such a proceeding was an insult to the emperor himself, and to the whole Church. Louis took up the cause as his own, and in 864 he marched to Rome with an army, taking with him the two archbishops, in order to compel the pope to reverse his sentence. Hearing of this, Nicholas appointed a solemn fast and public supplication, in order that God (by the intercession of the Apostles) might inspire the emperor with good will, with reve- rence for sacred ordinances and worship, and with respect for the apostoHc see. The emperor with his troops took his stand near St. Peter's church : the clergy and people, in solemn procession, chanting, and carrying crosses, advanced towards him, to sup- plicate his favour ; but the troops attacked and dis- persed them. It is reported that, on this occasion, the magnificent cross, said to have been inlaid with pieces of the true cross, which had been sent to Rome as a present by Helena, was broken ; but that it was afterwards repaired by some Englishmen. The pope, fearing lest he should be made prisoner, withdrew from the Lateran palace, and went on board a vessel, in which he was conveyed, by the Tiber, to St. Peter's, where he remained two days and two nights without food. In the mean time the soldier who had taken the precious cross died, and the emperor was attacked with fever. The emperor regarded these things as a divine admonition not to persevere in the work of hostility and destruction ; he sent his queen to the pope, who came to him, and returned to the Lateran 10 CONTEST WITH LOTHAIRE. palace ; and then the emperor, with all his army, retired from Rome, and sent back the archbishops to France. Gunther afterwards drew up a WTitten complaint, which he sent to the pope, with instructions to liis brother that, if the pope would not receive it, he should lay it on the tomb of St. Peter. This accord- ingly took place, his brother having forced an entrance into St. Peter's church for the purpose. His cause was not the best ; but we see, from his course of pro- ceeding, that he had not imbibed the high idea of papal authority which prevailed in after times. The other bishops, however, tamely submitted to the will of the pontiff. A most servile and flattering epistle to this effect from Adventius, bishop of Metz, is extant,* in which he goes so far as to promise obedience to the commands of the pope, as of God. In reply to this adulation, Nicholas did more than send a mere pardon. He wrote 'f to the almost dying bishop, comparing him to the penitent thief on the cross ; and told him that it was right, indeed, for him, accord- ing to the command of the apostle, to be subject to his prince, but that he ought to consider whether or not he was rightfiilly his prince ; for, if princes did not govern themselves and their subjects properly, if they were not legitimate princes, they ought to be resisted as tyrants, and indulgence ought not to be shown to their vices. It is evident that this principle, w^hich leaves it to the pope and to the bishop to decide whether or not a prince reigns lawfully and governs well, could be employed to justify them at any time in refusing subjection to a sovereign, and throwing his kingdom into disorder, whenever he might happen to displease them, or when- ever they might have any doubt of his legitimacy. * Baron, .id an. 863, u. 51, i&c. t Sec Nicol. Ejjist. ad Advent. CONTEST AVITH LOTHAIRE. 11 Lothaire now yielded to the pope in terms of the most abject submission.* Nicholas accordingly followed up his victory, and wrote to the king, haughtily commanding him to put away Waldrada, and to receive again Theutberga as his queen, who was delivered to him at Attigny in 865, by Arsenius, a bishop and papal legate, who travelled from one court to another with the pope's epistle especially enjoining Charles of France and Louis of Germany not to interfere in the matter of Theutberga, which was now entirely in the hands of the pope. Lothaire, terrified by threats of excommunication and eternal destruction, received his queen, making promise of good behaviour to her on oath ; and at the same time commanded Waldrada to repair to Rome, and there to answer for herself Waldrada set out with Arsenius for Italy ; but having returned, or (as some say) having been withdrawn, she was hereupon excommunicated by the pope. Theutberga now found herself harshly treated ; materials of a fresh accusation were in the course of preparation, and her life appeared to be in danger. She therefore fled to her uncle, Charles the Bald ; and addressed a letter to the pope, declaring that her marriage with Lothaire did not seem to have the blessing of heaven, and that she hereby desired a separation, and sought permission to come to Rome and disclose to the pope her most secret wishes and desires. She affirmed also, that, to her apprehension, Waldrada was Lothaire 's lawful wife. Nicholas regarded all these expressions as extorted from the queen by force and threats ; or, at least, as merely the effects of her desire to have an end put to her * Baron, ad an. 864, ii. 24. 12 COXTEST WITH LOTHAIRE. misery.* He therefore rejected her apphcation, — gave her to understand that he was aware of the motives by which she was actuated, — and exhorted her to endure suffering rather than to sacrifice her honour ; adding that, even in case of her divorce or death, he M'ould never permit the adulterous Waldrada to be the queen of Lothaire, nor would suffer Lothaire to come to Rome until he had sent AValdrada thither to receive judgment. The bishops of Lorraine, probably out of fear of Lothaire, having delayed to publish the excommunication of Waldrada, Avhich had been sent to them, were threatened with the sarae punishment themselves if they refused any longer to comply with the requisition. Having heard that Lothaire was about to institute an ordeal by combat respecting the affairs of the queen (so that, if her champion were vanquished, she should be adjudged guilty), Nicholas wrote to Charles the Bald,! giving him information of this report, and saying that, after the papal decision in this matter, no temporal court whatever could sit in judgment upon it, especially as both parties had appealed to him ; and he commended Theutberga to his protec- tion. He wrote J again to Lothaire also, threatening that, in case of disobedience to the papal authority, he should be treated as a heathen and a publican. Lothaire again feigned submission. He caused the bishop of Metz to write to the pope § (sanctissimo et perbeatissimo atque angelico domino Nicolao) as- suring him that his sovereign had no connection with Waldrada, and that he treated Theutberga in all respects as his queen. Lothaire himself also wrote || * Nicol. I. Ep. 48. t ll>id. Ep. ^(i. J. Ibid. E[). al. § Baruii. ad an. 866, ii. 20. || Ibid. 1. c. ii. 37. CONTEST WITH LOTH AIRE. 13 a most humble and submissive letter, promising entire obedience, and desiring an interview. But Nicholas was not satisfied with this ; he complained that Lothaire had not complied with his requisitions ; especially, that he had not caused the two vacaiit archbishoprics of Treves and Cologne to be filled up by a lawful election ; and he declared that he would not suffer him to come to Rome until he had obeyed his commands, and had sent Waldrada thither to take her trial. The German king (Louis) had interceded with the pope for the restoration of the two archbishops. " Doubtless he would have done better, and perhaps with better effect, if himself, his brother Charles, and his nephew Lothaire, the sovereign of those bishops, had united iii affirming that no bishop or archbishop of their dominions should be deposed without consent of the sovereign, and sentence of a provincial synod. That would not have been to prefer a request or peti- tion, but to make a demand foimded upon unquestion- able right. These princes, however, were evidently too little acquainted with their ecclesiastical rights; they did not even properly maintain those rights of which they were conscious ; and they became more and more afraid of a breach with the pope, in proportion as they more frequently required his aid in the course of their mutual jealousies and quarrels. Nicholas expressed to Lothaire* and to the German bishops his astonish- ment at their taking part with the deposed bishops ; and called upon them to assist him in healing the wounds which they had inflicted on the Church. Fresh misunderstandings soon arose between the Frankish kings; and Charles devastated a part of Lothaire 's territory in 866, while Lothaire was con- * Nicol. I. Ep. oG, 08. 14 CONTEST WTTn LOTHAIRE. suiting with his bishops at Treves how he might get Theutberga shut up in a convent. Nicholas died A. D. 8G7. before this affair was ended. With this transaction began a new epoch in the papacy. A precedent was hereby established, by which it could be made to appear that even kings were subject to the jurisdiction of the pope, and were bound to submit to his authority and power, at least in matters of which the Church claimed cognisance. It was also established as a maxim that all bishops without exception were subject to the pope as their sovereign lord and judge, who, with regard to them, was absolute, and not bound by any forms. Against the former assumption no protest whatever was made on behalf of regal independence'; against the latter, on behalf of the bishops, there came a protest only from the party aggrieved. And this was a new thing in the history of the Church •, for, although cases had occurred in which the bishops of Rome had claimed right to exercise judicial authority over princes, still this had never been carried into effect except under a strong protest : and, although they had claimed authority over all bishops, still they had them- selves hitherto admitted that the obedience due to them was strictly canonical, so that their power was limited by the laws of the Church, and by the relations and usages of the hierarchical constitution. In the present instance, however, not only was a new claim set up, but the claim was conceded by those whose liberties were invaded. By the princes whom Nicholas summoned before his tribunal the competence of that tribunal was repeatedly acknowledged. Of the two archbishops, who really stood in no ecclesiastical relation to the bishop of Rome, and who were deposed CONTEST AVTTII LOTH AIRE. 15 by his arbitrary sentence, one at least submitted to the sentence, while all their fellow-bishops were either silent, or interceded on their behalf in terms which implied the sufficiency of that assumed authority by which the sentence of deposition had been passed. The royal relatives of Lothaire did not intercede for him ; but, to a certain extent, they even encouraged Nicholas in his proceedings against him. It is obvious that the pretensions of Nicholas on this occasion were greatly assisted by the apparent justice of the cause in which he was engaged. And his contemporaries were disposed to concede to him the exercise of the high powers that he claimed, under a sense of the benefits which, for the moment, these powers were employed in conferring. They suffered him to exercise an authority wliich hitherto no pope had claimed, because he was exercising it in a righteous cause, for the protection of defenceless innocence against a proud oppressor, and for the maintenance of right in opposition to arbitrary power. They took no offence at the unusual nature of his proceedings, under the profound impression of the high principles which those proceedings upheld ; and, whilst the public indignation was directed against Lothaire and his mercenary supporters, an opinion widely prevailed that it was for the best interests of humanity that there should exist somewhere in the world a power which even kings should be obhged to respect. It is more than possible that Nicholas may himself have been partly sustained in these proceedings by some such considerations : while, however, it is manifest that these were not the only motives by which he was impelled, because he did more than enough to satisfS^ them ; for he did not stop at the 16 CONTEST WITH HINCMAR OF RHEIMS. vindication of right and justice, but proceeded further in the direction of establishing his own unfounded claims. His conduct in this affair was quite of a piece with that which on other occasions exhibit him as the ambitious pontiff, systematically aiming at the exten- sion of papal authority and power. In this light he appears especially in a contest which he was waging, at the same period, with the French bishops, especially with Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, — one of the most learned and polished prelates of his age, but also one of the most restless and am- bitious, who had indulged in hasty, and perhaps unjust and tyrannical, proceedings against one of his diocesan bishops, Rothad of Soissons. For some reason not now exactly known, but probably for some breach of the ecclesiastical laws, Hincmar caused this bishop to be suspended by a council at Soissons, in 861, and intimated that in the follow^ing year he should be entirely deprived of his office by a still larger assembly to be held in presence of the king. Rothad appealed to the pope. The council deemed itself bound to respect this appeal ; and the king gave permission to Rothad to repair to Rome and lay his cause before Nicholas. Hincmar was obliged to give his consent to these proceedings ; but he at the same time endea- voured to give another turn to the affair. Pretending that Rothad had withdrawn his appeal to the pope, and had referred his cause to the judgment of certain of his brother bishops, he caused the king to prohibit his journey to Rome, — summoned him (in 863) before a new covmcil at Soissons, — and caused him to be de- posed in presence of the king, although he persisted in his appeal to Rome, and in his consequent refusal to submit to the decision of the council. The sentence CONTEST WITH HINCMAR OF RHEIMS. 17 of deposition was confirmed by a synod at Senlis in the same year, and Rothad was shut up as a prisoner in a monastery. These proceedings of Hincmar were so passionate that we may well be disposed to doubt their justice : and our suspicions may receive strength from the vague and indefinite nature of the charge against Rothad, as it is stated in Hincmar's writings ; from which it would appear, not indeed that Rothad was all that a bishop ought to be, but that he was no worse than a large proportion of his contemporaries. And the neighbouring bishops of Lorraine were so struck by the irregular proceeding against him, that they addressed a remonstrance to their brethren of France who had pronounced the decision at Senlis. Under these circumstances, Nicholas found his oppor- tunity of interfering, as on behalf of the oppressed ; and, from the anxiety which was manifested by Hinc- mar to prevent his interference, he concluded how much that interference was dreaded, and how formid- able was his power. We might have supposed him to have been actuated in this matter simply by a sense of right and duty, if he had not overacted his part by doing more than a sense of right and duty could require. The French bishops transmitted to Nicholas an account of their proceedings against Rothad at the synod at Senlis, which they entreated him to confirm ; hoping, perhaps, by this means to allay any indigna- tion which he might have felt by their rejection of Rothad's appeal. But the pope soon convinced them that, if they had entertained any such hope, they had altogether mistaken his character. He told the French bishops that they had done well in bringing the matter before him, but he could not understand how they could expect him to decide merely in accordance with VOL. II. c 18 CONTEST WITH HINCMAK OF IIHEIMS. their wishes. He informed them also that their sen- tence against Rothad was entirely invalid, since it had been passed after the accused had appealed to the holy see. Nor could he undertake to confirm a sen- tence of condemnation without giving a hearing to the accused ; especially in such a case as the present, in which it appeared highly probable that an error had been committed. He therefore insisted that Rothad should be set at liberty, in order that he might con- duct his own cause at Rome, whither they were also invited to send deputies ; otherwise, he demanded that Rothad should not only be released from confinement but also restored to his office. He wrote to the king, Charles the Bald, to the same effect, and still more strongly to the archbishop of Rheims ; and, not receiv- ing a reply as soon as he expected, he sent notice that he would pronounce a decree of suspension against Hincmar and all his provincial bishops, if appearance were not duly made within thirty days. These pro- ceedings of Nicholas were justifiable on the ground of the ecclesiastical laws already recognised in France. Hincmar himself, in his reply to Nicholas, admitted that the Council of Sardica had given to every bishop a right of appeal firom his metropolitan, or fi'om a pro- vincial council, to the see of Rome. But he main- tained that the proceedings of the last Council of Soissons against Rothad were perfectly regular, inas- much as no appeal lay fi:oni the sentence of a self- chosen tribunal, i. e., a tribunal to which the accused himself voluntarily referred, according to the express provision of an African canon which was universally received. Rothad, however, persisted in denying that he had withdrawn his appeal from Rome, and had thus constituted the bishops of Soissons his judges. CONTEST WITH ITTNCMAll OF RHEIMS. 19 On the whole, Hiiicmar professed himself ready to abide by the decision of the pontiff; but he employed all his art to induce Nicholas to confirm the sentence of deposition, and to persuade him that such an issue to the affair would be most conducive to his own honour, to the cause of justice, and even to the inte- rests of Rothad himself. Charles also wrote to the pope more than once, and employed the pen of his queen in the same cause, endeavouring to bring about the same result. At length, however, even the king so far yielded that, in 864, he sent Rothad to Rome ; and thus acknowledged that he was unable to maintain the position which, in common with his bishops, he had taken against the pontiff. Without any further examination of the cause, Nicholas then restored Rothad to his office by a public decree. In this act of restoration, considered in itself, there was nothing informal or illegal, or contrary to esta- blished precedent. But there was something new and startling in the bearing which Nicholas assumed, and in certain principles which he enunciated on this occasion. These principles were not contained in the decree itself, but in an address with which the pontiff accompanied its publication •, Nicholas herein de- claring that the deposition of Rothad by the French bishops was illegal, because it was effected by a council which had been convened without the know- ledge and sanction of the pope, and also because the deposition of a bishop belonged to those causa3 majores which, by custom and law, were reserved for the decision of the Romish see. In the epistle* with * Epist. ad universes Episcopos Gallia;. — lu his epistle, sent with the decree, to Charles the Bald, and to Hincmar, Nicholas confined him.self to strictly legal grounds (Labbe). 2 20 CONTEST WITH HINCMAR OF RHEIMS. which Nicholas transmitted the decree to the French bishops, the latter point was chiefly insisted upon as that which nullified their proceedings, Nicholas rest- ing this assertion upon the Decretals. These prin- ciples were altogether new : for, although the popes had often suggested or originated the assembling of provincial councils, it had never been supposed that such permission was necessary in order to their meet- ing ; and, as to the deposition of bishops, it had always been recognised as the right of metropolitans in such cases to be judges in the last instance. The reservation of such cases for the pope was a virtual dissolution of the metropolitan system ; and the independence of national Churches was destroyed, if their bishops could not meet in council without permission from Rome. Nor could it be doubted that such was the design which Nicholas had in view while announcing these new principles. The French bishops declared that no such claim of reservation as that for which Nicholas contended existed in the Decretals which they possessed ; the pope, however, affirmed that, if it could not be found in the Dionysian collection, still, as a papal Decretal, (z. e. one of the forged Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore), it demanded obedience. It is possible that Nicholas was not aware of the spuriousness of these so-called Decretals ; but, at all events, he was determined to put them into execution. The king of France, the archbishop of Rheims, and the provincial bishops, suffered the papal decision in this case to take effect without further protestation ; and the deposed Rothad was solemnly restored by a papal legate, sent to France for this purpose. They, probably, by no means designed to admit as valid and incontestable the principles on which Nicholas pro- OTHER ACTS OF AGGRESSION. 21 posed to proceed ; and, indeed, on a subsequent occasion, they formally objected to these principles: but, for the present, they were silent, because they did not wish to break with a pontiff who might in other respects be useful to them. It was a great point gained, not only to have had an opportunity of announcing these high papal principles, but to have been suffered to act upon them. The same remark applies to the conduct of Nicholas with regard to John, archbishop of Kavenna. John, maintaining the independence of his see, refused to appear before a council at Rome, at which he had been requred to answer a charge of unlawful proceed- ings in deposing certain bishops of his province ; and sentence of excommunication was passed against him, notwithstanding the interposition of the emperor Louis on his behalf The archbishop was compelled to , submit, and the see of Ravenna became thenceforward entirely dependent upon Rome. Another step in the same direction was taken under the following circumstances. In 853, at a Council of Soissons, Hincmar had deprived of their office certain presbyters who had received ordination from Ebbo, archbishop of Rheims, after his deposition. The con- duct of Hincmar in this matter was perfectly regular, and his act was confirmed by Benedict III., and by Nicholas himself in 863. Suddenly, however, in 866, Nicholas again agitated this matter, pretending to have heard that the accounts which Hincmar had transmitted to Rome were not strictly true, and de- manding that Hincmar should restore the presbyters, or at least should examine the cases again in a larger synod. The French bishops, in great alarm, referred the whole matter to the pope's own decision ; and 22 ADRIAN L[. promised to respect his decree restoring the presbyters to office.* In a synodal epistle they also entreated Nicholas to take such measures, that for the future no archbishop or bishop should be deposed without the sanction of the pontifF.f While the bishops thus formally acknowledged the pope as their protector they virtually accepted him as their master; and thus Nicholas carried out one effectual and funda- mental portion of his idea of the papacy, preparing the way for others, and constituting an epoch in the history of the Church ; while it became evident that the complete development of papal power must take place sooner or later, according to more or less favourable circumstances of the times. That a favourable conjunction of circumstances was indeed needful for the further development of the papacy became manifest under the administration of A. 11.867. the successor of Nicholas, Adrian II., w^ho lost nearly all the ground which had been gained by his predecessor, and that too in a conflict with the very same parties against whom Nicholas had been so successful. His fault was that he continued to speak and act in the same style as Nicholas, without attend- ing to the fact that the circumstances in which he was placed were different. Happily for Adrian, however, he maintained the credit of the papal see with refer- ence to the most important matter which had been transmitted to him by Nicholas, — the matrimonial cause of the king of Lorraine. Lothaire seems to have taken it for granted that the new pope would support him in his views, even so far as to sanction * Epist. Nicolai ad Hcrarduiu arch. Turoucns. ct ad Hincmarum (Labbe). t Synod. Epist, totiiis Concil. Suessionens. ad Papam (Labbe). Adrian II. WEAKNESS OF HIS POLICY. 23 his marriage with Waldrada ; but Adrian, while he consented to release Waldrada from the sentence of excommunication,* declared himself firmly resolved not to consent to the divorce of Theutberga yf a decision, however, in which he would probably have found it difficult to persevere, had not the death of the king, which took place in 869, come to his rescue. After the death of Lothaire, during the contest which ensued between Charles the Bald and his brother the emperor Louis, Adrian took a decided part in favour of the emperor. He wrote to the nobles of Lorraine, enjoining submission to the emperor as their lawful sovereign, and threatening with excommunication any parties who should presume to despise the monition of the holy see.j He wrote also to the nobles and bishops of France, enjoining them, especially Hincmar of Rheims, to withstand any attempt of Charles (their sovereign) upon Lorraine. '§• But this interposition of the pope was too late ; for, when his envoys arrived in France, Charles had already caused himself to be crowned king of Lorraine at Metz, and the papal injunctions were treated with indifference by all the parties to whom they had been addressed. Adrian ought now either to have put his threat into execu- tion, or at least to have obtained some apparent satis- faction for the emperor; but, instead of this, he again addressed epistles to the king, and to the nobles and bishops of France and Lorraine, complaining bitterly of their contempt of his former conmiunications, charging the king with his act of injustice, and * Adriani II. Ep. ad Waldradam (Labbe). t Ep. ad Lotharium (Labbe). :j; Adrian. Ep. ad Proceres Eegui Lotharii (Labbe). § lb. Ep. ad Proceres RegiiiCaroli Calvi ; — ad Episcopos iuReguo Caroli ; — ad Hiucmarum (Labbe). 34 HINCMAR OF LAON. threatening to come in person, in case of further obstinacy, in order to punish the offenders.* , He sent also to the court of Louis of Germany, not calling for immediate aid to the emperor, but simply threatening to come in person. This, however, was an empty threat, and was never intended as anything more ; from which no result could follow but great dis- grace upon non-fulfilment. And such was the fact ; Charles divided Lorraine with his brother Louis of Germany, and set the emperor and the pope at defiance. To Adrian's second epistle he gave no reply ; and Hincmar sent one in which, under colour of representing the sentiments of the nobles, he read the pope a severe lecture on the temerity and bad policy of his interference with regard to the suc- cession of princes. Most weakly and unwisely, as well as without warrant, Adrian espoused the cause of the rebelhous and worthless Carloman against his father Charles the Bald ; but neither the king, the nobles, nor the bishops took any notice of his peremptory and unjust injunctions in this matter. Carloman was punished with the loss of his eyes, and imprisoned for life ; and the interference of Adrian resulted only in merited disgrace, with loss of influence. Adrian thus did much towards impairing that authority over sovereigns which Nicholas had usurped. By another transaction he weakened also that eccle- siastical authority which had been, for the first time, conceded to his predecessor. Hincmar the Younger, bishop of Laon, after having been engaged in a long disputef with his sovereign, * Ad Episcopos Germanise (Labbe). t Hincm. Rhom. Epist. ad Hiiicm. Laud. (Labbe). Concil, HINCMAR OF LAON. 25 Charles the Bald, respecting some exercise of his episcopal authority, and also in a dispute with his uncle and metropolitan, the archbishop of Rheims, respecting the canonical obedience due to him, was at length deprived of his bishopric by the Council o^D^^iacense Douzi. Hincmar the Younger had, however, in the a.d. 87i. mean time, appealed directly to the pope ; and when Adrian received the decrees of the council, together with an epistle requesting that, if he did not coincide with their judgment, he would proceed regu- larly according to the canons of Sardica, he expressed his displeasure at their having presumed to depose a bishop who had appealed to the apostolic see, and desired them immediately to send his accusers to Kome, where his cause should be heard. In reply to the application of the council for the papal approba- tion of the translation of one of their bishops to an archbishopric, the pope gave his consent,* but referred also to one of the forged Decretals, said to be of the bishop Anteros, in which it was expressly affirmed that such translations, for urgent reasons, were permissible. To the communication made by the pope respecting Hincmar, the council returned a proper reply, in which they expressed their astonishment at his remarks, and justified their own proceedings.^ Adrian having also addressed to Charles the Bald a demand that the younger Hincmar should be sent to Rome to take his trial, Charles sent back a very spirited reply, asserting the rights of princes against usurping papal pretensions. Adrian now saw that it was time to yield, and wrote a very conciliatoiy and flattering epistle to Charles, although still requiring that Hincmar should take his * Adrian II. Epist. 28, ad Episcopp. Synod. Duziacens. (Labbe). t Rescriptum Ep. Synod. Duziac. ad Epist. Adr. (Labbe). A. D. 872. John VIII, 26 HINCMAR OF LAON. trial at Rome.* In the same year (a.d. 872) Adrian died. The deposition of Hincmar of Laon was therefore now uncontested, but his successor w^as not appointed until that deposition was confirmed by John VIII. in 876.']' Hincmar of Laon was banished from his province, and was afterwards punished with the loss of his eyes, by Charles the Bald, probably on account of having taken part in an insurrection occasioned by the invasion of the West Frankish dominions by Louis the German. He w^as subse- quently set at liberty ; and, in 8/8, w hen John VIII. visited France, after the death of Charles the Bald, he presented to the pontiff a petition against his uncle, praying for a more equitable sentence. The pope granted him permission to celebrate mass, and assigned to him a portion of the revenues of the bishopric of Laon. The bishop of Laon, in his controversy with the archbishop of Bheims, had referred to one of the forged Decretals in the collection of the Pseudo- Isidore. In reply, Hincmar of Bheims wrote against these Decretals, not indeed raising any suspicions as to their genuineness, but contending that they were of authority only so far as they were in conformity with the canons and decrees of more ancient councils. No notice was taken of this at Rome. The vital point, [ the supposed genuineness of the Decretals, was not' assailed. Indeed, the losses under Adrian were all superficial, and capable of being remedied by an able and politic successor. When the French bishops referred to Adrian's threat of excomnmnicating Charles the Bald for seizing Thuringia, they only expressed * Adrian. II. Ep. 30. t Johaa. VIII. Epist. oI4, ad Hincmar. Illieui. (Labbe). JOHN VIII. 27 their astonishment that the pontiff adopted this course without proof of any adequate crime, but not that he should, under any circumstances, assume such power over sovereign princes. And while Hincmar of Rheims maintained his metropolitan rights in the matter of Hincmar of Laon, he carefully acknowledged the recognised supremacy of Rome ; and from the whole tenor of the correspondence it appeared that the will of the pontiff to the prejudice of metropolitan authority would meet with but feeble and ineffectual resistance in France. The pontificate of John VIII., the successor of Adrian, was distinguished by an event of considerable importance to the interests of the papacy, which was no less than an opportunity of disposing of the imperial crown, — an opportunity often afterwards repeated, when aspirants to the crown thought that they could turn the services of the pontiff to good account. Louis II., the emperor, and king of Italy, having died in 8/5, without an heir, each of his two uncles, Louis the German and Charles the Bald, took mea- sures to secure the succession to himself. This belonged properly to the German king, as the elder brother ; but Charles was beforehand with him. He marched quickly into Italy, and at Pavia took posses- sion of the Italian dominions. Invited by the pope, he immediately proceeded to Rome, where he was crowned emperor, a favour which he owed to the rich presents he had made to the pope, the Romans, and St. Peter's church. Some writers say that Charles, on this occasion, ceded to the pope the absolute and i independent government of Rome ; but it is ])lain, 1 from the subsequent epistles of John himself,* that ' * Johan. VIII. Epp. 45, 23, 277, 293 (Lab bo). 28 CHARLES THE BALD IX ITALY. RoQie and its territory were still subject to the emperor. I A donation of Samnium, Calabria, and Benevento, said to have been made by this emperor to the pope, can also be proved to be fictitious. Still, the manner in which Charles the Bald had become possessed of the empire and of Italy tended very materially to increase the power of the pope. Aware of his bad title to the empire, and mistrustful lest his presents should be denounced as acts of bribery, Charles suf- fered the pope to declare that the imperial crown was properly at the disposal of the Roman see, without protesting against this assumption. The continual quarrels of the Carlovingian princes among themselves, their distance from Italy, and their weakness, fur- nished the pope with means of giving this claim the appearance of a right ; and after the fall of the Carlo- vingian house, when the native princes of Italy and neighbouring sovereigns were contending for the em- pire, it became still more easy for the popes to decide the election. Already the question with the pope was, not who had the greatest right to the empire, but which of the candidates was most devoted to the Eoman see, and appeared most likely to advance its interests. Louis the German sent his two sons with an army into Italy ; but they were not able to dispos- sess their uncle : and Charles made an invasion (but ineffectual) into the dominions of his brother. The pope then wrote to the bishops belonging to the dominions of Louis,* sending them a reprimand for not having kept back their sovereign from his attack ui)on the country of the West Franks. He told them that it was the devil who had sown discord between the two brothel's ; — that the devil had been jealous of * Johau. VIII. Ep. 315 (Labbe). CHARLES THE BALD IN ITALY. 29 the virtues of Charles, had harassed him with dis- turbances and evil accidents from his youth, and had employed all his craft in order to hinder his obtaining the empire ; — but that Charles had at length obtained the imperial crown by the favour of God, and through the ministry of the pope. This is the prince, said he, by whose means God will alleviate the troubles of his Church ; this is he for whom my predecessors have often sighed ; who was reserved for these dangerous times for the deliverance of Italy, into which he came in a Avonderful manner, and was there elevated to the imperial dignity by God, through a privilege belonging to the apostolic see.* To the nobles of the dominions of Louis, the pope declared that they had deserved excommunication in consequence of their inroad upon the territories of the West Franks, but that he had compassion upon them, and contented himself with warning them to beware of the delusions of Satan in future, and not to contend against the Church and the ordinance of God.f He threatened to excommu- nicate those bishops of the West Franks who had taken part with Louis, if they did not abandon his cause. The terms of the document by which an assembly of the states spiritual and temporal, at Pavia, in 876, recognised Charles as king, are remarkable for their spirit of submission and devotion to the Romish see. In 877, Charles entered Italy with an army, at the earnest entreaty of the pope, in order to assist him against the Saracens, who had penetrated close to Rome, and had been bought off from the capital by a sum of money ; while they were strengthened by a treaty with Naples, Salerno, Gaeto, and Amalfi, * Johan. VIII. Ep. 316 (Labbe). t Ihid. Ep. 318 (Labbe). 30 CARLOMAN. On this occasion, Sergiiis, duke of Naples, was made prisoner, deprived of his eyes, and sent to Rome by his brother Athanasius, bishop of Naples, for which the bishop received the hearty thanks of the pope- No sooner had Charles entered Italy, than he was obliged to retire, by the intelligence that Carloman, king of Bavaria, eldest son of Louis the German, was marching against him, in order to assert his right to the dominion of Italy. On his return to France, Charles died, a. d. 877. By the death of Charles, the situation and prospects of the papacy were by no means improved. Louis the Stammerer, his son and successor in his West Frank dominions, finding his kingdom shaken by the Nor- mans, and having little power over his own nobles, was not able to help the pope, nor was in a condition to aspire to the empire. The sons of Louis the German were not well inclined to the Roman see. Carloman, one of them, however, with his army, was in Upper Italy, and was recognised as king at Pavia. He promised his support to the pope, who, in return, gave a courteous reply, but insisted on certain de- mands and securities. In the same year, 877, Car- loman returned to Germany *, and this opportunity was seized by Lambert, duke of Spoleto, and Adel- bert, count of Tuscany, to march to Rome, of which place they made themselves masters, taking the pope prisoner, and compelling the nobles to swear alle- giance to Carloman. John VIII. makes bitter com- plaints of their acts of violence,* and especially laments that nothing was left of " the power which pious emperoi-s had given to the apostle Peter and his vicar over Rome."j * Johau. VIII. Epp. 84—89 (Labbe). t Ep. 86. ijoso. 81 The pope now sailed to France, and here made an alliance with Boso, then governor of Provence, which led to important results. Boso was connected with the imperial family by marriage : he was now pos- sessed of great wealth and influence ; and it was the design of the pope to secure his assistance by exalting him to the throne of Italy and the empire. In short, he was determined to make an emperor whom all the world' should recognise as absolutely indebted for the crown to himself alone. In this design, indeed, he did not succeed ; but he was able to exert his influence in favour of Boso so far as to cause him to be made king of Burgundy ; while, at the same time, he con- trived to avoid the appearance of constraint in placing the crown upon the head of Charles the Fat. John affected, or sincerely manifested, as great a zeal for the honour of the episcopate in general as for the pontificate itself While he endeavoured to exalt the pope above the emperor, he also declared his intention of making all bishops independent of the temporal power. At the Council of Ravenna, in 8/7, and again at another at Troyes which he con- vened in the following year, during his stay in France, he propounded several decrees, to the astonishment of the bishops themselves, claiming for them various rights and privileges which they had not themselves hitherto ventured to demand.* This proceeding produced upon their minds the greater impression, inasmuch as they had long been desirous of advancing their social position. Never, until now, had they been made aware of the points at which they ought to aim, in order to secure for themselves the highest rank and influence in the See John's Epistle to the German bishops, a. d. 870 (Labbe). / 32 PARTIES IN ITALY. state ; and the pontiff who gave them powerful assistance in this weighty affair could not but be highly popular among them. It was, perhaps, by this measure that John principally contributed to the strengthening of the papacy, to such an extent that it remained without any considerable loss during a long succession of unworthy, or impotent and inactive, popes, who occupied and disgraced the see during the troubles which shook Italy for more than half a century. It is probable that even before the death of John, a powerful party had already been formed in Italy, with the design of putting an end to the Franco- German dominion in that country, and of placing the crown of Italy and of the empire upon one of the native nobles of the land. Such a design may have been easily suggested under the weak government of Charles the Fat. This party had so much influence A.D. 882. in the election of Martin II., and of his successor, ,^D.'884* Adrian III., as to render it not improbable that both these pontiffs were selected with a view to the promo- tion of their designs. But it was not until the depo- sition of Charles the Fat by the estates of Germany, followed by his death in 888, that an attempt was made to carry these designs into execution. The party which meditated this deliverance of Italy from the yoke of a foreign dominion had already fixed their regards upon one who should be the future ruler of the country. This was Wido, Guido, or Guy, duke of Spoleto. No sooner, however, were measures taken for securing to him the vacant throne of Italy, than a rival appeared in the person of the powerful Berengar, duke of Friuli, who urged equal claims, and a])])cared to be sup- Adrian III. CTVIL AYAR IN ITALY. 38 ported by a party not inferior in power. Hence arose a civil war in Italy, which was long protracted by the fluctuating success of the contending parties. At the commencement of the struggle, the adhe- rence of the pope to the party of the duke of Spoleto appeared to give the preponderance in its favour. The influence of the new pope, Stephen V., who a. d. 885. succeeded Adrian III. in 885, was chiefly iiistru- "'^'^i'^'^" • mental in procuring the acknowledgment of Guido as king of Italy, in 890. In the following year, 891, the pope placed on his head the imperial crown, and by this means so strengthened his authority and a.d. 89i. power that, in 894, he was enabled to compel For- mosus, the successor of Stephen, to secure to his son Lambert the succession to the empire. This, however, turned out to his own disadvantage ; for Formosus, \^hom the new emperor had made too sensible of his power, had already instigated Arnulf, king of Germany, to enter Italy, and take possession of the kingdom which belonged to him. Arnulf, whom Berengar, in his jealousy of Guido, had already supported with all his power, succeeded in defeating Lambert in 895, and, in the same year, received the imperial crown at the hands of the pope, with full consent of the Romans. Formosus died in 896. His successor, Boni- a.d. sor,. face VI., survived his elevation only fifteen days. ^'"steXn^' Next came Stephen VI. (or VII.), who belonged to^'^-"''^"- the party opposed to that of Formosus. He is said to have caused the remains of that pontifl" to be dis- interred, to be clothed with episcopal vestments, and placed upon the papal chair. He then held a kind of council over him, and addressed him with these words : " Since thou wast bishop of Porto, why VOL. II. D 34 FORMOSUS. didst thou so yield to thy ambition, as to grasp at the episcopal chair of the see of Rome ?" A deacon was suffered to act as his advocate, but, of course, he lost his cause. Stephen then caused the corpse to be stripped ; when the three fingers, with which the papal benediction had been given, were cut oftj and the body thrown into the Tiber. At the same time, also, the ordinations of Formosus were declared invalid, and the parties who had received them M^ere reor- dained by Stephen.* In 897, probably by the prevalence of the opposite party, Stephen was thrown into prison, and strangled. A. D. 897. Romanus succeeded in the same year, and held the tomaiius. ggg nearly four months. Platina says that he reversed the decrees of his predecessor ; but Flodoard is silent on this point, and little dependence can be placed upon the statement. A.D. 898. The next pope Theodore II. reigned twenty days. John^ix. ' The bishops and priests ordained by Formosus, whom Stephen refused to acknowledge, he restored to their offices ; and he gave an honourable burial to the corpse of Formosus. Tradition says that the Tiber repeat- edly threw up the corpse, and that, when it was brought into St. Peter's church, several images of saints saluted it ; a story which has been adduced by Luitprand in proof of the sanctity of Formosus. But the more solemn vindication of the memory of Formosus was undertaken by John IX., who became pope (after Theodore) in 898, having gained the upper hand of his rival, Sergius, who had been elected by the in- fluence of the Tuscan party. He immediately held a council at Rome, in favour of Formosus, and against Sergius ; here the above-mentioned decree * Baron, ad an. 897, n. 3. A.D. 900. ned IV. THE TUSCAlSi PARTY. 85 concerning the right of the emperor at the conse- cration of a po])e was confirmed, and excommuni- cation pronounced against those who threw the corpse of the pope into the Tiber, unless they should repent. The restored German dominion lasted only until the return of Arnulf to Germany. In 897 Lambert was again emperor, and was recognised as such by the new pope, Stephen YII., and by the Romans. His death, which took place in 898, led to a new change. Berengar now again put forward his claims ; but his enemies called in Louis, king of Burgundy, by whom he was defeated, and compelled to flee to Germany. The imperial crown now fell to Louis, who w^as crowned by the new pope, Benedict IV., in 903. In 905, however, Berengar came with a strong ^'^"^I'ct force from Germany, and compelled Louis to retire into Eavenna ; while himself not only remained in possession of the kingdom of Italy, but also received the imperial crown at the hands of the pope, John X. in 916. This last turn of affairs was introduced by a series of disorders which had already taken place in Rome, and was destined to lead to still further changes, threatening even the overthrow and destruction of the papacy itself. In the last years of the emperor Lambert, a coalition had been formed among the Roman nobles, on the principle of being content with the sovereignty of their own city. At the head of the new faction stood Adel- bert, count of Tuscany, supported by the influence and intrigues of a notorious Roman lady, named Theodora, who was connected with some of the first and most powerful families of the city, and who, bv D 2 30 RAPID SUCCESSION OF INFAMOUS POPES. means of her infamous daughters, Theodora the younger and Marozia, drew a still larger number over to this party. In the first instance they gained a certain Sergius, a Roman of high family, and belong- ing to the clergy ; it being part of their plan to create a pope whom they could employ in the execution of their designs, — a service to which they destined Sergius, or one which he himself volunteered to discharge. As early as 898 an attempt was made to secure his election ; but the party had not yet obtained sufficient influence to command success, and Sergius was compelled to leave the city. At length, however, his adherents were strong enough to bring him back in triumph, and not only to place him on the papal throne, but to maintain him there. After A. T>. 903. the death of Benedict IV., in 903, Leo V. was elected. ciiiistopher At the end of two months a presbyter, named Chris- svn"iu!m. topher, took him prisoner, and possessed himself of the papal chair ; from which he was expelled in the follow- ing year by Sergius. This Sergius III. was a monster of profligacy, cruelty, and vice, in their most shameless and dis- gusting forms. But it was this very character which made him useful to his party, the duration of wdiose influence at Home could be insured only by a pre- ponderance of physical power, and this again only by violence which should disdain all restraints of morality and religion. Sergius was the man for this purpose, who, while he lived in concubinage with Marozia, did not hesitate to yield all the treasures of the Roman Church as plunder to his party. At the same time all posts of influence M^ere occupied by his creatures ; the fortress of St. Angelo was placed in their hands ; and so firm was the footing which thev had gained KAPll) SUCCESSION OK INFAMOl'S I'Ol'ES. 37 during his pontificate, that at the time of his death they felt themselves able to maintain their ground without the support of a pontiff, if occasion should require. Still, however, they found it desirable that the papal see should be possessed by their own creature ; and they had no difficulty in procuring an election favourable to their wishes. By their in- fluence Sergius was succeeded by Anastasius III. in 911. In 913, afler the death of Anastasius, they a. ]>. '.»n. caused Landus to be nominated as his successor ; ^"'j^jj'|^'"'* and in 914, John X., the favourite of Theodora, was -^'^ ;'••5• exalted, by the influence of his mistress, to the papal a. i>. iui. see. But although John was a creature of the females who belonged to the Tuscan party, he was not dis- posed to be the slave of this party itself, nor did he belong to the family connection which held this clique together. Probably he had sought the good will of Theodora only with a view to obtain preferment by her means ; and certain it is that, as soon as he had obtained the pontifical dignity, he laboured to rid him- self of her influence, or, at all events, to get free from the dictation of those with whom she was connected, and to secure his independence. It appears to have been his object to dissolve the bonds of the aristocracy which had been cemented by the Tuscan party in Rome, or, at least, to compel this party to regard the pope as its head and master rather than its tool. With this view, perhaps, it was that he allied himself to Berengar, and even crowned him emperor in 916, in order that, in case of necessity, he might rely upon his help. In 924, however, Berengar was killed ; and John fell a victim to his own policy, which it was impossible for him to carry out independently of 38 RAPID SUCCESSION OF INFAMOUS POPES. foreign aid. The Tuscan party caused him to be A. D. 928. murdered in 928, and from that time pubhcly main- A. D. 929. tained dominion over Rome, their bond of union viUrvTii. having now been strengthened by the marriage of j'oha??/' Marozia with Guido, count of Tuscany. They now- took care to place the pontificate in safer hands, a son of Marozia being exalted to the papal throne under the title of John XI., in 931. — Leo VI. and Ste phen Yll. had intervened, perhaps also Martin III. ; but the chronology of these popes is very confused. A movement which at one time threatened this party was rendered harmless. In 932, Marozia, after the death of her second husband, was married to Hugh, count of Ravenna, who, as early as 926, had again deprived the Burgundian king Rodolf of the crown of Italy. Hugh thought that by his mar- riage he could obtain the mastery of Rome in addition to the crown of Italy, and gave sufficient intimation of his views to the heads of the party who had hitherto shared this dominion with Marozia. These, however, immediately united under the leadership of young Alberic, another son of Marozia, named him Patrician or consul of Rome, drove Hugh out of the city, and compelled him to sign a treaty, in 936, by which he renounced all dominion over the city, and gave it into the hands of Alberic. And Alberic retained this power with so firm a grasp that, at his death in 954, he was able to hand it over to his son Octavian. At that time, however, a change had taken place in the state of Italy, which brought about, even in Rome, a new order of things, or rather effected a restoration of the old order. In 946 Hugh had transmitted the crown of Italy to his son Lothaire, and had himself retired into a RAPID SUCCESSION OF INFAMOUS POPES. 39 monastery. The young sovereign immediately en- countered the opposition of the count Berengar, of Ivrea, a grandson of the elder Berengar, of Friuli ; and this opposition having ended in the death of Lothaire, Berengar was crowned king of Italy, to- gether with his son Adelbert, in 950. In order to insure peaceable possession of a crown which had been thus shamefully obtained, he endeavoured to compel the young widow of Lothaire to give her hand to his son Adelbert. The widowed queen, however, found means to engage in her behalf the valiant Otho I., king of Germany, on whom, as her deliverer, she bestowed her hand in 951, thus trans- ferring to him all her claims to the inheritance of Lothaire. As early as the following year 952, Be- rengar found himself obliged to sue for peace with Otho, according to the terms of which he consented to hold the kingdom of Italy as a fief from him. Otho was content to make these terms, doubtless foreseeing that circumstances could not fail to arise which would furnish him with a pretext for inter- fering with the affairs of Italy at a more favourable juncture than the present. Scarcely, however, could he have supposed that the next occasion for such interference would be furnished from Rome itself; for here, in 956, an event took place, which rendered such a prospect more improbable than ever. The pope, Agapetus, whose death occurred this .\. i>. 9:ii:. year, had exercised his power, during the ten years a. d. 931). of his pontificate, in complete subjection to the will yni'tr ix. of Alberic : but, at length, he manifested some ,^- ^-.9^2 ' , ' . . Jhutiii HI. signs of impatience at this restraint, and even made a.d. 04(;. attempts at emancipation from the power of the At'i^orHj.' John XII. 40 BERENGAR. patrician. The aristocratical party at Rome took this as a warning that they mast not place confidence in any pope whose interests were not closely interwoven with their own ; and at the same time formed a resolution entirely in accordance with their whole spirit and character. Upon the death of Agapetus they caused the young Octavian, eighteen years of age, to be nominated as his successor, under the title of John XII., and thus caused the papal tiara and the crown of the Roman principality to meet on the same head. It is probable that this measure raised up an enemy from without. The king, Berengar, who, after the retirement of Otho from Italy, had acted the part of a capricious and cruel tyrant, soon manifested a decided aversion to the new pontiff. He exacted, at bis pleasure, contributions from the estates and patrimonies of the Romish Church, and took other opportunities of seeking a quarrel with the pope. All these things evidently tended to bring on an open war between himself and the Roman rulers ; as a result of which he hoped to make himself master of the city, and to bring the Romans under his authority, imagining that they were weary of the sway which had so long been exercised over them. That the Romans were indeed weary of this rue the dominant party knew perhaps more thoroughly than Berengar did, while its leaders were more intimately acquainted than he was with the danger which had now become imminent. They therefore did not hesitate to accept the only means of deliverance which presented itself, although there were not wanting reasons to make them shrink from pursuing such a course. The pope himself sent a message to Germany, by which he earnestly en- OTHO IN ITALY. 41 treated Otho to come to his aid against Berengar; and it was this act which became the immediate occasion of that revolution by which repose was re- stored to Italy, together with a restoration of the ancient order of things. Otho himself appeared at first resolved to let many of the imperial rights with regard to Rome and the pope remain in abeyance, while he consented to receive the crown at the hands of the pontiff. He undertook the expedition into Italy, to which he was now invited, chiefly with a view to obtain the real sovereignty of that country, urged upon his accept- ance by many estates of the kingdom, who sought at his hands protection and justice against Berengar. He was willing to accept the imperial crown, only because he knew that it added dignity and influence to the crown of Italy ; and hence he was not reluctant to give a promise beforehand that, as emperor, he would leave the pope and the Romish Church in undisturbed possession of all their property and rights. At Milan he received homage as king of Italy, after the solemn deposition of Berengar and Adelbcrt, in 962 ; and he then proceeded to Home, where he not only renewed his former promise, but gave the pope and the Romans many proofs that it was his desire to continue on good terms with them. On the other hand, the pope, influenced either by a natural mistrust, by a jealousy to which some special circumstances may have given rise, by bad policy, or by the fickleness of his own disposition, suffered him- self to be betrayed into a measure which compelled the emperor to adopt a line of policy different fi-om that which he had proclaimed. No sooner had Otho quitted Rome, in order to lay siege to a fortress in 42 OTHO IN ITALY. which Berengar had shut himself up, than the pope entered into a conspiracy with the prince Adelbert against him, brought Adelbert himself to Rome, and, — when the emperor, who had received intelligence of these things, was hastening back to the city, — attempted by a treacherous attack to take his life, or, at all events, to get him into his power. A. D. 9G:i. Otho convened a council at Rome, by which he caused the treacherous John to be deposed, and procured the election of Leo YIII., who was entirely in his own interests. By this measure, and others adapted to his end, he restored those relations which formerly subsisted between the emperor on the one part, and the Romans, together with the papacy, on the other. Not that these restored relations were precisely the same as had been established by Charlemagne, and continued under his two immediate successors. When John VIII. bestowed the crown on Charles the Bald, it became impossible that the old relations could be ever perfectly restored, or, if ever, certainly not in so short a space of time as that which had 'now elapsed. We must therefore take notice of the exact relative position of the pope and emperor at this period ; nor must we withhold attention from the fact, and the reason of the fact, that the papacy lost little or none of its influence and power in all its other relations during a period of eighty years, distinguished by vices and disorders such as have been described. As to the precise position of the pontiff with regard to the emperor, it must be remembered that, during this period, the principle was firmly established that the right of disposing of the imperial crown rested with no one but the pope, or, at all events, with him ADVANCE OF PAPAL PRETENSIONS. 43 and the Komans. From 891 to 916, we find five or six emperors in succession who possessed no other claim to the crown, nor presumed to allege any other, than their appointment by papal authority. Indeed, after the extinction of the Carlovingian dynasty in Germany and France, there was no other by which the imperial crown could be attained. If the de- scendants of Charlemagne could pretend to this dignity by right of inheritance, still the new kings whom the German people had elected could not put forward any such claims ; and even the possession of the crown of Italy could not constitute a title, there being no law or principle whatever to connect the possession of the empire with that of the kingdom of Italy. The papal pretensions to the right of disposing of the imperial crown were evidently strengthened in the tenth century by the following circumstance. The maxim had been gradually established that the : empire was the highest earthly dignity, and the em- peror the head of all temporal princes ; a maxim which resulted from the generalisation of the prin- ciple of the Carlovingian dynasty that the empire should belong to the oldest prince of the family, who should be recognised as superior by all the. reigning princes of the house. But when it was asked who constituted the emperor head over all other sovereigns, the lawyers of that age could return no other answer than that it was God who had done this, by means of the pope. Otho had no idea that the imperial dignity was inseparably connected with the crown of Germany, nor did he imagine that, as the feudal lord of Italy, he could lay claim to the empire ; for during the 44 ADVANCE OF TAPAL PRETENSIONS. nine years in which he sustained this character (951- 961) he made no effort in that direction. It was not until the pope and the Romans manifested a desire to confer this dignity upon him that he expressed his willingness to accept it, from the only hands which, according to his idea, had power to confer it. Hence, therefore, it was impossible that the relation of emperor and pope could be restored upon precisely its ancient footing. Although, in some respects, the pope occupied his former position with regard to the new protector of Rome and the Roman Church, or with regard to the new feudal lord of the ecclesiastical patrimonies and territories, still the pope at the same time entered into other relations with the emperor which could not but have a bearing upon the former, or upon the rights which accrued out of them to the emperor. Some of the ephemeral emperors, who reigned during the period in which the bond of union between Germany and Italy was dissolved, found themselves so circumstanced that the support of the pope and the dominant party at Rome was more needful to them, than theirs was to the pope and Romans. They therefore could not venture to make any use of their undefined imperial rights beyond what was agreeable to the pope and the Roman aristocracy ; and hence these rights, if not formally renounced, were yet re- duced to a mere shadow. Indeed, it appears that, at this period, some portion of the ancient imperial rights were formally conceded to the pope, by Guido and Lambert. A great change now took place, especially with reference to one of the most important of the ancient imperial rights, — the confirmation of the j)ope elect. ADVANCE OF PAPAL PRETENSIONS. 45 In a synod at Rome, John IX. made a new regula- tion concerning this matter, in which the part assigned to the emperor consisted in sending commissioners or ambassadors to Rome on occasion of a papal election, in order to prevent all tumultuous or violent pro- ceedings.* Not a word was said of the imperial commissioners taking any part in the act of election ; and indeed especial care seems to have been taken lest this regulation should appear to involve even a tacit acknowledgment of the right of confirmation by the emperor. Instead of the assertion of any such right, we find it rather represented to be the duty of the emperor, as the sovereign guardian of the rights and privileges of the Roman Church, to interpose his authority just so far as to protect the freedom of elec- tion, but no further. And here it is worthy of remark that the papacy received no injury from that state of affairs at Rome which, at one time, threatened to deal it a heavy blow. The new aristocracy seemed likely to be highly in- jurious to the papal power, tending, as it evidently did, gradually to take the government of Rome out the hands of the pope. As long, however, as it made use of the influence of the popes to maintain and strengthen its own position, it was natural that it should work in favour of the papacy, lending it support by all means in its power. Such pontiffs as Sergius III., John X. XI. or XII., themselves belonged to the dominant aristocracy, and were as able to employ the resources of that body to maintain or increase the power and wealth of the Romish see as they were to make the influence of the papacy subserve the views of the aristocratic confederacy. Hence, al- * Cone. Rojii. A. D. 898. 46 ADVANCE OF PAPAL PRETENSIONS. though, during this period, certain popes were over- ruled or restrained by the aristocratic party, still the papacy itself sustained no loss ; and the confederacy was dissolved before it dared to assume an attitude of open hostility to the holy see. Nor is it diflScult to perceive how it happened that the papacy lost no ground in its ecclesiastical aspects and relations during this period of confusion. Several of the popes who ruled at this time possessed both the will and ability to maintain their spiritual claims, to the full extent to which they had been pushed by Nicholas, as often as opportunity should occur. It was one of these pontiifs, Stephen V., who, in 890, formally proclaimed the principle that all commands and regulations of the Romish see must be accepted and obeyed by the whole Christian Church without opposition or resistance.* Nor was there any lack of opportunity to put these claims into execution ; various occasions presented themselves, from time to time, of making use of the pretended rights. Thus, in 885, even the emperor Charles the Fat earnestly called for the presence of Adrian III. in Germany, in order to pronounce judgment upon some bishops whom he wished to depose. In 889, the clergy and church of Langres invited his successor, Stephen V., to consecrate a bishop whom they had elected, because the metropolitan refiised to perform this act.f In 942, the estates of France were com- manded by Stephen VIII., under pain of excom- munication, to recognise Louis IV- as their king. So * At least this constitution is found in Gratian, Div. xix. c. 4, under the name of this Pope. t Fragm. Epist. Stcphani V. ad Fidconem Archiop. Remens. (Labbe). ADVANCE OF PAPAL PRETENSIONS. 47 that although, during this period, the popes, being occupied with the affairs of Rome and Italy, inter- posed in the business of foreign Churches less than formerly, and perhaps not at all unless invited to do so, still they were not wholly inactive in this respect. Precedents had been established, and a machinery of spiritual despotism had been extensively set up, which during this period was not destroyed, although not very actively at work. It needed only favourable cir- cumstances, and a powerful and skilful hand, to be in full play again. The style of address with which the Roman pontiffs were accosted from all quarters, and their own official language, remained the same as formerly. And besides this, it must be borne in mind that Italy was not the only country which was dis- tracted during this period, but confusion and disorder prevailed to an equal extent in the other states of Europe, especially in Germany and France ; so that, if the papacy was weak at home, it was not exposed to danger from any formidable opposition in those other countries over which it presumed to extend its spi- ritual dominion. Even the dissolute character and infamous pro- ceedings of the greater number of the popes of this period did not create so much scandal, and become so gTeat a source of weakness, as we might suppose, because these immoralities were not far below the level of the age. Gross immorality was, at this time, generally prevalent among the bishops and clergy ; and few of them had reason to consider themselves dis- gi'aced by such a superior as Sergius III. or John XII. Unhappily, the members were, for the most part, as licentious, profane, and vicious as the head ; and the people were little disgusted by those enormities in a 48 OTIIO AGAIN IX ITALY. pope to which they had become accustomed by the practice of their own bishops. So that, if some men of a higher tone of feehng were offended with the gross iniquities of Rome, they formed but a small minority, and were in no position to make an impres- sion upon the great seat and focus of corruption. An attempt was indeed subsequently made to employ this corruption as an argument against the papacy ; but it was made too late, and failed. The disorders which had fermented in Rome during so long a period were too great to be laid to rest by a single act of imperial authority. Before Otho had quitted Italy, and while he was yet engaged against Berengar, John XII. returned to Rome, gathered together the scattered fragments of liis party, and thus raised a force which succeeded in driving the imperial pope out of the city, and, after the death of John, A.n. 9!U. proceeded to the election of a new pontiff, Benedict V. v.) "^ The emperor, however, having Berengar and all Italy in his power, easily suppressed this revolt ; and, after a fruitless resistance, the Romans found themselves obliged to dehver up Benedict, and to receive again Leo VIII. at the hands of the emperor. So effectual was the lesson of submission which they now learnt that, after the death of Leo in 965, they even sent an embassy to the emperor, entreating him to nominate a successor. In his liberality, dictated either by gene- rosity or by policy, the emperor gave permission to the Romans to choose their own pontiff, — a concession which they construed into an indication of weakness A. n. 905. or of fear. They elected John XIII. ; but, in 966, John XIII. j|(^,^^g ^y^^g again the scene of tumultuous proceedings, in which John was driven from the city ; and Otho found himself obliged to undertake a third expedition CRESCENTIITS. 49 into Italy to restore order, which he maintained, not without difficulty, until his death. When news of the death of this emperor reached a. d. 972. Italy in 973, the Tuscan party again raUied, under ^ y^j'^"^* the leadership of the patrician Crescentius, a son of the younger Theodora, — put to death the pontiff Benedict VI. who had succeeded John XIII. in the preceding year, — and violently placed in the papal chair one of their own adherents, the Cardinal Franconi, under the title of Boniface VII. In the course of a a. d. 973. few months, however, this pontiff was expelled by the vii!*^^ people, headed probably by another faction ; but still oo^^^us^n the Tuscan party retained the upper hand. The new emperor, Otho II., whose presence was urgently required in Germany, found himself obliged, in order to save his credit, to consent with an apparently good grace to the elevation of one of their creatures to the pontifical dignity in the person of Benedict VII. a. d. 975. Afler his death, however, in 983, Otho found means vTi.'^ to carry the election of Peter, bishop of Pavia, under the name of John XIV. ; but the emperor died a. d. 983. soon afler this event, and again the Tuscan party re- "^"^^ ^^'^' covered strength. The expelled Franconi, Boniface VII., returned to Rome, and shut up the imperial pope in the castle of St. Angelo, which was under the government of Crescentius. Crescentius now exercised the supreme power under the title of Prince of Rome, a. d. 985. and compelled the new pope, John XVI., who was ^not^co^se- elected by the people after the death of Boniface, to coated.) recognise him in this character ; the representative of johii xvi, the young Otho III. not being in a condition effec- tually to assert the imperial authority. This very circumstance, however, contributed largely towards the restoration of a state of tranquillity VOL. II. E 50 CASE OF ARXULF, ARCHBISHOP OF RHEIMS. and order in Rome, which was judiciously employed by John XVI. for the recovery of a considerable portion of papal authority and influence within the city. The Romans had become accustomed to the predominance of the Tuscan party, and Crescentius exercised his rule with moderation. John knew how to maintain a position which the ruhng aristocracy found itself compelled to respect ; and, at the same time, he had such influence with the people as to prevent any outbreaks of violence and disorder. It was during this pontificate that the papacy was again called to maintain a struggle with a foreign power, which might have resulted greatly to its disad- vantage, if it had happened at a more unfavourable juncture or had fallen under the management of feebler hands. John now found himself obliged to defend the rights of the holy see, as they had been asserted by Nicholas, against the king and the bishops of France. Involved in this controversy without any fault of his own, and under circumstances which put his skill and firmness to the proof, John stood the trial in a manner worthy of a pope ; and, although he did not live to see the termination of the aflair, he succeeded in putting matters in such a train as enabled his suc- cessor to achieve a signal victory of the highest im- portance to the interests of the papacy. Hugh Capet, having made himself master of the throne of France, and having been crowned at Rheims, was engaged in a contest with Charles, duke of Lorraine, the only surviving branch of the Car- lovingian dynasty, and the rightful heir. By some act of treachery Rheims was delivered into the hands of Charles ; and it appeared likely that the traitor CASE OF ARNULF, ARCHBISHOP OF RHEIMS. 51 was 110 other than Arnulf, archbishop of Rheims, a natural son of the king Lothaire, and a nephew of Charles, lately presented to this rich bishopric by Hugh Capet with a view to detach him from the party of Charles. Hugh Capet had great reason to fear the influence of a powerful bishop among the clergy, if it was employed against him ; and there- fore, in order to neutralise the power of Arnulf, he applied to the pope for a sentence of condemnation against the traitor,* professing to make this applica- tion out of respect to his authority as supreme judge of all bishops ; and he caused his application to be seconded by the earnest entreaty of all the bishops belonging to the metropolitan province of Rheims, who were devoted to his interests. These letters could hardly fail to place the pope in a situation of even greater perplexity than that in which Hugh Capet was himself involved. On the one hand, they presented to him a temptation which it was almost impossible for any pope to resist ; for he found himself invited to exercise one of the most important, but hitherto most strongly contested, privileges of the papal see, — the invitation involving a formal recognition of this privilege by the king and bishops of a whole nation. But, on the other hand, there were difficulties of no small magnitude with which he would have to contend if he should yield to this request. Arnulf had powerful adherents even in France, — he was supported by another prince (Charles of Lorraine), — and it was by no means clear that he was guilty of the crime laid to his charge. Still less was it certain that Hugh Capet would be able to maintain his ground ; it was possible that eventually * Cent. Magd. t. 3, p. 262, 263. E 2 52 COUNCIL OF RHEIMS. the duke of Lorraine and Arnulf would be in the ascendent; and Charles and Arnulf had sent an embassy to Rome, urging John not to interfere in the matter. Under these circumstances, the pontiff would naturally desire to defer his decision until he should see in whose favour the scale would finally turn ; but then, such was the position of Hugh that delay would be equivalent to a decision against him. This, however, was the least of the evils between which John was called upon to choose ; he made his choice wisely, and took measures to retain the king's ambas- sadors at Rome. In 991, Hugh Capet succeeded in getting the duke of Lorraine and archbishop Arnulf into his power, and was thus delivered from their opposition. But he found it expedient to proceed formally against Arnulf, lest the clergy should take offence at any summary infliction of punishment by himself. With this view, — and probably also with the design of humbling the pope, — he convened a council from all the provinces of his kingdom, at Rheims, in 991, before which he brought the accused archbishop.* At this council some partisans of the pope (John of Auxerre and Abbo of Fleury) endeavoured to stop the proceedings against Arnulf, by objecting to the competence of the tribunal, and declaring that such proceedings would involve an infringement of the rights of the papal see ; appealing to the forged Decretals, by which all matters relating to bishops were reserved, as causa3 majores, to the hearing of the pope. These representations, however, were re- ceived with great impatience, and the speakers were * Cent. Magd. ; cent. X. c. 9. COUNCIL OF RHETMS. 53 scarcely allowed to finish their addresses. The archbishop Seguin of Sens, under whose presidency the council was assembled, then rose, — read a letter which eleven months before he had sent to Rome, to which no answer had been received, — and declared that this silence on the part of the pope was to be attributed to corrupt influence employed by Arnulf and the duke of Lorraine. Still more strongly spoke Arnulf, bishop of Orleans, who followed Seguin, and addressed himself to an especial refutation of the grounds which had been alleged for the exclusive jurisdiction of the pope in this matter. To the false Decretals which had been cited by Abbo, he opposed (as Hincmar of Eheims had formerly done) the authority of the Nicene and African councils, by which it was expressly provided that every bishop should be judged by his brethren of the same province. From these canons, and from a series of historical examples, he drew the conclusion that the duty of remitting certain cases to the judg- ment of the pope related only to such as were difficult or doubtful. — He did not deny that some popes had claimed absolute and unlimited cognisance of affairs relating to bishops ; and he granted that in many cases tliey had succeeded in enforcing respect to their claim. He rehearsed a long list of infamous pontiffs, who had disgraced the Romish see during the latter half of the century, and he asked the members of the council whether they could grant to a John XII. or a Boniface VII., all which had been willingly conceded to a Damasus, Innocent, Leo, or Gregory the Great ? He did not hesitate to say that a pope of such infamous character ought to be regard v-d rather as antichrist than as a successor of St. Peter ; 54 COUNCIL OF RHEIMS. but never, never, he exclaimed, should it be said that all the bishops of Christendom, among whom were so many distinguished for their piety and learning, were subject to such monsters, infamous as they were at once for the most odious vices and for the grossest ignorance. He concluded by recommending that the cause of the accused archbishop, if not decided by the council, should be referred to the neighbouring archbishops of Germany and Belgium, rather than be referred to the bishop of the new Babylon, from whom justice could be obtained only by money. The speeches made at this assembly were of more importance than its acts. The council could not do more than it did. It deposed Arnulf from his arch- bishopric, delivered him prisoner into the hands of the king, with an entreaty to spare his life, and appointed as his successor the celebrated Gerbert, who afterwards became pope as Silvester II. The council could have done all this without compelling the pope to declare himself against it; but the prin- ciples which had been announced at this assembly, and upon which its decision had been founded, forced him to adopt a dangerous, but decisive, measure in defence of the papal authority. Nothing now re- mained but for him openly to take the part of the deposed archbishop against the king and the council by whom he had been condemned. John did not shrink from adopting this bold measure ; and he did it with a dignity worthy of even Nicholas himself. In 992, he issued a decree suspending all bishops who had taken part in the council at Rheims, and declared them incapable of exercising ecclesiastical functions until they should have revoked their sen- tence against Arnulf, deposed the new archbishop, COUNCIL OF RHEIMS. 55 and referred the matter in dispute regularly to Rome. This decree caused a great sensation in France, and aroused the indignation of the bishops, who in- veighed in unmeasured terms against the pope. The new archbishop filled all Germany and France with the most violent invectives against the Romish see ;* which afterwards, when he himself had been made pope, he would have gladly recalled. Gerbert and the other French bishops continued to exercise their functions as before ; and paid no regard whatever to the papal decree, in the way of obedience or sub- mission. Under these circumstances, John took no further measures for the immediate enforcement of his decree ; but he acted as the wisest of his prede- cessors would have done in an emergency such as this. For a considerable time he met the outbursts of displeasure on the part of the French bishops with silence, while he secretly prepared means of over- coming their obstinacy. By his monastic emissaries in France, and by those of Abbo and Ranulf, he wrought upon the minds of the French nation, and spread abroad the seeds of dissatisfaction with the king. He also rendered the people anxious with respect to the consequences of that excommunication under which their bishops were labouring. Some of the nobiUty were wrought upon by other considera- tions ; and, in no long time, the king found his whole realm in a state of fermentation which it was not easy to subdue. The popular cry for reconciliation with the pope became urgent ; and the king was at last * Ep. Gerbert. ad Abbat. Miciacensem, — ad Seguinum, — ad Irn- peratricein Adelaidetn (Labbe). 56 COUNCIL OF MOUSON. convinced that he must not shrink from adopting the only method by which he could hope to allay this dangerous excitement. Accordingly, as a first step in this direction, he sent an embassy to Rome with a very respectful letter to the pope.* This letter contained not so much an apology for the late proceedings as a justification of them, with a full statement of the grounds on which they had rested ; but the king made this statement with so much modesty, and also preferred so humble a request for a removal of the sentence which lay against the French bishops, that the epistle could be easily regarded as a formal apology. The king also invited the pope to come to France if he found fiarther examinafcion necessary, promising him an honourable reception in that country. But, instead of a reply, John sent a legate to France, charged to tell the king that he was come to preside over a new council, the first business of which should be to cancel the acts of that of Rheims. It was, however, exceedingly difficult for the French bishops to yield. None of them except the archbishop Gerbert appeared at the council, which the legate assembled at Mouson ;f and Gerbert was present only with a view to contest the papal claims. He regularly defended the proceedings of the Council of Rheims, and declared the invalidity of the decree of suspension issued by the pope against himself and his brother bishops. It was only in com- pliance with the request of some German bishops that he at length agreed, in order to save the dignity of the pope, to abstain for a season from the public celebra- tion of mass, and consented, in the name of his brother * A. D. 994. t Cone. Mosomense, a.d. !)9o. THE KING OF FRANCE YIELDS TO THE POPE. 57 bishops, that the matter in dispute should be referred to a new council to be convened at Rheinis. Before, however, the council met, the new pope, Gregory V., who had been elected upon the death of John XV., had come to an understanding with the king. Hugh Capet having died in the course of this year, his son and successor, Robert, felt the necessity of allaying the uneasiness of the nation by an agreement with the pope. He therefore sent Abbo, abbot of Fleury, as his ambassador to Eome, with full power to treat con- cerning the restoration of Arnulf if necessary, and his representations were such that the pope did not hesi- tate to send a pall for the archbishop, with a legate in whose presence his restoration should take place. The king made no further resistance, but immediately set the imprisoned archbishop at liberty, and the slight opposition which was offered by the bishops at the new Council at Bheims tended only to make the victory of the pontiff more complete. Once more, on this occa- sion, the bishops undertook to show that their proceed- ings in the deposition of Arnulf had been orderly and regular. All turned upon the question whether or not the right of jurisdiction over bishops belonged to the pope alone, or to a council also. The papal preten- sions in this matter, the importance of which were now fully understood, were assailed by the most irrefragable arguments ; but, at length, by the aid of one which was really of no value whatever, they were affirmed and ratified. The French clergy appealed to ancient canons, cited the express decrees of the Nicene, Antiochian, and some African councils, and pleaded the customs of the Church during eight centuries and a large number of incontestable examples ; while in opposition to all this the papal legate only adduced the 58 GREGORY V. Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore, in which all matters relating to bishops were expressly reserved to the judgment of the pope. But the authority of the forged Decretals prevailed. It was declared to be a law of the Church that the office of a judge over bishops be- longed to the pope alone ; and it was accordingly decreed that the deposition of Arnulf by the Council of Rheims was illegal and invalid. The proceedings of that council were, therefore, annulled, Arnulf re- stored, Gerbert deposed, and the papal decree of sus- pension of the French bishops withdrawn. This was a most important victory for the papacy ; especially as being highly seasonable, after the long period of confusion and inactivity, and at the com- mencement of a new dynasty in France. Otho III. was on his journey to Rome, whither he had been invited by John XYL, in order to repress the power of the Roman aristocracy, when he heard of the death of that pontiff. Hereupon he deter- mined to nominate as pope a German, in the person of Bruno, one of his owai chaplains. This nomination he accordingly made; and he caused Bruno to be elected, according to regular form, at Rome. It is probable that the party in Rome which was opposed to Cres- centius and the aristocracy sent intelligence to Otho of the death of John XVI., and at the same time requested him to fix upon a successor. D. 99G. The German pope whom Otho sent to the Romans was accepted by them, and was consecrated under the name of Gregory Y. ; the nearness of Otho, with his army, contributing, perhaps, to make any re- sistance hopeless. The new pope arrived at Rome in the beginning of May, 996 ; and Otho reached the city on the 31st of the same month, when he was Gregory V ROBERT COMPELLED TO DIVORCE BERTHA. 59 crowned with great solemnity. No sooner, how- ever, had the emperor retired to Germany, than Crescentius and his party again obtained the upper hand, expelled the German pontiff, and elected in his room Philagathus, bishop of Placentia, who took the ^y^^^ name of John. Otho lost no time in returning to Rome, in order to suppress these disorders (998), where he was met by the people, who brought out to him the newly-made pope with his nose and ears cut off, and zealously assisted him in besieging the castle of St. Angelo, in which Crescentius and his followers had shut themselves up. Otho soon succeeded in his attack ; Crescentius and twelve of his adherents were beheaded, and Otho had reason to hope that tranquil- lity was now restored and placed on a secure footing. A remarkable instance of papal usurpation and tyranny took place during this pontificate. Robert, king of France, had married, during the life of his father, the princess Bertha, daughter of Conrad, king of Burgundy, and widow of Odo, count of Blois. Robert and Bertha, before marriage, were allied in the fourth degree of consanguinity; and (what was considered worse) Robert had stood godfather to one of the children of Bertha by her first marriage: but the French bishops did not consider these canonical impe- diments such as to present an insuperable barrier to the marriage, which was duly solemnised according to the prescribed forms of the Church. The king, there- fore, had little reason to suppose that any objection would be raised to his marriage by the pope ; and it could not have been without some degi'ee of astonish- ment that he heard that Gregory complained of the illegality of the act to Abbo, abbot of Fleury, whom he had sent as his ambassador to Rome in the matter 60 ROBERT COMPELLED TO DIVORCE BERTHA. of Arnulf. Still more astonished must he have been when tidings reached France that Gregory had brought the matter before a council at Rome, which had de- creed that the marriage was null and void, and required that the parties should separate under pain of excom- munication to both, and should perform a seven years' penance, in order to give satisfaction to the Church for the scandal which had been occasioned ; while the archbishop of Tours, who had pronounced the priestly benediction on the marriage, and all the bishops who had assisted at the ceremony, were suspended from their office until they should have given satisfaction to the holy Roman see. This measure took effect. In- duced by the representations of Abbo, or impelled by some other motives now unknown, the king yielded to the pope's requirement, and put away his queen. Undoubtedly, a considerable accession to papal power must have ensued from the spectacle of a pontiff thus discharging, as was supposed, his duty in upholding the laws of the Church, and, in so doing, exercising an act of immediate jurisdiction over a sovereign, which that sovereign himself unhesitatingly recognised. If, as some suppose, the pope was urged to this measure by the emperor, we have herein an instance of the way in which princes forged papal fetters for themselves. Gregory, it may well be supposed, was devoted to the interests of Germany ; although there is no his- torical proof of a regulation respecting the election of the emperor by the seven electors which is ascribed to him, — nor even of his having connected the imperial crown with the kingdom of Germany, by enacting that the king of Germany, when elected, shonld be always recognised as king of Italy also, and crowned emperor FRESH DISORDERS IX ITALY. 61 by the pope Still, the devotion of Gregory to German interests might have proved detrimental to the power of the papacy, if his pontificate and the reign of Otho had endured for any considerable space of time ; but Gregory died in 999, a young man, after a pontifi- a. d. 999. cate of only three years ; and the death of Otho III. followed in 1002, not, however, until he had given to the Romans another pope in the person of Gerbert, the former archbishop of Rheims, who ascended the papal chair under the title of Silvester II. After the death of Otho III., Henry II. and his successor Conrad II. were too much engaged with the affairs of Germany to take any efficient measures for the support of their authority in Italy ; and although they made several expeditions into that country (a.d. 1005 and a.d. 1013, and afterwards), yet during these two reigns a state of insubordination and dis- order was maintained by the Italian parties who were struggling for power. In Rome itself the old aris- tocratic party soon regained the ascendency ; so that, upon the death of Silvester II. in 1003 (soon after the death of Otho III.), they were able to control the election of his successor. The people may have had some share in the elections of John XVIII. and A.n. 1003. Sergius IV., which followed each other rapidly ; but x"vm in 1012 the aristocratic party found itself strong a. d. 1009. enough to fill the vacant chair with a creature of its ^"^'^'"^ ^^' own in the person of Benedict VIII., who was able a.d. 1012. to maintain his ground not only against another ^^^"f.''^* pontiff (Gregory), who had been elected by the people, but against the king of Germany himself, to whom Gregory had recourse for aid. During the pontificate of Benedict, which lasted twelve years, the power of the aristocratic party became firmly established ; and 62 FRESH DISORDERS IN ITALY. although, in 1024, it was found expedient to pur- chase the majority of votes in favour of Benedict's brother, this was chiefly because an extraordinary obstacle to his election arose from the fact that the A.D. 1024. new candidate was simply a layman. This layman ' ascended the papal chair under the title of John XIX.; and at his death, in 1033, the power of the party had risen to such a height that it encountered no diffi- culty in raising to the pontificate a boy not more than twelve years old. By this act, however, this party paved the way for its own overthrow ; for this boy, Theophylact, having become pope under the title ^Bened'ict^ of Benedict IX., and having disgraced the see by a IX. repetition of those vices and enormities which had prevailed in the time of Sergius III. and John XII., brought on the catastrophe which led to the intro- duction of a new order of things. Under these circumstances the papacy could not but lose much of its dignity and influence. But this evil effect was confined to Italy itself, where the Church had little to dread. Henry was so weak in Germany, that neither himself nor his successor were able to interfere with any effect in the affairs of Italy; and the other states of Europe were at the same time fully engaged with their own internal affairs. At this period the papacy received an unexpected support in the voluntary submission of the Poles to the payment of a tribute to the pope, in return for per- mission to elect Casimir as their sovereign, who had retired to a monastery, and had been ordained deacon. It greatly assisted the development of the idea of the papacy, when it witnessed a newly -christianised nation thus throwing itself at the feet of the pope, and receiving such a favour at his hands. THREE POPES IN ROME. 63 Here, then, was enough to compensate for the loss which the papacy sustained by one of the most scan- dalous events that ever disgraced its history. That event was as follows. About 1043, John, bishop of Sabino, by a process of extensive bribery and corrup- tion, succeeded in driving Benedict out of Rome and obtaining possession of the papal chair under the title of Silvester III. In the course of three months, a.d. i044. however, Benedict gathered around him a sufficient in.YwIth force to enable him to make his way into Rome, and Benedict '' ' JX. and to drive his rival out of the Lateran palace. But GregoryVi. Silvester still maintained himself in Rome ; and Benedict, finding himself unable to hold out success- fully against his power, and fearing a second expul- sion, openly offered the office of pontiff for sale. Having found a purchaser in a certain presbyter, named John, Benedict abdicated in his favour, conse- crated him pope, and gave himpossession of theLateran. But this whole transaction was a mere trick on the part of Benedict. With the money which he had received from John he strengthened his own party; and, having deposed John, he was again acknowledged by his adherents as pope. John, however, obtained posses- sion of one of the churches ; and he had friends enough to enable him to hold out against both Benedict and Silvester. Benedict now perceived that the three parties were pretty equally balanced; and he suc- ceeded in persuading his two rivals to enter into an agreement with him, by which all three should retain the pontifical title, and divide among them the revenues of the papal see. This contract was not only made, but carried into execution ; and throughout the year 1045 Europe witnessed the spectacle of three popes disgracing the papal chair, 64 HENRY III. IN ITALY. and rivaling each other in the most disgraceful acts of vice. So gross and scandalous a state of things could not, however, be long endured. From all sides the new king of Germany, Henry III., was called upon to hasten to Italy, and to rescue the Church from its degradation. In 1046 he found himself in a con- dition to undertake this enterprise ; and the prospect of his approach sufficed to give a new turn to the state of affairs. The crafty Benedict, foreseeing the result likely to ensue, sold his share of the pontificate to Gratian, the archpriest of St. John ante portam Latinam, and then, honestly abdicating, retired into a monastery. The purchaser, Gregory VL, was wise enough not to enter into any compact with the two rival pontiffs : he pronounced them unjust usurpers, who had intruded themselves while Benedict was the lawful pope ; and declared himself to be his only true successor. He hoped that by this means the emperor would be induced to declare on his behalf, as having the best claim ; and he sent to him, while he was yet on his march to Italy, announcing his own succession to the papal chair, and entreating the emperor to hasten his arrival at Rome. Henry, however, had already determined on a different course of proceeding. No sooner had the emperor arrived in Italy than he convened a large council at Sutri, to pass a decree respecting the popedom, which he undertook to carry into effect. To this council he invited Gregory VI.; and to him the presidency was accorded without hesi- tation, no one objecting to a form of proceeding by which, in the first instance, the two other popes were to be declared usurpers. No sooner, however, had this sentence been passed, than the emperor, to COUNCIL OF SUTRT. — CLEMENT II. 65 Gregory's astonishment, demanded of him an account of the means by which he had procured his appoint- ment ; and Gregory, not being able to deny that he had bought the popedom from Benedict, was deposed. It now became manifest that the emperor had left Germany with the design of his predecessor Otho III. to have a German pope. He had even fixed upon the man, and brought him with him, — Suidger, bishop of Bamberg, whom he caused to be elected by the council, and then conducted him into E-ome, under the title of Clement II. The two pretenders a. d, io4g. had already disappeared, and Henry took Gregory with him into Germany. Was it not to be feared that now the popes would become totally dependent upon the emperor ? And yet they were these very measures of the emperor which systematically introduced the period in which the popes arrived at the summit of their power. But before we proceed to a survey of these events, we must take a glance at the internal history of the Church, and. the progress of the Papacy, during the course of events which have already passed under review in the present chapter. Before the end of the ninth century attempts had been made to restrain civil rulers in their right of appointing to bishoprics ; but it must be remarked that the Church, while proceeding in this direc- tion, was impelled by disinterested motives, and supported by sufficient grounds. In the Frankish monarchy, Charlemagne and Louis the Pious had restored the old method of electing bishops, and had reserved to themselves only the right of confirming VOL. 11. F 66 POWER OF THE STATE, AND OF THE POPE, the election. In numberless cases, however, the suc- cessors of Charlemagne violated this arrangement ; and for one bishop whose election was really left free twenty others were appointed by the mere will of the sovereign. The Church, therefore, according to the established theory, found herself justified in insisting upon the freedom of election, and maintaining it against the invasion of the civil power as often and as far as possible. No attempt was made to dispute or disturb the principle that bishops could not be appointed against the will, or without the consent, of the sovereign ; and every one newly elected was accordingly presented to the king for confirmation before his consecration. Even the formularies em- ployed on these occasions have come down to us*, and, although it was felt that this custom afforded to the sovereign an opportunity of influencing the elec- tions, and interfering with their freedom, still no idea was entertained of altering the system, or denying to the prince the exercise of what was regarded as a clear and indisputable right. In the history of the ninth century, however, we find at the same time indications of a design to exclude sovereign princes from all power in the election of bishops except that indirect influence which they thus possessed through their right of confirmation. The elections were conducted in a very orderly and formal manner, but so as to appropriate the right of election to metropolitans and provincial councils, to the exclusion of the laity.* Various attempts were made to establish the regula- tion that each bishop should be elected only from the church over which he Avas to preside ; and it is niani- * This design was openly avowed at a Council of Langres, a.d. 850. IN THE APPOINTMENT OF BISHOPS. 67 fest that if this point had been carried many tempta- tions would have been removed by which sovereigns were, from time to time, induced to interfere in these elections. And to deprive them of every pretext for such interference, a special right of devolution had been invented in France as early as the time of Hincmar, by which, in all cases in which a Church had made a disorderly use of its privilege of election, there should be no interposition of the sovereign, but the election was to rest with the metropolitan and the provincial council. We find, also, that a Coun- cil of Valence,* a. d. 855, issued a strict charge to metropolitans to be very careful in the examina- tions of new bishops presented to them for confirma- tion, and unhesitatingly to reject those who should be found to be incompetent, even if presented by the king, — another regulation which, if carried out, would evidently have operated as a beneficial check upon the abuse involved in royal nominations. There is no certain trace during this period of any idea of giving the pope an influence in the appoint- ment of bishops, with a view to counteract the in- fluence of sovereigns or the civil power. Some cases are recorded in which, as a matter of fact, the popes did interfere ; others also occur in which they for- mally interposed on such occasions ; and some are on record in which they were invited by the Church itself to interfere. But the first class of these cases took place almost always under special circum- stances, in cases of foregoing notorious irregularity, or on occasion of disputed elections ; and the others, for the most part, only when papal approbation or decision was sought on account of some extraordinary * Cone. Valentin. 3, A. D. 855, can. 7. F 2 68 POWER OF THE STATE, AND OF THE POPE, or not strictly regular proceedings, e.g. in the case of a translation, or when the former bishop had been deposed by the pope. In cases of this kind it some- times occurred that even sovereigns had recourse to the pope ;* while, more than once, we find a pope still recognising the competence of the king to fill up the vacant sees in his dominions, and even calling upon sovereigns not to neglect this part of their duty ; and we hear one pontiff during this period (John X.) most solemnly declaring that no bishop could be insti- tuted against the will of his sovereign. Little, however, was really effected by all the efforts made to limit the power of the sovereign in appointing to the highest offices of the Church. Until the middle of the eleventh century the ancient custom of royal nomination to bishoprics was retained, only under various modifications, in Germany, France, and England. In Germany, where, from the time of the Othos, the kings no longer considered them- selves bound by the institutions of Charlemagne and the capitularies of the Frankish monarchs, the elec tion of a bishop scarcely ever took place ; the king- simply nominated, and announced in a decree to the clergy whom they were to accept as bishop, and to the metropolitans whom they were to consecrate. In Frg^nce it was the custom, upon the resignation or death of a bishop, to request the sovereign to give permission to the Church and clergy to elect a suc- cessor; but it was maintained at court that it was always at the option of the king either to accede to this request, or himself to nominate: so that, when a court chaplain or other favourite was at hand, the Church received, instead of an answer, the newly- * Thus Charles the Bald applied to John VIII. (Labbe). IN THE APPOINTMENT OF BISHOPS. 69 appointed bishop; and this was, in fact, the ordinary method of appointment. As to the so-called election of bishops in the English Church, — an election which, according to rule, was to take place in the presence of the king, — we may judge what occurred by the frequent complaints made on this subject to the popes during the ninth and tenth centuries.* On the whole, the power of the crown in this matter was, in point of fact, unlimited. If a metropolitan ventured to reject the nominee of a sovereign on the ground of unfitness, he was usually obliged to give way. As long as the appointment of bishops thus rested in the crown, it was not to be expected that the Church could become independent of the State. During this period, however, some efforts were made, not wholly without success, to diminish the influence of the State over the proceedings of provincial councils, and hence over the course of ecclesiastical legislation. At the end of the ninth century, it was the custom that no provincial council could be convened without the consent of the king ; this was, indeed, a recognised principle of ecclesiastical law : it was also considered requisite to give previous notice to the king of matters to be treated of in the council when assembled ; a principle recognised by Nicholas I. in his application to Charles the Bald, a. d. 867, f for permission to the French bishops to meet in council on matters relating to his controversy with Photius, patriarch of Constantinople. Examples to the same etfect occur also in the tenth century. During this whole period, the French sovereigns were often * See Epist. Lconis IV. ad Epiwcopos Britanuifo (Labbe). t Nicol. I. Ep. ad Carolum Calvum ; and sec Council of Laiigres, A. D. 859, can. 7. 70 THE STATE LOSES POWER OYER COUNCILS. present at these councils, presided over their deli- berations, and confirmed their decrees, even when the matters under debate were of a purely spiritual nature.* In Germany, the larger assemblies of* bishops usually fell in with the diets, or the king; summoned the bishops at the same time as the tem- poral estates, on which occasion they met in a sepa- rate chamber, where all ecclesiastical affairs were discussed in the first instance.! But still the in- fluence of the crown was unimpaired as long as the sanction of the sovereign was necessary in order to the validity of synodal action. So also, in the gradually restored Spanish Church, the first large council convened after a long lapse of time, — that of Oviedo, under Alfonso III., — was attended by the grandees of the kingdom, who subscribed together with the bishops. But symptoms of an approaching change in the relations between the ecclesiastical and civil power were now beginning to appear. During the tenth century the custom of seeking royal permission for the holding of provincial councils began to be discon- tinued.! Not only in the history of the English Church, which attained great power during this cen- tury, but also in that of the Church in Germany, we find that several councils were held without know- ledge and permission of the sovereign. And it availed little to concede to sovereigns the right of assembling their bishops in council, if at the same time * E. g. mider Charles the Bald ; and see Council of St. Macra, (Firaes), a.d. 881, under Louis the Stammerer. + See Acts of the Council of Tribur, A. D. 895, and those of an earlier Council of Mayence, a. d. 847, under the Archbishop Rabanus Maurus. X Council of Trosley, a. d. 909. THE STATE LOSES POWER OVER COUNCILS. 71 the bishops assumed the right to meet when they ■^pleased without being so convened. Still, however, although the bishops met sometimes of their own accord, they were obliged to have re- course to the sovereign in order that their acts might possess any validity. By degrees, however, a change took place, even in this respect, which eventually in- volved loss to the civil power. Towards the middle of the tenth century, or rather earlier, the regular business of provincial synods suffered great interruption. The bishops generally desired to be excused from attendance upon these assemblies, and hence the institution once more de- clined. At all events, the ancient regulation that a provincial council should be held annually, at some given time, fell into general disuse. Such councils were now convened only on special occasions, and those occasions were carefully avoided ; so that in many a metropolitan province a council was held hardly once in twenty years. Hence the State had fewer opportunities than for- merly of exercising its constitutional power in Church matters, and in taking an effective part in ecclesias- tical legislation. But it was not at first that the whole loss which it suffered in this way could reveal itself. It was only by degrees that the part which the State had taken in ecclesiastical affairs through the councils was forgotten ; it was gradually, also, that another method of transacting ecclesiastical affairs was introduced, in which the necessity of State inter- ference was not recognised; and then, before men were aware, the civil authority in Church matters was altogether ignored and set aside. This could never have happened — or, at all events, not without 72 POPES GAIN POWER OVER COUNCILS. a struggle, — if the old practice had been maintained by which the bishops assembled every year under' permission of the sovereign. The State was again a still greater loser by the progress of that influence over Church councils which was claimed, and soon obtained, by the popes. Whether or not this was the result of a systematic design on their part, certain it is that their attain- ment of this influence is an important phenomenon in the history of the constitution of the Church. The early pontiffs of this period appear to have given a hearty welcome to that doctrine of the forged Decretals by which the right of convening General Councils was assigned exclusively to the Roman see, and all their decrees required confirmation by papal authority. Nicholas I. evinced a disposition to act upon this new assumption ;* but he was thwarted in his attempt. For a century afterwards no pope at- tempted to summon foreign bishops to Rome by his own authority,! except in cases of appeal, or when otherwise such bishops were required as parties in some judicial process. But it was now frequently the case that larger or smaller assemblies of bishops met, at the instance of the pope, within the borders of his own dominions. Either the pope despatched a legate to these assemblies to act on his behalf, or issued a commission to one of the bishops of the pro- vince, with power to decide a cause or settle a contro- versy in conjunction with his fellow-bishops ; and although it was regular to send a notice of such pro- ceedings to the sovereign, still such notice lost more * Nicol. I. Ep. 27. t Perhaps with some slight exceptions iu the pontificate of John VIII. CLERICAL IMMUNITIES. 73 and more the form of a request. Imperceptibly the form of a simple communication was introduced; princes themselves gradually forgot that they had ever had anything more to do than to receive such communication ; and this practice soon extended itself to whatever was done and decreed at these assemblies. Acting under the authority of the pope, the members of those councils believed that there was no occasion for the interference of the civil ruler; and if the subject of deliberation was a question of right, or affected only private interest, it was not judged necessary even to send a report of the pro- ceedings to a civil tribunal. In this way such com- munications gradually fell into disuse ; and the civil power failed to retain its influence over the Church by making a wise use of the acknowledged re- mainder of its privileges in assembling councils at its own pleasure. Attempts were now made from time to time to give full effect to those ancient canons by which the clergy were to be regarded as in all cases exempt from the jurisdiction of the civil courts ; * but al- though, perhaps, during the tenth century, some slight advance was made towards the attainment of this object, still, on the whole, while the theory of clerical immunity was admitted in general, this ad- mission was attended with so many exceptions and limitations that in practice it amounted to but little. The bishops were suffered to take cognisance of eccle- siastical offences committed by their clergy, and to decide in suits in which both parties were ecclesi- * Cone. Mogunt., a. d. «88, can. 83 ; Cone. Viennens., a. u. 892, c. 21 ; Nicolai I. Resp. ad Con.sultat. Bulgaroi-. (Labbc). 74 EXEMPTIONS OF CHURCH PROPERTY. astics ; but with respect to all civil suits in which the laity were involved, and concerning all crimes of the clergy against the State, judgment was given in the civil courts ; although, indeed, from fear of the bishops, who possessed great wealth and influence, men were often indisposed to proceed against the clergy at all. At the same time the bishops themselves were not exempt, and never claimed (or, perhaps, on the whole, never even desired, during this period) to be exempt from the jurisdiction of the sovereign ; but the principle was now affirmed that no bishop could be deposed without the assent of twelve of his peers to the sentence,* perhaps with an opportunity of appealing to the pope ; and the French bishops applied to Nicholas I. for his assist- ance in establishing the still further privilege that no bishop should be deposed without previous notice to the holy see. But instances occurred during the tenth and eleventh centuries in which the sovereign power of the State inflicted punishment upon delin- quent bishops without regard to such restrictions. All those modifications and limitations respecting the exemption of Church property from taxation and tribute, which had been established under the Frankish monarchy, continued in force during this period ; so that, in fact, ecclesiastical property bore all these burdens in common with all other property, except that there was an imnumity in favour of that portion of land which constituted the fundus, or foundation, which every church was bound by law to possess.'}" At the same time the bishops complained heavily * Leo IV. Ep. ad Epi.scopos Britannias (Labbc) ; Cone. Tribur. c. 10, A. D. 89(). t Cone. Meldense (Meaux), a. d. 845, can. G3. EXEMPTIONS OF CHURCH PROPERTY. 75 of the outlay involved in the obligation to entertain the sovereign during a royal progress through their dioceses, which was an event of no unfrequent oc- currence.* And it is worthy of remark that not only the Franco-German Churches acknowledged their liability to taxation, but that during this period even the English Church recognised its duty to contribute to the necessities of the State, notwith- standing the influence which was attained by Dun- stan (in the tenth century), as archbishop of Canter- bury, under two weak monarchs. Attempts to change the ancient custom in this respect were, however, not altogether wanting.f Nor would it have been easy to claim effectually the exemption of Church property from tribute and impost as long as it was held by feudal tenure. The feudal system was probably brought to its perfection and generally established throughout the West during the latter half of the ninth century. The owners of landed property, whether large or small, now for the most part sought the protection of this system ; and the bishops, with others, thus became feudal tenants, or vassals, of the king, with respect to their temporal possessions. It now became at once the duty and the interest of the sovereign to protect those posses- sio ns from rapacity and violence ; but, at the same time, it is evident that this relation of feudal lord gave the sovereign a new and powerful hold upon the bishops. It was probably during the tenth century * Ep. of French bishops to Louis, king of Germany, A. D. 858 (Labbe) ; Cone. Mekl. a.d. 845. t See the first of the constitutions of Odo, archbishop of Canter- bury, A. D. 943. Subsequently, in 1098, Anselm, of Canterbury, although he granted a subsidy to the king, declared to his clergy that he felt himself bound to pa}^ it out of his private pi-opcrty. 76 INVESTITURE OF BISHOPS. that the bishops entered into these feudal relations which were formally declared and recognised by the newly-introduced ceremony of episcopal investitures. It now became customary that every newly-elected or newly-nominated bishop should receive from the king, previously to his consecration, the property and regalia which belonged to his bishopric. This delivery of the fief, called investiture, was transacted, accord- ing to the customs of the age, by the symbolical act of delivering to the bishop a crosier and a ring, as the insignia of his office. The precise date of the introduction of this ceremony of investiture cannot be fixed ; but it is certain that no traces of it are found before the beginning of the tenth century, and that, at the end of that century, or certainly at the beginning of the eleventh, it universally prevailed. And here it is to be observed that, although the State acquired in this way no new claims, it certainly obtained a fresh means of enforcing its claims, whether with reference to payment of tribute or otherwise. And hence, perhaps, we may best account for the fact that from this time we find bishops frequently giving per- sonal attendance upon the kings in their campaigns. It therefore became more impossible than ever for a bishop to be elected and maintained in his see in opposition to the will of the king, his feudal lord, by whom he was to be formally invested with his pro- perty and jurisdiction. It was but for the sovereign to refuse investiture, and the election of a bishop of whom he did not approve was rendered nugatory. The bishops indeed began now strongly to insist upon their character and claims as lords spiritual, together M'ith those which they })ossessed as lords temporal. They denied that, as bishops, they were vassals of the HIGH CLAIMS OF THE BISHOPS. 77 king ;* as representatives of the Church they claimed to possess a power entirely independent of the State. God, they said, had divided the government of the world between priests and kings, and neither party ought to interfere with the functions of the other ; and not only so, but of these two powers, the priestly is evidently higher than the regal.f Kings, therefore, could in no case claim jurisdiction over bishops in their priestly character ; but bishops did possess a spiritual jurisdiction over kings, being fully entitled to admo- nish them concerning their duty, and to inflict eccle- siastical censures and penalties upon them in case of delinquency. From the circumstance that kings were anointed by the hands of the priest, the bishops claimed indirectly the power of making kings ; it being from God that kings received their authority, not without the intervention of his instruments, the priests. It was held that the anointing and coronation of a prince was not merely a ceremony of introduction or conse- cration to the regal dignity, but an act by which such dignity or power was first conveyed to the prince by God, and an act which none but a bishop could per- form : on these principles, at the end of the tenth century, the just claims of Charles of Lorraine to the crown of France were opposed by the declaration that God, by his judgment (i. e. by the judgment of the bishops), had selected one more worthy, in the person of Hugh Capet. I And it is worthy of remark that, during the period between his election and anointing, * Epistola Episcoporum e synodo apud Carisiacum, missa ad Ludovicum regem Germanise (Labbe). t See Council of St. Macra (hod. Fimes) a. D. 881. + " Regnum accipere non potuit Carolus, quia deus suo judicio ineliorem elegit ;" see Rec. des Hist, de France, torn. 8, p. 307. 78 HIGH CLAIMS OF THE BISHOPS. Hugh Capet did not assume the title of king, but only of king elect, or future king.* These principles also prevailed in England to such an extent that, in 975, Dunstan and his bishops made a king by their own authority. The majority of the English nobility de- sired to raise to the throne another prince of the royal blood, contending that, according to the constitution, they possessed the right of election, and were not bound to hand over the crown to the eldest son of the previous monarch. The bishops did not dispute this principle ; and, while they favoured the eldest prince, Edward, they did not insist upon his birthright, but they elected him king, and pretended that the nation was bound to acknowledge him in virtue of this elec- tion. They claimed, therefore, an independent right of election, as bishops ; a right which they might ex- ercise indeed in concurrence with the temporal estates, but which was also sufficient to suspend or nullify their decision. We find also that the English bishops pro- nounced sentence of excommunication against their sovereigns several times in the course of the tenth cen- tury. The French and German bishops did not at this time proceed to such lengths ; but they did insist upon the great respect due to their spiritual character, and on one occasion they made a loud remonstrance against being called upon to take the oath of allegiance in the ordinary way, on the ground of its being dero- gatory to their priestly dignity.f Doubtless, a con- cession on this point would soon have been turned to good account. But no such concession was made. And we find that Ilincmar of Eheims was after- wards obliged to renew his oath, with the customary * Diploma Hugonis Capeti, ap. Mabillon de Re diplomat, p. 575. t 111 their Epistle to Louis of Germany, a. d. 858. HIGH CLAIMS OF THE BISHOPS. 79 observances, when his fidelity had become subject to suspicion.* In all the nations of Europe it was a settled maxim that the bishops, as spiritual barons, constituted the first estate of the realm, taking precedence of all tem- poral barons. Consequently, in proportion as the in- fluence of the latter increased, the bishops received a corresponding elevation ; the advancement of the lower order of itself raising up that which, was confessedly and always superior to it in dignity. And when, in the course of the tenth and eleventh centuries, the temporal dukedoms and earldoms became hereditary, the bishops endeavoured in various ways to indemnify themselves for the disadvantage which they thus en- countered, sometimes by inducing the sovereigns to endue them with the character of viceroys in their respective dioceses, and sometimes by grasping at several dioceses and uniting them, so as to possess an overwhelming amount of wealth and extent of terri- torial influence. These things took place while the power of the barons was an overmatch for that of the crown •, but, as soon as the crown recovered its influ- ence, the bishops also were restrained within their former bounds. They were glad, indeed, to place themselves in a state of almost servile dependence upon the crown for protection and safety ; and it was not long before the greater number of the .French bishops found themselves stripped of nearly all the greater regalia which they had possessed during the present period. In Germany, however, it was the policy of the kings to cherish the political power and influence of the bishops, as a check upon the temporal * Juramentum, quod Hiucmarus Arch, edei'e jussus est aim. 876 (Labbe). 80 ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE. nobles. They gave them even the rank of counts in their dioceses ; bestowed upon them many of the re- galia which had been formerly granted to none but dukes ; and even granted them some whole dukedoms. At the same time they gave many dioceses to their own sons and relatives ; and thus had one more reason for maintaining episcopal dignity and influence. Hence it was that the German bishops became different from the bishops of all other countries, and were exalted to a rank of temporal dignity such as they nowhere else possessed. But these prince-bishops lost their spiritual influence in proportion as they gained temporal ad- vancement. The bishops still held in their hands one powerftil means of exercising control over the aflairs of ordinary life, and even of influencing affairs of state, in the ad- ministration of spiritual discipline, or the infliction of ecclesiastical punishments upon laymen. And this power was more effectually wielded during this period than in any former ages of the Church. Formerly, indeed, no one disputed the right of bishops to administer the censures, or to inflict the penalties, prescribed by the Church ; but there was a great want of means at their disposal whereby they could compel a criminal to undergo the penance de- nounced, and many considerations arose to prevent them from proceeding to extremities, even with such as were within their power. Their last resource was a sentence of excommunication, or exclusion from public worship and the benefits of Christian communion ; but it was well known that ninety-nine offenders out of a hundred were disposed to make no account of a sen- tence such as this. It became therefore a matter of ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE. 81 prudence not to be too lavish with sentences of ex- communication ; and such a course was even enjoined upon the bishops by the wiser pontiffs, lest ecclesiasti- cal authority should fall into contempt. A plan was therefore devised, from about the beginning of this period, for calling in the aid of the temporal power in order to enforce the sentences of the Church;* and this duty was accordingly imposed upon the chief magistrates of every district ; especially they were re- quired to enforce the infliction of ecclesiastical penalties in matters of which the civil courts took no cognisance, e. g., matters of adultery and divorce. In this way, however, but little was gained. The civil power was not always forward with its help. The power of magistrates extended only over the lower classes of the people, or was at all events formidable only to them. Knights and others, and even the vassals of a powerful knight, easily found means to escape the penalties imposed ; and, even when they were within reach of the law, the magistrate hesitated to proceed against them, unless they had other grounds besides the bishop's sentence. And by whom could the magistrates themselves, with the higher nobility, dukes, and kings, be compelled to submit to the discipline of the Church, unless they could be persuaded to do so of their own accord, or through fear of future punish- ment? A distinction was accordingly now made between simple excommunication, and the ban or anathema ; the latter not being, like excommunication, the mere deprivation of privileges, but consisting in the pronunciation of a positive curse, involving, as was supposed, no less than condemnation in the eternal * Council of Mayence, a. d. 847, c. 28 ; Convention of Coblentz, A. D. SCO ; Council of Tribur, a. d. 896, c. 8. VOL. II. G 82 EXCOMMUNICATION AND ANATHEMA. world, in addition to the disadvantage, or loss of present privileges, contained in excommunication. An intro- duction to this distinction was made as early as the ninth century, the threat being now held out to cer- tain criminals that, in case of contumacy, they should be visited not only with excommunication, but also with the anathema* of the Church. It was assumed that these ecclesiastical curses or anathemas were fully ratified in heaven ; and forms of imprecation the most tremendous were adopted in order to strike terror into the minds of the disobedient. It had been hitherto supposed that exclusion from the Church, or excommunication, involved a curse; and the present system consisted in a separation of what had been before combined under one idea. By this means was established a gradation of punishment, enabling the Church to be sparing (as was necessary) in her infliction of the heaviest penalties, and to em- ploy the threat of infliction by way of terror, rather than to bring those penalties into contempt by actually visiting them upon offenders who were indifferent to their effects. This threat, if it made no impression upon the offender himself^ was likely to be useful in its eff'ect upon the minds of others ; and when the Church did not choose to execute it in the case of some powerful or incorrigible criminal, she could at all events claim the credit of long-suffering and compassion. The bishops, at the same time, sought to connect civil disadvantages or penalties with their anathemas. Hence they endeavoured to propagate a belief that every one who had fallen under this ecclesiastical sentence was incompetent to discharge any civil oflfice, * Council of Pavia, A. D. 850, can. 12 ; Adrian II. in an Epistle to the nobles of Lorraine (Labbe). THE INTERDICT. 83 or to take part in military service ; a principle which was formally established as law by a council at Pavia, A.D. 850.* Besides this, it was understood that an excommunicated person could not be admitted as a party in a suit before an ecclesiastical tribunal, nor could be received as witness in any Church court ; and that he could not entrust a will to the custody of the Church, or prove a will by the regular forma- lities. In certain cases he was deprived of the benefits of a civil court, being incapable of taking an oath. He could not marry, for no priest could pronounce the necessary benediction. He could not become a tenant of any Church property. His remains could not be buried in consecrated ground ; a penalty of which an offender might be personally careless, but one which was felt to involve a standing disgrace to all the members of his family. The ban of the Church was therefore no imaginary terror ; it involved, when carried out, real inconvenience and loss. But still the question remained, how to deal with the more powerful offenders ? And before the close of this period, an expedient was devised which was capable of reaching them, and was indeed especially adapted to make the weight of Church authority and censure felt in high quarters. This was the so-called Interdict ; which was not employed with a distinct view to the object now stated until the tenth and eleventh centu- ries, although some traces of it may be found as early as the ninth. When a crime had been committed against the Church, for which no satisfaction could be obtained on account of the power of some haughty offender, or for any other reason, then the bishop })ut the whole ♦ Council of Pavia, a. D. 850, can. 12. G 2 84 THE INTERDICT. place in which the offender lived, or the whole district to which that place belonged, under an interdict, — that is to say, he caused all offices of public worship to cease or be suspended. All the churches of that place were closed, and all relics which they contained were withdrawn from public view ; all crucifixes and images of the saints were shrouded ; no bells were rung ; no sacraments were administered ; no corpse was buried in consecrated ground 5 and notice had been given that this state of things would be contiimed until the demands of the Church should have been fully satisfied, and the alleged injury repaired. By this means such a ferment was raised in a whole popu- lation that even the most powerful were at length obliged to yield. The first attempt at an interdict, made in the ninth century, appears to have been a complete failure. It was made, without sufficient precaution or consideration, by Hincmar of Laon, in 869, in the course of his dispute with Charles the Bald : but his sentence was reversed by his own metropolitan.* A second weak attempt, also involving a failure, was made by pope John VIII., a.d. 878, against Lambert, duke of Spoleto, when the pontiff caused the high altar of St. Peter's to be shrouded, and the church itself closed ; but this was not done till Lambert had quitted the city ; — and, when afterwards John himself left Rome, it seems likely that the altar and the church were speedily thrown open, and the interdict was at an end. The most striking effect of an inter- dict, during this period, was in the case of that pro- nounced by Gregory V., in 998, against the whole French nation, by which he is said to have compelled * Hiiicinar. Klioinciis. Ej). I ;ul Triiiciiiar. TaoikIuii. (Lalibe). CHURCH INFLUENCE UPON CIVIL LEGISLATION. 85 the divorce of king Robert from his queen Bertha. And some stronger instances occurred during the eleventh century. This punishment sparingly applied, was of great power ; especially when it was ordained that the interdict should not be taken off, until all loss which the clergy might have sustained by it should be repaired.* More beneficial was the influence of the Church upon the general administration of criminal law, and the course of legislation ; nor was it the fault of the Church that it did not work still more extensive benefit in this direction. There were certain civil causes of which the bishops took cognisance'in their spiritual capacity, while others were brought before them in their character of temporal lords ; and in those ages the episcopal courts were favourably distinguished from the civil by their character for superior justice and moderation. The Church was at this time re- garded also as possessing, by Divine right, not only a kind of censorship over the administration of justice by the civil magistrate, but also a supervision of the course of legislation, being charged with the duty of suggesting and promoting improvements in existing laws and institutions. Hence the introduction of the well known Treuga Dei, which contributed largely to quell the animosities and subdue the ferocity of a barbarous age. In this way also some limits were set to the abuse of oaths in courts of justice ;t and a wholesome check was given to the practice of judicial 0^^^~- combats. J More indirectly, yet still more extensively, the Church exercised a most beneficial influence upon * Cone. Lemovic. (Limoges) 2; Mabillou, Auual. t. 4, p. 301. t Couucil of Valence, a. D. 855, can. 11. J lb. can. 12. 86 RELATIONS BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE. the age by its management of the system of ordeals This system, which, perhaps, the Church was itself unable very speedily to suppress, it did, however, control, ill its own way, very often for the protection of innocence, and very often also for the saving of human life ; until at length the Church was foremost in denouncing the unreasonableness and folly of the system, and contributing to its final abolition. Not yet had the ancient relations between Church and State been so inverted, as for the State to be subordinate to the Church, or dependent upon it ; and it is easy to perceive why matters had not proceeded thus far. As long as the State could influence the Church from so many quarters, — and as long as sove- reigns retained power by the part which they took in the appointment of bishops, by their influence upon councils, and especially by their feudal superiority over the bishops, — means could not be wanting with which effectually to meet and counteract the efforts of the Church for supremacy. It was indeed asserted as a theory that the Church and the priesthood were superior in dignity to the State and royalty, and this theory was even to a certain extent admitted ; but the Church, so far from having been able to reduce this theory to practice, did not even attain a complete independence of the State. The representatives of the Church appear to have been fully sensible that this independence could not be attained while so many points of contest between Church and State were suffered to remain ; for throughout the next period they laboured at the rehioval of these im])ediments with a zeal and a stedfast determination which dis- closed their consciousness of a clearly-defined object. POWER OP THE BISHOPS. 87 Notwithstanding all the regulations made in pre- ceding ages for the consolidation of the hierarcho- monarchical power of the bishops, it was still found needful during the present period to adopt further measures for the more effectual attainment of this end. For this purpose the new principles contained in the forged Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore, by which the bishops might be placed beyond the reach of their clergy, were brought into practical operation. In the acts of the several councils at the end of the ninth century and the beginning of the tenth, we find a dis- tinct and systematic embodiment of principles scat- tered up and down these Decretals respecting the course of judicial proceedings against bishops. That a bishop could be judged only by twelve of his peers, — that he could not be condemned upon the testimony of less than seventy-two witnesses of unquestionable character, — and that he could not be accused by a presbyter,* — all this was unquestionably derived from the false Decretals, together with the principle that no sentence could be pronounced upon a bishop by any other tribunal when once he had appealed to the pope. This latter arrangement, while it tended to increase the power and dignity of the pontiffs, promised still greater benefits to the bishops ; so much so that it has been thought to have formed one great part of the design of the forgery to deliver the bishops from the power of the metropolitans, and at the same time to place them further than ever above the reach of proceedings originating with the inferior clergy. The practical result of this measure, however, was not to increase the despotic power of the bishops ; the pope ♦ Council of Mayence, a. d, 888, can. 12 ; Council of Tribur, a. d, 895, c. 10. 88 POWER OF THE BISHOPS. being found not more, but rather less, disposed than the metropolitans to show partiality in their favour : but at the same time additional weight was given to their legitimate authority by the assertion of powers which really belonged to them in the exercise of discipline over their clergy. It appears that in some places the presbyters made attempts to take into their own hands the exercise of episcopal functions.* It is evident also, from the frequent enactment of laws against the clerici acephali, that the bishops found trouble arising from the great number of clergy who were not regularly settled in parochial cures. Many of these were the domestic chaplains of noblemen or private gentlemen, who abounded in that age, and often set the bishop and his authority at defiance. Others were clergy who wandered about from place to place without any fixed duty, having received vague ordination ; — a practice which had been introduced in the seventh centurv in order to assist the work of missions, and had been continued and extended by the fault of tlie bishops themselves, on various pretences, but not without giving rise to a suspicion that in the needless multi- plication of ordinations som.e regard was had to the ordination-fee, — for such fees were paid in the eighth century, and contributed to swell the revenues of the bishops. From the middle of the ninth century canons were frequently made, and various measures adopted, with a view to remedy this grievance.f But no effectual remedy was found until the bishops re- * A. D. 868, Cone. Wormat., can. 8. t Cone. Wormat., a. d. 868, e. 18, 62 ; Cone. Nannetens., c. 1 1 ; Cone. Mcklcns., a. ». 845, e. 43 ; Cone, Roman., a d. 5)83 ; Cone. Tici- iicns., a. d. 855. CLERICAL CELIBACY. 89 solved to al)andon the practice of these vague (abso- lutge) ordinations, and to adhere strictly to the practice of the ancient Church. To this decision they did at length come ;* but the more modern practice had be- come too deeply rooted to be entirely removed, and we find that at the end of the tenth century it conti- nued extensively to prevail. f Efforts were continually made during this period to enforce the celibacy of the clergy : but the law was in many cases relaxed in favour of those ecclesiastics who had married before ordination ; and, so far as it was enforced, it led to immoralities and disorders of a fearful kind, exceeding in some instances the offences attending the prevailing system of concubinage, — a system under which the ecclesiastic who had only one concubine was regarded as a demi-saint.j It is an error to suppose that the marriage of the clergy was now formally permitted, or that it received legal sanction. In particular instances it was connived at, but that was all. The laws against it were never abrogated, and were in fact frequently renewed. It might have been supposed that the Church would willingly have relaxed her discipline on this point in order to avoid the scandal arising from the gross immoralities to which it led ; and that, even if it clung to the ascetic doctrine concerning the supe- rior dignity and purity of a state of celibacy, so as to regard the legalising of marriage among the clergy as an evil, still it would have made this concession with a view to avoid what it may well have regarded as a * Cone. Ravennat., a.d. 877, c. 14. t Mabillon., Aunal. torn. 4, p. 134. t Hincmar's Regulations for the Clergy of his Province (Labbe) ; Cone. Worraat., a. d. 868, c. 9 ; Cone. Nanuetens., A. D. 888. 90 CHURCH PROPERTY. still greater evil. But the Church continued to regard the marriage of the clergy as the greater evil, greater than clerical celibacy with all its enormities ; and it seems to have considered that this question involved that of the preservation of Church property. It was found that married clergy saved a provision for their children out of their clerical incomes, and even that there was a tendency to appropriate benefices as family property ; and it was foreseen that in this way the Church would lose considerable hold upon property which would be thus more or less diverted to secular purposes. This motive was in fact broadly stated by Benedict VIII, at the Council of Pavia in 1012 or 1022.* The property of the Church was exposed to spolia- tion from powerful neighbours, such as dukes and barons, who, whenever they fixed their regards upon an ecclesiastical estate, easily contrived to make a quarrel, and then proceeded to seize the desired pos- session by force of arms. Against such invaders it was in vain that the Church thundered sentences of excommunication and of ban ;f in vain did the bishops of several provinces enter into a confederation in order to give greater weight to their denunciations and anathemas "4 in vain did they even call for and obtain dehortations and inhibitions from the pope.^ At length the bishops resolved to defend their property by the intervention of legal protectors and advisers, whose advocacy was costly, and who in * Cone. Ticin., a.d. 1012 or 1022. t Cone. Tullcnse. 2, a, d. 860, c. 4, and Epist. synod. ; Cone. Valentin. 3, c. 8. J Epistola syn. Parisiens. ad Ducem Nomeneiuin (Labbc) ; Cone. Valentin. 3. c. 13 ; Cone. Trieasain. 2, a. d. 878, e. 4. § Nieolai I. Ej). ad Aquitanos (Labbe). CHURCH PROPERTY. 91 course of time learnt to act in some cases rather as owners of the property than as its guardians. No real security could be obtained for Church property until the law became strong enough to protect it. More effectual were the measures taken during this period for protecting Church property from alienation by ecclesiastics themselves. At the Council of Soissons, in 853,* the French bishops assented to a law by which they were prohibited from alienating or even exchanging any of the landed property belonging to their churches without the knowledge and consent of the king ; and it may be added that a fresh secu- rity was now given to this property by the feudal system. The clergy next in rank to the bishops appear to have been distinguished by their rapacity. When a bishop died, his cathedral clergy lost no time in ap- propriating his moveable effects, long before the epis- copal remains were consigned to the tomb ; and the same appears to have taken place very frequently on the death of a pope.f It may be observed that the clergy did not now possess the same means as formerly of replenishing their treasury from large donations and bequests. Donations and bequests did indeed continue to be made, and men still supposed that in this way the favour of heaven could be purchased ; but there was no longer the plea of poverty on the part of the Church to induce large donations, and it was often found that even rich donors considered how little would be suffi- cient for the Church to receive, rather than how much * Cone. Suessiou. 2, can. 13. t Syn. Roman., a. d. 904, under John IX. can. li. ; CuuucU ul' Pouticon, A. D. 886, c. 14. 92 TITHES. it was in their own power to bestow. New churches and bishoprics were founded indeed, on a large scale, in Germany, during the tenth and eleventh centuries, but from motives political rather than religious. Tithes, however, had now become a more profit- able source of income than formerly. Not only had the opinion concerning the Divine right of tithes gained ground among the laity, but the Church had learnt to protect itself against the various pleas for exemption from payment which had been set up, and to guard against the numerous artifices and devices employed for evading payment. Farmers of Church lands had thought themselves exempt ; and persons who maintained domestic chaplains had claimed the privilege of paying their tithes to their own churches or chapels : but both these claims were now annulled by law.* It was declared also that tithes were imme- diately due from land newly brought under cultiva- tion, in opposition to a supposition that such lands might be exempt for a certain time.f And it was now formally decreed in France and Germany, as it had previously been in England, that tithes were payable not only from land and cattle, but from every source of revenue whatever. J At the same time new facilities were obtained for collecting tithes, the Church being relieved from the necessity of a tedious and expensive application to the civil courts for the maintenance of its rights against recusants and defaulters, and authority being given to * Couc. Suession. 2, a. d. 853, c. 9 ; Mandata Missis Dominicis per regnum directis data, cap. 6 ; Cone. Ticiuens., a. d. 855. t Cone. Tribal-., A. D. 895, c. 14. X C'oimeil of Trosloy, a. D. 909 : "Audi quicuuquo cs, miles sis, negotiator sis, artifex sis. Ingenium de quo pascei'is, Dei est, et ideo inde dare debes ei Docimas." PROPERTY OF CHAPTERS. 98 the bishops to take cognisance of such cases * So that even if we make all due allowance for frauds, evasions, and necessary remissions, we perceive that the system of tithes under these circumstances must have produced an enormous amount of ecclesiastical income. The theory still remained that the administration of all the Church property of a diocese appertained to the bishop ; but during the first half of this period it was arranged that the property assigned for the sus- tentation of the cathedral clergy (the chapters) should be administered by themselves, a voluntary cession to this effect being often made by the bishops who were favourable to the introduction of the canonical life among their clergy. Other bishops soon found them- selves obliged to follow this example ; and at the end of the eleventh century there remained perhaps not a single chapter which had not acquired the right of managing its own property. During this period also full prevalence obtained for the practice, which had begun during the seventh and eighth centuries, of attaching to ecclesiastical offices certain benefices, such as portions of land, or charges of tithes or other dues, as a more permanent provision than the annual payment which the bishop was formerly accustomed to make at his discretion. As early as the end of the ninth century, the Church increased the severity of its laws respecting matrimony, extending the impediments to marriage to the seventh degree of consanguinity, f and constituting also spiritual relationship, i. e. the relation of sponsor * Council of Ingelheim (under Otho I.), a. d. 948 ; and at Augs- burg, A. D. 952. t Council of Mayence, a.d. 847, can. 19, 20. 94 COMMIiTATION OF PEN^ANCE. and godchild, an impediment. It was also ordained that even the children of fellow- sponsors should not intermarry ; but this rule w^as relaxed.* Laws con- cerning divorce were also strictly enforced. The system of penance already established was professedly maintained in all its strictness ; but a practice was now introduced, destined to give rise to great and flagrant abuses in this department. This consisted, not in the exchanging of one form of penance for another, not in the addition of a pecuniary mulct to prescribed penances, out of a deference to the spirit of the age (customs which had already been intro- duced), but in permission to pay a sum of money in lieu of undergoing the penance enjoined. In the twelfth century a regular tariff was established, denot- ing the equivalent in money for the various penances which the Church was in the habit of imposing. But even now this system of indulgence was not applied to the purpose of raising money for the use of the Church ; the money being still appropriated to the relief of the poor, and the penitent being left at liberty to distribute it in alms. The object of the Church in adopting this measure was to save its au- thority and credit as far as possible, by imposing a penalty to which men would be willing to submit, while they were ready to refuse compliance with more painful or humiliating penances originally prescribed. With the same intention, no doubt, another system of compounding for penance was adopted during this period, by admitting as an equivalent the repetition of a prescribed number of paternosters or other forms of devotion. Thus, sixty paternosters repeated by the penitent on his knees, or fifteen paternosters and fif- ♦ Cone. Tribur., a. d. 895, can. 48. PAPAL ABSOLUTIONS. 95 teen misereres repeated with the whole body prostrate oil the ground, were accepted instead of one day's fast. A fast of twelve days was compensated by causing" one mass to be said, — of four months, by ten masses, — of a whole year, by thirty masses. A penance and fast of seven years could be despatched in one year, provided that the penitent repeated the whole Psalter once in every twenty-four hours. Some- times the compensation consisted in repairing to a certain church on appointed days, — in a pilgrimage to some sacred spot, — or in placing a trifling offer- ing on some privileged altar. During this period the popes were invited, even by bishops themselves, to grant absolution at their discretion in certain cases referred to them •, but this was still recognised as the privilege of every bishop within the limits of his own diocese, with whose permission or at whose instance alone it could be regularly granted even by the pontiff himself There was as yet no idea of reserved cases, in which the popes alone could grant absolution. They however sometimes claimed the right of granting absolution in concurrence with the bishop of the diocese ; that is, they claimed to have the same right of granting ab- solution in any and every diocese as that which each bishop possessed with reference to his own single diocese, — a claim against which the bishops protested, and which met with vehement opposition.* This state of things, however, could not fail to pave the way for that papal usurpation on this head which actually took place in the course of the following period. * Baronius, ad an. 970, n. 11 : Cone. Salegunstadt (Seligenstadt), A. P. 1022, c. 18 ; Cone. Limogens. 90 REFORMATION OF MOXASTERIES. Great corruptions had begun to prevail in the monasteries before the close of* the last period ; and these reached a fearful height during the latter part of the ninth century and the beginning of the tenth. The evil was so enormous that it had become a source of scandal almost intolerable even in that coarse and demoralised age. And this result was promoted by the seizure of large monasteries by powerful laymen, who received the revenues and nominally presided over the societies, but in reality took no care of dis- cipline, and by their example aided the general dissoluteness of manners. All discipline, in fact, was gone; and the monasteries, perhaps without exception, had become hotbeds of vice and profligacy. At length, some individual monks, endued with the original spirit of their order, resolved upon separating them- selves from the general mass of corruption, and forming a new society which should be a model of propriety. At the head of these was Bruno, who, with his friends, established a monastery at Clugny, under the especial patronage of William, duke of Aquitaine. This monastery, established upon the ride of Benedict, with some variations, soon became the resort of considerable numbers of well-disposed monks ; it grew rapidly in wealth and reputation, and became in a short time the centre of a work of refor- mation which spread widely, and at length effected a change for the better in the general tone and cha- racter of the monastic institutions throughout Europe. Among the consequences of this movement, there speedily appeared an increase of public opinion in favour of the monastic life, and of patronage bestowed on monastic institutions, both in the dedication of wealth to their vsupport, and in the devotion of children. REFORMATION OF MONASTERIES. 97 by tlieir parents, to the conventual life. Lay im- propriators of abbeys surrendered their plunder, and retained only their lawful rights, when any such existed. And the association of many monasteries with Clugny, occasioned by its well-deserved repu- tation, led to a new system of affiliation, whereby large numbers of monasteries were congregated around some one of greater note, more or less subordinate to its superior. After this great reformation, and during the flourishing period of monastic institutions which fol- lowed, the relations which they sustained towards the civil and ecclesiastical powers were nearly the same as before. The sovereign frequently nominated the abbots of the larger and more wealthy societies, which may be said to have been in his gift. The bishops, who had seized possession of many monas- teries during the period of their corruption and degra- dation, followed the example of the lay impropriators in surrendering this property to its lawful and proper use, and were found among the most zealous promoters of the reformation after it had begun to make some progress. They also made an effort to obtain from the monasteries absolute submission and obedience to their authority as diocesans; but this Avas in many cases successfully resisted, and, generally speaking, they were obliged to yield to the claims of exemption and independence, and to rest content with the vague and insignificant promise of canonical obedience in ail things lawful. At the same time, the monasteries often sought {)rotection by placing themselves under the immediate authority of the popes, in such manner and under such circumstances as to indicate the ap- proach of a period in which a new claim of papal VOL. II. H 98 RISINO IN'DEPENBENCE OF right would be set up with reference to all persons and institutions of the monastic order. The cathedral chapters had now attained an im- portance and power by which the influence of the bishops was greatly restricted : and although the in- stitution of the canonical life among the clergy degenerated from its original simplicity, still it con- tinued to exercise this restraining influence upon episcopal power. At first, the chapters acted as a kind of standing council of the bishop, and were associated with him, to a certain extent, in the admi- nistration of diocesan affairs. Soon, however, the restraints and burdens of the common life, of strict supervision, and of regular employment, became irk- some to many of those upon whom they were imposed ; and a disposition to cast aside these restraints and fetters generally prevailed. The chapters attained their independence, and so departed from the original designs of their institution, by the following steps. — As early as the end of the ninth century, misunder- standings arose between the bishops and chapters respecting the administration of the common pro- perty, the canons complaining that the bishops were not sufficiently liberal in their dealings with them ; and this led to an arrangement whereby the admi- nistration of that portion of property which was pro- fessedly assigned to the chapters was given into their own hands. No sooner had the chapters thus become independent of the bishops as to their means of sup- port, than they proceeded to withdraw from the restraint of a common habitation, and by degrees succeeded in obtaining liberty to reside in separate houses. After this, they ceased to partake of their CATHEDRAL CHAPTERS. 99 meals at the conimon table ; and they etlected a division of the whole property of the chapter into separate portions, often of very uneqnal magnitnde, one of which was assigned to each canon. Nothing of the original institution now remained but the cor- porate character, or collegiate union, of the superior or cathedral clergy of each diocese. And the canons became completely independent of the bishops, when they obtained power to fill up vacancies in the chapter, which had formerly been an episcopal privilege. At the same time, they began to neglect the duties of their office and to perform their services by deputies; and eventually they lapsed into great indolence. Thus, before the end of the eleventh century, the cathedral chapters had become quite different from the institutions designed by the rule of Chrodegang and Louis I. Among other changes which befel the diocesan constitution during this period we must reckon as one of the principal the increased influence and power of Archdeacons. The bishops having com- mitted too much of the business of the dioceses to these officers, they acquired an influence and import- ance which became formidable to the bishops them- selves. They claimed to act, not as the delegates or vicars of the bishops, but by virtue of their own authority ; and the right of visiting the churches of their districts was directly entrusted to them by some councils of this age, so that they could exercise it without commission or authority from the bishop. In some provinces, they were authorised to nominate to vacant bishoprics; and it was universally admitted that all the other clergy of the diocese were sub- II 2 100 TXCREARED POWER OF ARCHDEACONS. ordinate to them. So eagerly was the place of arch- deacon songlit, that several councils found themselves compelled to enact that no one should be eligible to this office who had not been actually ordained deacon.* Besides this, the archdeacons were usually members of the cathedral chapters ; and the chapters often looked to them for assistance and support in their contests with the bishops. They also acted as guardians of the parochial churches against the in- vasion and spoliation of the bishops ; and they were perhaps mainly instrumental in procuring the power- ful intervention of popes in favour of parishes. f Less efficient was the influence of archdeacons against the violence of patrons, especially powerful lay patrons, who often forced their nominees upon a parish, and set at nought the consideration that while the right of presentation belonged to them, the right of collation was vested in the bishop, and that he ought not to be compelled to collate a candidate who in his judgment was unworthy or unfit. Lay patrons often sold their patronage ; but so also did the bishops. J In some cases, the lay patrons even claimed a portion of the offerings laid upon the altar of the church. § The metropolitans, as we have seen, lost to a very great extent their power over the diocesan bishops of their provinces, find became little more than their titular superiors. This was brought about at the * Council of Bruges, a.d. 1031, can. 4. Conf. Thomassini, J*. 1, L. 11. c. 18. t Eugen. II. A.D. 826 : Cone. Roman, can. IG ; and John IX. a. p. 904; Cone. Ilavennens. can. 10. t John VIII. Ep. 93, 95. § Cone. Valentin, can. 9. PROGRESS OK PAPAI. CLAIMS AND POWER. 101 instance of the bishojjs ; their desire on this head having perhaps arisen from the abuse of authority on the part of some metropolitans who may have unjustlv interfered in diocesaii affairs.* Hence the bishops welcomed the principles of the false Decretals, that it belonged to the pope alone to take cognisance of aifairs in v/hich bishops were concerned. It was now that the popes began to exercise and claim, without opposition, an universal constitutive power, that is to say, the right of giving their appro- bation and sanction to every new ecclesiastical founda- tion, especially of bishoprics. Formerly they had been consulted on such matters, e. g.^ by Charlemagne, as being able to give good advice ; now they began to insist upon the right of giving it. Now also they began to exercise, and afterwards to claim, the right of an universal episcopate ; the old idea that the pope was universal bishop, as standing in the same relation to the whole Church as that which each bishop sustained to his own diocese, being exchanged for the very different one that the pope can exercise the same functions in every diocese as each particular bishop exercises in his single diocese, and that hence he had a right to grant absolutions, &c. in every part of Christendom. These claims were not so much for- mally announced, and distinctly defined, as acted upon. According to a very usual course of proceed- ing in the papacy, the practice was first established, leaving the theory and the claims connected with it to come after. Such acts of aggression were at the same time favourably entertained by the bishops, in * Couc. Valentin., a.d. 855, can. 10 ; Muratori, Annal. torn. 5, p. 5h 10:2 TROGRESS OF PAPAL CLAIMS AND POWER. order to secure their independence of the metro- pohtans, and by the metropohtans themselves, for the sake of the pall, which involved their very dignity and revenues, — the right of conferring the pall being now supposed to belong only to the pope, and re- garded also as including an actual conveyance of the right and title to office. ( 103 ) CHAPTEli V. FROM THE ERA OF GREGORY VII. TO BONIFACE VIII. It was a good and great scheme which the emperor Henry III. proposed to accomplish by his expedition into Italy in 1046. His design was not merely to establish the imperial power and the ascendency of Germany in Italy, but by this means to restore order in State and Church. With regard to the Church in particular, he had a still further object in view ; besides putting an end to the confusions which had arisen during the scandalous conflict of the rival popes, he hoped to carry such measures as would introduce a permanent and universal reformation in the adminis- tration of ecclesiastical affairs. He was convinced, as well he might be, that such a reformation could not be effected without the co-operation of the pope ; and hence it was his immediate aim to obtain a decisive influence in future papal elections, in order that he might always find the chair occupied by a pontiff" disposed to second and carry out his plans of reform. He felt that he could place more dependence on German ecclesiastics than on any other ; and he succeeded in carrying the election of four German 104 refOrmatiox of the church pontiff's successively, who were all animated by the same zeal for reformation, and whose efforts in this direction contributed so greatly to the advancement of the credit and influence of the holy see that from this period we must date a new epoch in its history. The emperor traced the corruptions of the Church to two main evils, — the prevailing practice of dis- posing of ecclesiastical offices by sale, and the licen- tiousness of the clergy, whose depraved habits had reached the most shameless excess, and had impaired their influence even with the lowest classes of the people. The latter of these two evils was indeed, in great measure, a consequence of the former, the most depraved of the competitors for a benefice being often the highest bidder. Against these two enormous evils the popes who were now elected in the interest of the emperor directed their w'hole energies, not without marked success They were not content with reviving the memory of old laAvs against simony and the excesses of the clergy, nor even with making these laws more stringent by the addition of fresh penal sanctions. Nor were they disposed to rest satisfied with taking precautions against future eva- sions of those laws ; but they directed unsparing efforts towards nothing less than their effectual observ- ance. All persons holding ecclesiastical offices who had notoriously obtained their appointment by simo- niacal practices, or who had occasioned scandal by immoral conduct, were to be ejected. In order, however, to carry out those plans, it was needful to go to work in a novel manner. The evil had spread so widely that it was not likely to be removed in the way of judicial decision by the regular and established DESIUN^ED UY UENRY 111. 105 courts. It could not be expected that the bishops would enforce the existing laws against the inferior clergy, or that the metropolitans would so proceed against the bishops ; for it was chiefly from these superior ecclesiastics that the evil had emanated. Nor was any assistance to be expected from pro- vincial councils, which, in fact, represented the ma- jority of the bishops. It was necessary that a higher authority should interpose ;' and what could this be, according to the views of that age, but the authority of the pope ? If the intervention of this authority in such matters was without precedent, so also the manner in which it should interfere must be still more so. Urged by their reforming zeal, the popes travelled from place to place in order to carry into execution those measures which, without this exercise of per- sonal influence^ would probably have failed. In this manner, Clement II., the first of the pontiffs ap- pointed by the emperor's influence, carried forward the reformation in Germany. Immediately after his election in 1047, he summoned a council at Rome,* in which he declared his intention of restoring order, and of beginning the work by the abolition of simony. He died, however, not long after the announcement of his design ; and in like manner, his successor Damasus II. did not live to fulfil the expectations of.A.o. io48. his imperial patron. Leo IX., elected in 1049, /" 1*049 succeeded, however, in carrying out the intentions of Leo ix. the emperor to a considerable extent. In a council which he held at liome j^ immediately upon his suc- cession to the pontificate, he caused a sentence of deposition to be pronounced against several Italian * Couc. Rom. A. D. 1047. t Couc. Koiii. a. u. 1049. 106 THE emperor's desigx carried forward bishops who had lately purchased their appointments, and imposed forty days' penance and suspension upon all the clergy who had been ordained by them. Leo at first proposed that every ordination by a bishop convicted of simony should be declared null and void ; but he was induced to moderate his demands upon a representation to the effect that in this case there would be many dioceses which would be left without a single ecclesiastic to perform the offices of religion. Immediately after the breaking up of this council, the pontiff proceeded to France and Ger- many, held a council at Rheims, by which four simoniacal bishops were deposed, and in an assembly at Mayence compelled the bishop of Spires to defend himself against a charge of adultery. On his return to Italy, he hastened to the lower part of the country, where he held a council at which two archbishops were deposed for recent simony. And thus he occu- pied nearly the whole period of his government with travels, repairing in person to every quarter in which he found that scandal had been given by simony or immoral conduct on the part of the bishops, in order to inflict due punishment upon the offenders. There can be little doubt that, in all these mea- sures, Leo acted according to the wishes of the emperor, and even upon a preconcerted plan. Perhaps that accession of real power to the papacy which was by this means largely realised could hardly have been anticipated ; nor is it certain that the emperor aimed at this ultimate effect. And yet it is difficult to imagine how he could have failed to foresee the consequences which ensued. While the popes were persuaded to carry forward the work of reformation in the manner described, not only were BY POPES OF HIS APPOINTMENT. 107 their pretensions to universal supremacy over the Church more distinctly and solemnly recognised, but they were actually employed in the exercise of a jurisdiction and a power to an extent greater than that which had been ascribed to them even by the Pseudo-Isidore himself. Henry I. of France, at the instance of some of his nobles and bishops, took notice of this stretch of power,* and endeavoured to throw obstacles in the way of the assembling of the council at Rheims; but the remonstrance produced no effect, and its insufficiency is a proof of the great height which the papal influence and power had now attained. Long since had the pope been regarded as the superior of all bishops, by whom alone they could be judged ; but it had not hitherto been thought that it belonged to him to inquire into the conduct and character of all, at his pleasure. Now, however, this assumed right was not only exercised, but for- mally claimed and recognised.f Two circumstances, in particular, gave great facility to the popes in carrying out these plans of reforma- tion, and in maintaining the pretensions which they assumed in their character of reformers. The obvious benefits arising from this interference told at once very largely in their favour ; while the dangers of the new power which they exercised were easily overlooked under a strong impression of the public advantages with which it was attended. The evils arising from the simoniacal practices and immoral lives of the clergy had long been great and crying; but while a redress of these grievances was earnestly desired, it had become almost hopeless, * Earon. Amial. ad au. 1049, n. 17. t Council of Pxheims, a.d. 1049. 108 jrpinous measures of and it was difficult to conjecture from what quarter such rehef could proceed. At the same time, the bishops could hardly venture to protest against this new exercise of papal power, lest such protest should be regarded in each individual instance as a confession of guilt ; and even Henry of France found it impos- sible to go far in supporting his bishops against what was so much in accordance with the wishes of an indignant nation. Besides this, the popes prosecuted this new under- taking with great prudence and caution. They pro- ceeded only against notorious offenders, and carefully abstained from anything like an appearance of in- justice or partiality. And, moreover, while they w^ere in reality putting forth a new act of power, they preserved an appearance of regularity and order by adhering to old and established forms of proceeding. The deposed bishops were not only men of scandalous lives and conduct, but they were formally deprived of their dignity at councils held, for example, at Home or at Kheims. In some cases, also, the popes showed their discretion by a wise moderation, and by mitigation of punishment to self-accused and professedly penitent offenders ;* hereby probably preventing a formidable combination of bishops against them, while many individuals hoped to be themselves partakers of their clemency. These vigorous but judicious measures could not fail to make an impression on the popular mind highly favourable to the papal interests. This popu- larity, — to a certain extent justly acquired, — was, in fact, of the utmost importance. The people, who saw * K. fj. Bishop of Nevcrs at Council of Kheims, A. D. 1049 ; Baron, ad an. io49. THE REFORMIlSra POPES. 109 their scandalous bishops hunibly yield before the power of the pope, at once conceived a more exalted idea than ever of the extent and supposed rightfulness of that authority, and were more deeply impressed with a sense of benefit to be derived from a superior ecclesiastical ruler, whom they now hailed as their deliverer. The papacy, on this occasion as on others, appears as a kind of necessary evil ; vice rampant in the Church led, under existing circumstances, and according to the ideas of the age, to the establishment or increase of one evil for the sake of counteracting another. It is possible that the popes undertook this task of reformation without any immediate view to its ulti- mate advantage to themselves. The emperor first suggested it to Clement II. ; and the pope who had thus far prosecuted the work with the greatest success, Leo IX., was one whom he had carefully selected for the purpose. The personal character of Leo IX. was also that of a pious and upright man, firm and resolute in his prosecution of right ; not liable to the imputation of ambition or avarice : but, on the contrary, distinguished on some occasions by a spirit of generosity and self-sacrifice. On the whole, he seems to have laboured with a simple design for the restoration of discipline and the spiritual efficiency of ecclesiastical institutions ; there is nothing to prove that he had ever any respect to the ulterior exaltation of the papacy. At the same time, not only were matters tending in this direction, but there was an invisible hand employed in purposely giving them this turn. Under permission of the Divine Head of the Church, — whose patient toleration of all the abo- minations of the papacy is one of the most mysterious 110 HILDEBRAND. of His dispensations, but doubtless, like all others, right, — there was a man of far-reaching views who guided the movements of the weaker but well- meaning Leo, apparently without even disclosing to him the design which he assisted to promote ; and who afterwards employed succeeding pontiffs as the more conscious instruments of his ambitious projects. This was the celebrated Hildebrand, who came with Leo to Rome, and who, even as early as this pontificate, was the spring and soul of all the move- ments of the holy see, — already beginning to sustain the part which he afterwards acted more con- spicuously as Gregory VII. Hildebrand was a native of Italy, and received his education at Rome. In early life he travelled to France, and became connected with the monastery of Clugny, in which he resided for the space of several years. After a visit of some duration to Rome, he returned to Clugny ; and it was from this place that Leo, after his nomi- nation at the Council of Worms, took him in his train to Rome, under circumstances which justify the remark that Leo was rather taken to Rome by Hildebrand than Hildebrand by Leo. Leo, having assumed the pontificate at Worms, did not hesitate to travel through France with the title and insignia of pope, until he came to Clugny, and formed an acquaintance with Hildebrand, who represented to him so strongly the degradation and impiety of receiving the pontifical dignity at the hands of a layman, even though that layman was the emperor, that Leo was induced to lay aside his pontifical orna- ments, publicly declaring that he could not regard himself as pope until the free election of the Romans should have given validity to the emperor's nomina- IIILDEBRAND. Ill tion. He travelled thence, in the garb of a pilgrim, to Rome, where he was duly elected. It can hardly be doubted that the man who gave this advice to Leo, had already formed a deep-laid scheme for the aggrandisement of the papacy, at the expense of the imperial authority ; and this supposition receives ample confirmation from the subsequent history of Hildebrand. Already had he become the guiding genius of Leo, with a strong claim to a share in his plans of government. Leo, on his part, was willing to concede to him whatever influence he desired ; and Hildebrand, with all those talents which enable a man of genius to assume the post of command, com- bined a winning deportment by which he easily ingratiated himself into the esteem and confidence both of the pope himself and of the Roman people. Henceforward he took the lead at Rome ; he it was who directed the zeal with which the reformation of the clergy now began to be prosecuted ; and he it was who, after the death of Leo, in 1054, prevailed upon the Romans to accept a suitable pontiff, and that too a German, whom he himself selected for the office and brought to Rome. He had observed the readiness with which Henry lent his support to those popes who had been the subjects of his choice ; and while he was well aware of the advantages to be derived from the continued cordial co-operation of the emperor, he rightly judged that the emperor would look with more favour upon the election of a German, than of an Italian, as Leo's successor. His choice wisely fell upon Gebhard, bishop of Eichstadt, a man of great wealth and influence, and a personal friend of the emperor, well qualified to assist in car- rying out his plans. After some unwillingness on 112 HILDEBRAND. the part both of Gebhard himself and of the emperor, Gebhard was induced to accompany the monk Hil- debrand to Rome, where he was elected po})e, under AD. 1055. the title of Victor II. His iDontificate, as to its Victor II. , . \ . . p spirit and acts, may be regarded as a continuation of the foregoing; with this exception, that, while the same object of ecclesiastical reformation was steadily pursued, the new pope sent legates into the different countries in which this work was being accomplished, instead of v'siting the scenes of action in person, — a difference probably to be traced to the far-seeing policy and progressive plans of Hildebrand. Hilde- brand was himself the first of the legates employed on this business, being sent to France in 1055, with full powers to inquire into and punish all offences against the ecclesiastical laws which had been com- mitted since the holding of the last council in that country. In his capacity as legate, he held a council at Lyons, by which six bishops were deposed, on account of various crimes, without any show of oppo- sition or remonstrance, — a sure sign that the spirit of ; the age had already become thoroughly imbued with that new idea of papal supremacy which was soon to be realised. Other councils were held in France on the subject of ecclesiastical discipline, at which Hildebrand presided as papal legate ; and one of these was distinguished by a circumstance of remark- able significance. At the Council of Tours, am- bassadors appeared from the emperor, Henry III., complaining of the conduct of Ferdinand, king of Castile and Leon, who had assumed the imperial , title. In consequence of this representation, Victor, acting under the advice of Hildebrand, threatened F<'rdinand with excommunication and an interdict if HILDE BRAND. 118 he should persevere in usurping the title. The threat took effect, and Ferdinand complied with the mandate of the pope, who thus made it appear that he wielded a power greater than that which the emperor himself possessed with reference to his own rightful claims.* The death of the emperor, Henry III., in 1056, afforded Hildebrand an opportunity for further pro- gress in the execution of his designs. It is probable a.d. ior,7. that Stephen IX., who occupied the papal chair for' ''^'"' the brief space of about a year after the death of Victor in 1057, was elected by the Romans without the intervention of Hildebrand ; but it is clear that, during this pontificate, the great politician lost none of his influence. Not only did Stephen send him as -, his legate into Germany, but when, during his absence, he found his own end approaching, he j strictly enjoined the Roman clergy and people to f await Hildebrand's return, and to follow his advice respecting the choice of a successor. Hildebrand had now, perhaps, become an object of jealousy to the Roman clergy ; and the injunctions of the dying pontiff were disobeyed. The vacant chair was filled by an Italian bishop, under the title of Benedict X.; (a.d. io58. who, however, w^as soon displaced by Hildebrand, with the assistance of a disaffected portion of the cardinals and clergy, and compelled to yield the dignity to Gerhard, bishop of Florence, nominated by the empress,^ — who was elected at a Council of Sienna, and ascended the papal chair under the title of Nicholas II. k-V-/^'u' Hildebrand now found it necessary to hasten for- ward those measures by which the power already * Baron, ad an. 1056 et seq. VOL. II. I 114 RELATIONS WITH THE NORMANS. attained might be secured, and a way made for its still greater extension, in due time, under favourable circumstances. Two of these measures, especially, dictated by profound policy, were attended with important results. One was the alliance which Hildebrand caused the new pope to make with the Normans in 1059 ; the other, the new institution which he caused to be adopted, in the same year, with reference to future papal elections. From 1017 the Normans had made attempts to settle in Italy; and Leo IX. had already found him- self obliged to enter into some connection with them. Originally they came from France to Italy, upon the invitation of some of the Italian nobles, with a view to take the field against the Greeks and Saracens. Afterwards, however, they turned their arms against their former allies themselves; and, in 1053, Leo IX., in person, took the field against them. This campaign was unsuccessfiil ; the pope was taken prisoner, and compelled to conclude a treaty by which the Normans were permitted to retain those possessions of the Church which they had already seized, as a fief of the Roman see. Disputes, however, continued, and we find that Stephen IX. even entertained the project of driving the Normans out of Italy. But, at length, these parties began to understand that terms of friendship were for the interests of both alike. In 1059, a personal interview took place between the pope (Nicholas II.) and Robert Guiscard, the leader of the Normans; when the latter was formally in- vested with Apulia and Calabria, as a fief of the Roman see, together with the title of duke, and also with Sicily, which was at that time in possession of the Saracens. By this arrangement, Guiscard recog- REGULATIONS CONCERNING PAPAL ELECTIONS. 115 nised the pope as his feudal chief, and undertook to pay a yearly tribute to the Koman see, and to defend it against all its enemies, upon the demand of the pope. The pontiff had thus gained a titular supre- macy over the Normans ; and, besides this, he had consolidated a power in Italy which he might advan- tageously employ as a check upon either the nobles and towns of Italy, or the forces of the empire, as occasion should require. In point of fact, the Normans were employed in this varied service, at intervals, during more than a century from this date ; and there can be little doubt that the matter formed part of the plans and designs of Hildebrand. During^ the last two pontificates, the ecclesiastical power of the popes had been carried almost to its height ; but still it was manifest that the continuance of this power depended upon the will of temporal princes, especially upon that of the emperor. As long as the latter was master of Italy, he could do almost what he pleased with the pope ; and hence it had become evident that any measure which would tend to make the Roman see independent of the emperor would be of great value towards the stability and extension of its dominion. — ^ Hildebrand aimed at the same point in the new regulations vvhich Nicholas made, under his influence, concerning papal elections. Plitherto, so much of the primitive custom had been preserved that not only the whole body of the Roman clergy, but also the Roman nobility, and some portion of the people, took part in the election ; and it not unfrequently occurred in these elections that the influence of the clergy was overborne by that of the other parties, when combined. At the same time, the emperor had 1 2 116 REGULATIONS CONCERNING PAPAL ELECTIONS- always retained the right of confirming the choice of the electors, and the election was ordinarily made in the presence of imperial commissioners. In some cases, also, the emperor had anticipated or suspended the functions of the electors by his sole nomination, — a practice which, of late years, had become prevalent, and was beginning to assume the appearance of an established and recognised right. But in many of these modern instances, it seemed, or could easily be made to appear, that the Romans had voluntarily conceded their right to the emperor for the occasion. Now, in all this, there was much that seemed to be derogatory to the dignity of the holy see, and likely to become a source of weakness, if not of overthrow and ruin. On the other hand, the share of the nobility and people in elections had already been a source of unseemly contests and divisions, having sometimes led to the election of rival pontiffs ; and, whatever progress might at any time be made under the presidency of some able and successful pope, all these advantages were liable to be scattered to the winds, at some subsequent period, by the recurrence of such disorders arising from a dis- puted election. If, however, the influence of the emperor should entirely preponderate, the popes would be thenceforward no better than vassals of the empire ; and as long as the papal election should be even subject to imperial confirmation, there would be that appearance of subordination to the temporal power, accompanied with more or less of real dependence, which could not but act as a barrier in the way of that universal dominion to which Hilde- brand had begun to aspire. It was, doubtless, with a view to obviate these ill THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS. 117 consequences, that Nicholas II. published a decree, which he had caused to be confirmed by a Roman council in 1059, to the effect that, in future, neither the nobility nor the people should take any part in the election of a pope, but that the right of election should belong properly to the clergy alone, who, however, should exercise this right not altogether in a mass, but only by means of their representatives. He thus constituted a college of electors, con- sisting of the chief and most influential of the Roman clergy, who, under the name of cardinals, had, for some time past, taken a leading part in the affairs of the Church. Hildebrand was this year made cardinal-archdeacon. At the same time, the ancient and acknowledged right of the emperor to confirm the election was not openly denied ; but a clause was added, respecting reservation of the emperor's right, conceived in such terms as might afterwards give rise to a question whether the act of confirmation was not a personal privilege and mark of respect which the Church voluntarily conceded to individual emperors, upon their good behaviour, rather than a right inherent in the imperial crown. It was provided, in effect, that future emperors should exercise this right, if they should have pre- viously sought and obtained it from the holy see. Of course, an emperor was hardly likely to sue for this privilege ; and even should the custom of seeking it be established,, occasions would not fail to arise in which popes might feel themselves able and willing to refuse it. This bold innovation was made at a favourable f moment, when, in fact, there was no emperor who^ could protest against it. And Nicholas took an oath 118 OPPOSITION TO THIS SCHEME. from his new vassals the Normans, whereby they pledged themselves that after his death they would recognise and defend as pope no other than the one who should be elected by the cardinals in accordance with the new regulations. Upon the death of Nicholas, however, in 1061, it was for some time doubtful whether or not the new system would be suffered to take effect. A powerful section of the Roman nobility, under the guidance of the count of Tusculum, declared, immediately after the death of Nicholas, that they would rather receive a pope at the hands of the emperor than at the hands of the cardinals ; and despatched an embassy to Ger- many, entreating the empress to nominate a pope, and offering the imperial crown to young Henry in the name of the Roman people. From this it was easy for Hildebrand to discover how far the Romans might be carried under feelings of exasperation ; but still he did not proceed to adopt that extreme measure which he had determined to reserve for a case of the last necessity. He took great pains to win over indi- viduals from this party, and even ventured to seek for the approbation of the empress to the election by cardinals. The empress, however, would not even give a hearing to the legates who were sent on this errand, and the Romans continued obstinate ; so that at length Hildebrand resolved on proceeding to extremities. On the first of October, the election of a pope by the cardinals was publicly undertaken, in spite of the popular protest ; the presence of Richard, prince of Capua, prevented all disorders in the city; A. n, 1061. and Anselm, bishop of Lucca, was elected under the ^'^r'^*^'" titleof Alexander II. It was difficult, however, to maintain the step 11. VICTORY OP HILDEBRAND. 119 which had been thus taken ; more difficult, perhaps, than Hildebrand at first imagined. The empress appeared determined to uphold the dignity of the im- perial crown in Italy ; and, having wisely abstained from nominating a pope, she convened a council of German and Lombard bishops at Basle, and charged it with the task of giving a new head to the Church. The council unanimously elected as pontiff Cadalous, or Cadalus, bishop of Parma, under the title of Honorius II., a man who seemed unlikely to pursue (Honorius the vigorous measures of discipline adopted by his predecessors, and under whose pontificate they there- fore hoped to enjoy the immunities and indulgences w hich they desired ; whereas the pope elected under the influence of Hildebrand was likely to pursue the obnoxious course of reformation already so earnestly begun. The position of affairs was critical. By the assistance of the empress, the Lombard bishops assembled a considerable army, in the spring of 1062, with which they conducted their new pope to Rome ; M^iile at the same time the popular party at Rome, and in the large towns of Italy, assumed a formidable aspect in its hostility to Hildebrand and his pope ; and the Normans, having the chief part of their forces actively engaged against the Saracens, could not render immediate assistance. At this juncture the plans of Hildebrand were apparently rescued from defeat by the occurrence of a most unexpected event, — by a revolution in Germany, so favourable to Hilde- brand that it is difficult to suppose it not to have been brought about by his secret machinations. In the very midst of the preparations of the empress for an expedition into Italy, Hanno, archbishop of Cologne, stole away the youthful Henry from his mother, and 120 DEPOSITION OF STIGAND, conveyed him to Cologne, where an assembly of the states deprived the empress of her right of guardian- ship and regency by an apparently formal and regular ordinance, and decreed that such right should belong to the bishop of the diocese in which the young emperor should be resident,- — that was to say, for the present, to archbishop Hanno. The scheme was so well con- ceived, and so suddenly executed, that opposition on the part of the empress was hopeless. At the same diet, Hanno, as guardian of the emperor and regent, declared himself in favour of the pope Alexander ; the Italian bishops were unable to support the pretensions of his rival without foreign aid, of which they had now no prospect ; and, although Honorius was able to maintain himself in Lombardy, at the head of some adherents, during a course of several years, still, before the end of 1062, the victory was clearly decided in favour of Alexander, — and of Hildebraiid. " In 1070, a request was made by William the Conqueror to the pope, that he would send legates to attend a council which he purposed to assemble for the purpose of adjusting the affairs of the Church in England. Peter and John, cardinals, and Ermenfred, bishop of Sion, were sent to England accordingly. The council met at Winchester, and the king and legates jointly presided. The archbishop of Canter- bury, Stigand, was accused of holding two sees, Win- chester and Canterbury, at the same time, and of the crimes of perjury and murder. He was deposed. The historian of these events assures us, that Stigand had offended Alexander and several of his predecessors by not having procured a pall. Stigand had never joined the Gregorian party, and having been by that party several times excommunicated at Rome, his ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. 121 offence was heightened by paying no regard to the sentence but exercising his episcopal functions as if no such sentence had been passed. The opportunity was now presented of sacrificing him to make room for Lanfranc, the friend of Hildebrand, and the opponent of Berengar. He was accused of simony, the crime which was so freely imputed to those ecclesiastics whom Hildebrand considered to be hostile to his plans for elevating the papacy. The act of simony laid to his charge was that of attempting to annex the see of Winchester to that of Canterbury. This charge, even if it had been true, was not only the same offence of which many of the Gregorian party were equally guilty, but, as the diocese of Canterbury was different from the metropolitical charge, the annexation of Winchester to form one episcopal see would not have made the diocese of the archbishop larger than many others. The resolution, however, had been taken to depose him ; and he was not only deposed, but, to prevent the danger which might possibly arise from his influence with the Saxons if he were permitted to be at large, he was imprisoned in Winchester for life.* " In another council at Windsor more Saxon bishops were deposed, for no other crime than that they were Englishmen, as is affirmed by one of our modern historians.f I would rather say, they were deposed for belonging to the anti-Gregorian party, now begin- ning to be so influential in the Church. " The inflexible disposition of Hildebrand appeared even in his treatment of Lanfranc. Desirous to be excused from a journey to Rome to obtain the pall, * See Pagi, ad an. 1070, § 1, scq. t Lingard's Hist, of William I. p. 42, second edition. 122 LANFRANC, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. Lanfranc wrote to Hildebrand, by whose counsel Alexander, as well as his four predecessors, was governed, begging him to exert his influence to pre- vent the necessity of his appearing at Home in person. Hildebrand, in reply, insisted on his undertaking the journey. He intimated that other measures might be considered as well as the matter of the pall. Lan- franc consequently set out with Thomas, archbishop of York, and Remigius, bishop of Lincoln. They were all received with marked attention by the pope. The two companions of Lanfranc are said (but the story' is improbable) to have been deposed by his holiness ; who is reported to have given their crosiers and rings to Lanfranc, with the power to return them if he pleased, and that he immediately restored them. While at Kome, Lanfranc obtained a special bull from Alexander, by which possession of the cathedrals of England was confirmed to the monks. During this visit to the apostolic see, the dispute between Canterbury and York concerning the pri- macy was ordered by his holiness to be determined by a council of the English bishops ; and a council was accordingly held in the following year, the whole of the bishops, abbots, and many of the clergy of the kingdom being present, upon which occasion the primacy was adjudged to the see of Canterbury. Alexander, on the return of the bishops to England, wrote to the king, whom, after praising for his piety and zeal, he advised to consult Lanfranc, and abide by his counsels ; as he had invested him with power to give decisions as binding as though himself were present in person. He wrote also to the monks of Winchester at the same time; and, as this epistle may be looked upon as a general specimen of the authority IIILDEBRAND BECOMES POPE GREGORY VII. 123 assumed by Rome over the monasteries of England after the conquest, it may be considered an evidence of the extent of the subjugation of this island to the dominion of Hildebrand, resulting from the Norman conquest.' * The time had now arrived when Hildebrand, by whose influence so many popes had been already made, determined to ascend the papal chair himself. Under Alexander he had assumed the dignity of Chancellor of the Roman Church ; and he had attached to his interest so many persons of all parties among the clergy, the nobility, and the people, that he was publicly designated as the successor of Alex- ander several years before the death of that pontiff, which took place in 1073. On that occasion he could even request the cardinals to defer their formal elec- tion for a while, in order to prepare themselves for the work by a three days' fast ; well knowing that during that period he would be nominated pope by the acclamation of the people as well as by the reso- lution of the cardinals. Under these circumstances there was no difficulty as to the carrying out of the new regulation concerning papal elections ; and Hil- debrand was able to make it appear that he accepted the pontificate against his own will. It cannot be imagined that Hildebrand, now become a. d. 1073. Gregory VII., had been all along impelled by the 'vn.' ^ low motive of merely selfish ambition. It is impos- sible not to perceive not only that he was a man of most exalted genius, but that he was influenced in his plans by regard chiefly to the great end of promoting the interests of religion and the good of mankind, according to the honest, but in many respects erro- • Townsend, Eccl. and Civil History, book iii. cha]). 4. 124 POLICY AND PLANS OF GREGORY A^IL neous, views and convictions of his own mind. He may even have considered himself to have been called by God to the accomplishment of a great work. At the same time his zeal was by no means blind, but was regulated by the dictates of a cautious and far- seeing policy. Hildebrand had reason to apprehend great opposi- tion to his election from the young emperor. It was reasonable to expect that Henry would feel himself aggrieved, and would be personally hostile to him as having been the well-known author of indignities offered to the imperial crown since the death of his father ; and it is not unlikely that the German bishops, with whom Hildebrand as a zealous reformer was ex- tensively unpopular, would fan the flame of his indig- nation. Henry, in fact, was not only willing, but was now also able, to avenge the insult which had again been offered to the imperial crown by the election of Hildebrand ; and a storm was impending which might well have occasioned the utmost alarm to a pontiff of ordinary mental resources. Gregory was not afraid of the threatened conflict ; but he considered it better, if possible, to avoid it. He was prepared for extreme measures in opposition to the emj)eror, and his atti- tude in this respect was well known ; but yet he contrived to escape the contest, and to obtain from the emj)eror a formal confirmation of his election, without any concessions derogatory to his dignity or humiliating to his pride. Immediately after his election Gregory wrote to the emperor, saying that he had been compelled precipitately to assume the pontificate, which had been forced upon him by the Roman people, but that he had found means to defer his actual consecration to POLICY AND PLANS OF GREGORY VII. 125 the office, in the hope that, by the aid of the emperor, he would be deUvered from the necessity of under- taking the great responsibility and burden thus im- posed on him. He therefore earnestly entreated the emperor not to confirm his election, and this, not only for his own sake, but also for the sake of the emperor himself; for he was bound to tell him that as pope he must infallibly assume a hostile relation to him, since it was impossible that he could leave his vices and excesses unpunished. The emperor hereupon contented himself with sending one of his counsellors to Rome with a commission to inquire into the cir- cumstances of this unusually unanimous election, and to ascertain whether or not it had been attended with any irregularity, especially whether or not any simoniacal practices had taken place ; and when the report of the commissioner had been received, and thus a show of satisfaction to the imperial dignity made, the emperor confirmed the election, and com- manded his chancellor in Italy, the bishop of Vercelli, to attend the consecration of the new pontiffl The consecration took place June 29, 1073. This stroke of policy was not only well adapted to produce its immediate end, but was also in ac- cordance with Gregory's whole plan of operation. The whole plan, or at least the ultimate design of this plan, according to which Gregory acted during his pontificate, and which he had probably pursued through his life, may be briefly stated thus. The highest end of his efforts and schemes was not merely to secure to the Roman see the supreme power in and over the Church, but it was to make the Church itself independent of all other power, especially of the power of the State, and to deprive kings and princes, 126 POLICY AND PLAXS OF GREGORY YII. or the civ'il authorities, of that influence which they had hitherto claimed and exercised in so many ways with regard to ecclesiastical affairs. The supremacy of the Church of Rome over all other Churches he may well have considered as already established ; in order to maintain it, the popes had only to adhere to the principles and to follow the example of many pre- decessors ; they had only to retain an authority which, by repeated aggressions on the part of Rome, and concessions on the part of other Churches, had been already acquired. The problem remained to make the Church itself supreme. Considering the ravages which had often been committed upon the Church by princes and nobles, and the many ecclesiastical corruptions and abuses which could be traced to the subordinate connection of the Church with the State, it may well have seemed to such a man as Gregory* a worthy task, acceptable to God and beneficial to mankind, to establish the independence of the Church ; — and even (if possible) its supremacy, so as exactly to reverse the former order of things, making the State dependent on the Church, instead of the Church on the State. In short, his design was to set up a new theocracy, in which the Church should rule over the State, while the head of the Church should be recognised as the representative of Deity, and as the lord of all earthly kings and princes. He often acted as if this theocracy were already esta- blished, or at least as if the principle of it could not be contested : in many of his public declarations its existence is clearly assumed ; f and hence it is plain * See an Epistle of Gregory to Hugo, abbot of Clugiiv, lib. ii. Ep. 49. t Thus he affirmed that even the first four General Councils POLICY AND PLANS OF GREGORY VIT. 127 that we must ascribe this high and extensive design to his plans and efforts. It may, indeed, be asked, did not Gregory, with all his zeal and enthusiasm, possess sufficient pru- dence and knowledge of mankind to be aware that this magnificent design was in reality impracticable ? But if he could not have cherished his design with any sober expectation of success, still we can easily understand what may have induced him so strongly to bend his efforts in this direction, and to profess no lower aim. It could not have escaped his observa- tion that, in the actual course of events, it is impos- sible that the spiritual and civil powers can ever be entirely separated and kept asunder, and that they cannot but act and re-act upon each other. He must have foreseen that from time to time one of these powers would be seeking to obtain preponder- ance over the other ; and hence he may have thought it wise to take the opportunity which at that time existed of throwing as much weight as possible into the scale of spiritual power, in order to prevent its extreme depression at some future period. It is, therefore, possible that the independence of the Clturch may have been the ultimate end of his sober expectations ; and perhaps he aimed, or ap- peared to aim, at something more, in order at all events to secure thus much. were of force only as being sanctioned by pontifical authority, Cone. Rom. a.d. 1074 ; — "a doctrine," as Mr. Hussey observes, " dif- ferent from that of the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon, a. n. 451 ; in which the letter of Pope Leo was read, and then examined to see whether it was orthodox, according to the Nicene faith ; and each member of the Council was asked to give his opinion on this question, before the letter was received." — Rise of the I'aj.al I'oiver, sect. iii. part 2. 128 GREGORY DIRECTS HIS EFFORTS Gregory wisely chose to avoid, if possible, a dispute with the emperor concerning his own election, in which it would be evident that his personal interests were involved ; and he resolved even to suffer the emperor once more to exercise his right of confirma- tion, in order to reserve himself for another dispute with him on higher grounds, and at a more favourable juncture ; thus prudently choosing his subject, and abiding his time, of conflict. This was the great contest concerning the right of Investiture, which he set on foot between the Church and the State, be- tween the spiritual and the civil powers. In the first year of his pontificate Gregory an- nounced his intention of zealously prosecuting the reformation which had been begun by his predeces- sors; and declared also that he was determined to attack the monster evil of simony in a quarter hitherto unapproached. Former proceedings had been directed almost exclusively against the pur- chasers of ecclesiastical offices, against those bishops or clergy who had obtained their appointments by corrupt practices : a matter of no small importance, since the abuse must entirely cease if no purchasers could be found. But the new pontiff declared that he would not be satisfied with this line of proceeding alone ; he promised to direct the efforts of his zeal against the sellers as well as the buyers ; * and he denounced the emperor and the king of France as among the principal offenders in this matter. These princes had, in fact, for a long time past, permitted or connived at the most scandalous practices in the Churches of their realms. The young and dissolute Henry, surrounded by counsellors of like mind with * Epp. lib. i. 9, 11 ; lib. i. 3.">. AUATISrST SIMONY. 129 himself, or by those who were craftily seeking their own interests, during the early years of his inde- pendent government, had so arbitrarily disposed of bishoprics and other high ecclesiastical offices in Ger- many that nothing less than an open and regular trade in this property had been organised and con- ducted at his court. No doubt, Henry often made presents of these offices, as well as sales ; but this was as bad for the churches or monasteries, or even worse; for in that case the gift was made to some of his dissipated courtiers, or to their equally abandoned favourites and nominees. Philip I., king of France, conducted the matter a little more decently, but not really much better : he had a closer eye upon his own interests than Henry ; and it was, perhaps, more rare in France than in Germany for an important ecclesiastical office to be disposed of without, regular negotiation as to the payment of a due equivalent. The continuance of these practices after the recent measures of several successive pontiffs against simony not only cast discredit upon the Roman see, and impaired its influence, but also evidently tended to annul the attempts at reformation, and to render im- possible the infliction of penalties denounced ag,ainst simoniacal clergy. Gregory had therefore ample grounds for his denunciation of the emperor and the king of France. And these denunciations were received with the most humble and submissive ac- knowledgments. The language employed by Henry was even abject ; * he confessed that he had been a great offender, and promised to repair the evil to the utmost of his power. The king of France pleaded * See the answer of Hei>ry (if genuine) in Greg. Ep. lib. i. between Ep. 29 and 30 VOL. IT. K 130 GREUORY PUBLISHES A DECREE excuses in extenuation of his fault, and endeavoured to allay the indignation of the pope, making it mani- fest that he had no intention of setting the Church at defiance, or of failing in due respect to her laws.* This was more than Gregory could have expected. He had thus gained a signal advantage over two great sovereigns ; and of this he was prepared to make ample use on occasion of the first offence which they should afterwards commit. But he did not think it neces- sary to wait for this. Encouraged by the success of his first assault upon these princes, and by their mani- festations of weakness, he proceeded immediately to deal the decisive blow which he had meditated. He now astonished the world by the publication of his celebrated Decree, by which all clergy were for- bidden, under penalty of deprivation, to receive Inves- titure of a bishopric, abbey, or any ecclesiastical office, at the hands of a layman ; while all laymen, without exception, were forbidden to grant investiture to a spiritual person, under penalty of excommunica- tion. This decree Gregory sent into all kingdoms, especially into Germany, France, England, and Spain, accompanied with a charge to all bishops to look to its execution ; resting the propriety of the decree upon the general ground of the good of the Church, and the necessity of prohibiting lay investitures in order to put an end to the practice of simony. Upon this right of investiture depended the whole power of a prince over the bishops and clergy of his realm. Investiture was the universally recognised sign of feudal sovereignty on the one side and alle- giance on the other; and to dejtrive the civil rulers of the right of investiture was, in effect, to declare * r.reg. lib. i. Ep. 7.^. AGAINST LAY INVESTITURE. 131 that they should no longer possess any power or authority over their clergy. It was not against the existing form and manner of investiture that Gregory contended, but against the practice and principle of investiture itself. The aim of this decree was to dissolve all feudal connection between laity and clergy; and when this was distinctly perceived, no doubt could be entertained as to the nature of Gregory's ultimate intentions. Here was developed, in effect, the whole of his great design to make the Church independent of the State, and to deprive the State, as far as possible, of all influence, direct or indirect, in its affairs. And during the contest of half a century which ensued, it became evident that each of the con- tending parties knew very well how to estimate the real subject of dispute. The way in which Gregory began this conflict is one of the many mstances of his surprising sagacity and skill. It is not to be supposed that he expected the sovereigns of Europe at once tamely to surrender their right of investiture, or to suffer it to be wrested from their hands by his threat of excommunication. Even if he did not give them credit for being aware of the full value of that of which he sought to deprive them, he could not but be assured that they would endeavour to retain it with a firm grasp, if only for some of the minor and collateral advantages with which the right of investiture was attended. He must, however, have been aware that at least Philip of France and William of England knew how to esti- mate aright their real interests, and that they were neither unwilling nor unable to defend them. He could not but have contemplated strong opposition in these quarters ; and he resolved to jnish his own K 2 132 PLANS -WD PROCEEDINGS OF GREGORY efforts in that direction only to a certain point in the way of direct hostility. The right of investiture undoubtedly belonged to temporal princes, and it had been recognised by popes themselves times without number. There was danger lest in attacking this indubitable right the pope would arouse the spirit and feelings of the age against him ; and in that case his most formidable weapon, — the threatened excommunication, — would become powerless ; for it was well known, by princes no less than by popes, that this weapon derived all its force from the state of public opinion. If the princes should now persist in their exercise of the right of investiture, and should be herein supported by their people , then not only would the present design mis- carry, but the whole credit of the papacy would be placed in danger. Upon the first publication of the decree the sove- reigns took no notice of it, but simply proceeded with investitures as before. Doubtless, they hereby intended to manifest their contempt of the measures adopted against them, or, at all events, their sense of the imperturbable security of their prerogative ; and this coldness, whether more or less real, would probably have been more embarrassing than the most violent opposition on their part, to a pontiff not well prepared for every emergency. Gregory must also have anticipated a violent oppo- sition on the part of the bishops and clergy, partly from motives of interest, and partly from motives of a higher order ; and what could he do if opposed in his schemes by any large portion of the ecclesias- tical body ? His measures, steadily prosecuted during a period IN SUPPORT OF HIS DECREE. 133 of eight years, were all adapted to obviate these threatening difficulties. (1.) He determined immediately to make open war with the chief of these temporal princes, the emperor ; and that, not on the ground of the right of investiture, but yet so that at length the emperor should be compelled to purchase peace by the sur- render of that right. He may have had other reasons for choosing the emperor at once as his special enemy ; but doubtless he acted under a persuasion that other sovereigns would the more readily concede the question of investitures when the emperor had already led the way. (2.) The ill-will and opposition of the bishops and clergy he parried by a stroke as bold as it was unex- pected. He made war upon the clergy themselves, by placing in jeopardy some of their most immediate interests ; thus withdrawing their attention to a great degree from the investiture controversy, or, at all events, hindering them from taking an active part in it. This he accomplished by his new measures for enforcing the laws relating to clerogamy, — measures so taken as to render evasion and defiance alike impos- sible. During the last twenty years, in the course of the reformation which had been carried on, many attempts had been made to do away the scandal occasioned by the immoral lives of the clergy, and especially by the practice of concubinage which so notoriously prevailed. Old laws were revived and new ones made ; but they had been rendered ineffectual, sometimes by the strenuous opposition of the clergy against whom they were directed. Gregory, there- fore, was resolved to devise some still more stringent measures. At his first Roman council, in 1074, he 134 DECREE AGAINST CLEROGAMY. caused a decree to be confirmed, which pronounced excommunication not only against all married priests themselves, but against all lay persons who should receive or attend their ministrations, whether as con- fessors, in the celebration of mass, or in any other way. This decree was in direct contradiction of a canon of an old Council of Gangra, in the fourth century, incorporated in all collections of canon law, by which all persons were threatened with excom- munication who should declare a married priest dis- qualified for the performance of divine offices.* When this decree had been published throughout Europe, with a charge to the bishops to take care of its fulfil- ment, it occasioned, as might have been expected, a great commotion among the clergy ; and vehement opposition was in some cases offered to those bishops who endeavoured to enforce it. In some cases the clergy were supported in their resistance by the bishops themselves; and a council at Paris, a.d. 1074, even declared it heretical to forbid marriage to the clergy. Gregory was unmoved by this violence. He well knew that the foundations of the papacy lay deeply in public opinion ; and he was satisfied with taking care that his decree should be made known as exten- sively as possible among the people, — an object which he accomplished by his legates and by monkish emissaries, whom he employed in this business. By this means his end was effectually obtained. Every- where the people undertook to put in force the laws against those of the clergy who refused to part with their wives; by ill-treatment they drove hundreds of «* But the decree of Gregoi-y was so cautiously worded that Pagi finda it not very difficult to evade this charge of contradiction ; Crit. in Baron, iv. j). 253. DECREE AGAINST CLEROGAMY. 185 them to despair, and gave the rest to understand that they would be compelled to yield. It occupied, how- ever, more than half a century to complete this work. As a monk, Gregory had no doubt become thoroughly impressed with an idea of the superior sanctity of celibacy ; but it can hardly be supposed that his monastic zeal alone sufficed to stimulate him to all his harsh and extreme proceedings against the marriage of the clergy. While he was maturing his project of making the Church independent of the State, it could not escape his observation that clerical celibacy was a powerful means of promoting this in- dependence, and even that it was essential to its attainment. Nor did Gregory conceal his views in this matter ; he said again and again that his object was to rescue the clergy from their bondage to the laity ; and he was persuaded that the severities which he exercised towards some members of that body were adapted to benefit the whole. But while the chief end of this movement har- monised with the pontiff's whole plan of operation, it is clear that it served additionally as a diversion in his favour, in its bearing on his contest with temporal princes concerning investitures. Many of the clergy were now content to attend to their own interests, without involving themselves in that controversy at all ; and if others were disposed to espouse the cause of the civil rulers, — even the more so as being exasperated on account of the treatment they had themselves received, — yet their existing unpopularity deprived them of their ordinary influence, and ren- dered their opposition harmless. Gregory, as we have seen, lost no time in com- mencing a war with the emperor, which was the 136 Gregory's quarrel with the emperor, chief event of his pontificate. Henry, during the first years of his independent government, misled by youthful passions and the influence of corrupt favour- ites, had repeatedly set at nought all laws, human and divine, and had acquired so much odium in Ger- many, that a powerful party in that country would be likely to combine against him, in case of any hostilities from without ; and especially it might have been assumed that the Saxon nobles, who had lately risen against him, and had been harshly treated after their defeat, would be ready to take part with the pope as his enemy. It was the knowledge of this fact which probably induced Gregory to select the emperor as his immediate object of attack. At the ordinary Easter council, in the year 1075, Gregory pronounced sentence of suspension against several German bishops, who had purchased their preferment from the emperor, accompanied by a sen- tence of excommunication against five of the imperial counsellors, who were said to have commonly taken part in such simoniacal proceedings. He doubtless foresaw that the emperor would take up the quarrel of his bishops and counsellors ; and he perceived also that he would thus put himself in the wrong, accord- ing to the general sense of Europe, and so present a plausible pretext for hostilities. No sooner had Gregory learnt that the emperor continued to retain the excommunicated counsellors at his court, and that he manifested an intention of supporting the deposed bishops against the papal see, than he published a new decree, in the year 1076, summoning the emperor to appear in person at Home, there to answer various charges wliicli had been made against him. This })roceeding, bold as it was, can hardly be declared WHOM HE EXCOMMUNICATES AND DEPOSES. 137 irregular, since, by holding intercourse with excom- municated persons, the emperor had involved himself in this sentence according to the old and established laws of the Church. So that, formally, by giving the emperor an opportunity of defending himself or explaining his conduct, Gregory treated him with some degree of leniency. Henry, however, indignant at the decree, and disposed to adopt measures the very opposite of conciliatory, immediately assembled a council at Worms, by which a sentence of deposition was pronounced against the pope. This proceeding was, in many respects, irregular and illegal. Some have supposed that Henry was induced to adopt it by representations which he had received of the great unpopularity of Gregory in Italy, and the supposed readiness of many Italian bishops to concur in such a movement against him. He ought, however, to have known how difficult it would be, even if these reports were true, to sustain, on the whole, his informal and ill-advised measure. Gregory now pronounced sentence of excommmii- cation against all the bishops who had attended the council at Worms, or had given their adherence to its proceedings. Against the emperor h§ pronounced a sentence not only of excommunication, but of depo- sition, while he released all his subjects and vassals from their oath of allegiance ; and he published this act of excommunication and deposition to the whole world. The pontiff may, perhaps, have considered himself supported in these proceedings by the established principles of canon law ; and he may have designed them as an experiment with a view to ascertain how far the age was prepared for his intended theocracy: 138 HUMILIATION OF HENRY. but, be this as it may, his dethronement of the emperor may be regarded as an act of policy, inasmuch as, on the one hand, he could not hope to humble him effectually without the aid of the adverse party in Germany, and, on the other, he could, not expect to receive their hearty support without the prospect of some adequate reward, — a prospect which the vacant throne laid open to them. The correctness of the pontiff's calculations became manifest in a very short time, to the astonishment and. loss of the less wary emperor. As early as the summer of the same year, 1076, he saw the whole of Upper Germany in a state of revolt, under the lead of the duke of Bavaria and other nobles, while in Lower Germany the Saxons renewed hostilities against him. The adverse princes declared that they felt themselves bound to obey the sentence of the Church and the pope, and announced a resolution to proceed to the election of a new emperor ; when Henry hastily and unadvisedly sur- rendered himself into their hands, to be dealt with at their discretion. The terms already dictated by Gregory, which they imposed, were that he should suffer the pope to come into Germany, recognise him as his . sole and absolute judge, disband his troops, dismiss the excommunicated counsellors, con- sider himself suspended from the administration of the government, reside in Spires as a private person, and give his sanction to the sentence of deposition and to the election of a new emperor in case of his not receiving absolution within the space of one year. It was not the design of Gregory completely to overthrow Henry, but only to reduce him to such a condition that he would consider no sacrifice too great HUMILIATION OP HENRY. 139 for the purchase of peace and reconciliation with the papal see. This object he had now completely gained. Stunned by the blow which had thus unexpectedly fallen upon him, Henry conceived the idea of hasten- ing into Italy and obtaining, without delay, by earnest and humble entreaty, that absolution upon which his crown depended. His design was, probably, to lose no time in this important matter ; and he preferred Italy to Germany as the scene of his humiliation. Accordingly, he set out on his journey, almost unat- tended, together with the empress, in the midst of a severe winter, — under circumstances which could not only excite no apprehension in the mind of the pope, but might be supposed likely even to move him to compassion.* On his arrival in Italy, Henry humbly requested an interview with Gregory, who was then at Canossa, on his way to Germany. This inter- view was granted ; the result of which was, that the pope insisted on the emperor's doing penance before he should receive absolution, and kept him waiting for this absolution in the garb of a penitent during a space of three days in the open air. The pope then granted absolution, but did not revoke the sentence of deposition : he only promised that he would imme- diately come into Germany, and give audience to the complaints of the estates on the spot ; after which he would decide upon the subjects in dispute. At the same time he took an oath from Henry, by which he bound himself to throw no obstacles in the way of the projected journey to Germany, and to submit unre- servedly to the pope's decision, whatever it might be. Indeed, even absolution was granted only on the ex- press condition that the excommunication should return * Greg. Epp. lib. iv. Ep. 12. 140 A NEW TURN OF AFFAIRS. in full force in case of the emperor's failing to fulfil any part of this severe engagement.* The pope, now really intent upon the re-establish- ment of Henry, whom he regarded as sufficiently humbled, acted without reference to the wishes of those German princes who had combined against him, and who desired his complete overthrow in order that the throne might fall a prize to one of themselves. He did not therefore insist upon the surrender of the right of investiture, thinking it better for his own interests, and those of the emperor, that the settlement of this question should be delayed a little longer. From the moment in which Henry left Canossa, the affair between him and the pope had taken a new turn, which entirely embarrassed the calculations of Gregory, disappointed his expectations, and ren- dered him more than ever uncertain, — uncertain even at the period of his death, — whether the execution of his chief and ultimate plan would ever be practicable. This turn of affairs was immediately occasioned by the measures adopted for the complete restoration of Henry. It occasioned the continuance of war with the emperor during the remainder of Gregory's pon- tificate ; but this also gave him an opportunity of manifesting the greatness of his genius, and of placing his skill and the firmness of his character in a light under which alone history can form a due estimate of their excellence. Henry left Canossa, not doubting that Gregory would employ his influence with the refractory princes of Germany in his favour, and thus take effectual * Juramentum Henrici in Grog. Epp. lib. iv., between Ep. 12, and Ep. 13. A XEW TFRN OF AFFAIRS. 141 measures for upholding him on his throne ; and he was therefore resolved to preserve the good under- standing with the pontiff for his own sake. But no sooner had he recovered his dignity than he made a discovery which tended greatly to shake his deter- mination. He found, — but he knew also that he had made this discovery too late, — that, if he had come into Italy as a man and an emperor, a great part of the country, including the whole of Lombardy, and especially the Milanese, would have been willing to support him against the pope, and that, accordingly, there had been a time when it was in his power to humble Gregory as completely as Gregory had humbled him. The Milanese did not conceal their contempt for his pusillanimity in so humbly supplicating the papal abso- lution ; and the bishops of Lombardy told him plainly that he had greatly disappointed their expectations, and that they were ashamed to acknowledge him as their sovereign. Henry took pains to soothe the Lombards, and gave them to understand that they would find another opportunity of showing their dislike of Gregory. Henry's friends now began to gather round him, and his position soon became for- midable to the pope : but he carefully avoided giving any cause of offence, until he was fully satisfied as to the posture of affairs in Germany. Here, however, events had taken place which were extremely embarrassing to Gregory. Under the pretence that by his journey into Italy Henry had broken the contract by which he was bound to remain a w4iole year at Spires, the hostile princes now de- clared the throne vacant, and filled it by electing Rodolph, duke of Suabia. Henry, upon receipt of this intelligence, immediately marched at the head 142 GREGORY SUPPORTS RODOLPH, of the army which he had collected in Italy, and having defeated Rodolph in an engagement on the A.D. 1077. ]Sj"eckar, deprived him of his dukedom, which he conferred upon Count Frederic of Hohenstaufen. Henry's party gained strength in Germany, and he was soon in all respects a match for the rival emperor. It now became important for each party to receive a declaration of the pope in his favour; but it was equally dangerous for Gregory to decide on behalf of either. He caused a decree to be issued by a council at Rome, in which, to the surprise of all men, he took no notice of the fact that a new king had been elected in Germany, — repeated his promise of sending two legates into that country with full powers to settle the disputes between Henry and the adverse party, — and pronounced excommunication against any who should hinder their journey or obstruct their efforts. The adherents of Rodolph, especially the Saxons, felt themselves aggrieved by this proceeding, and denounced it as false and treacherous towards them- selves, and unworthy of the character of Gregory. The pope, however, insisted that the election of Rodolph had taken place against his advice and without his approbation, and that its validity must therefore be subject to his examination and decision. This language he maintained throughout the year 10/9, while no event occurred to change materially the position of the conflicting parties. In the mean time, his legates went from one party to the other, and plundered both as well as they could. Both parties also sent ambassadors to Gregory, — both were received by him, — and to each he gave a promise of sending fresh legates into Germany, exacting from both parties an engagement upon oath that the legates WHO VAIhS TO SUPPLANT HENRY. 143 should have safe-conduct, and that their decision should be obeyed. At the beginning of 1080, how- ever, the contest appeared to be at an end, and the papal decision speedily followed in favour of Kodolph. On the 27th of January, Henry lost the battle of Fladenheim ; and on the 9th of March the sentence of excommunication was revived against him, his deposition confirmed, and all his subjects again re- leased from their oath of allegiance. Rodolph at the same time was recognised by the pope as king of Germany, and, the apostolical benediction having been pronounced upon all who should remain faithful to his cause, Gregory sent him a crown, with the celebrated inscription "Petra dedit Petrse, Petrus diadema Rudolpho." But the measures of the pontiff were in this case precipitate and premature. Henry, after his defeat, collected an army, proclaimed war against the pope, caused him to be deposed from the pontificate by a council, in which Guibert, archbishop of Pavenna, was elected pope under the name of Clement III., and, having defeated the Saxons in a (a.d. io84. battle in which Podolph lost his life, hastened to ^n1")"* Italy, and encamped, on the eve of Whitsunday 1081, before the gates of Pome. The time of Gregory's humiliation had now arrived, a humiliation which lasted during the remainder of his life. The emperor, finding that Rome did not immediately yield, turned the siege into a blockade, by which means he was at liberty to direct his atten- tion to other quarters where his presence was required. At length, in the beginning of 1084, Pome sur- rendered, received the new pope Clement III., and compelled Gregory to seek safety in the castle of St. Angelo, which the Pomans now assisted the 144 GREGORY IN THE CASTLE OF ST. ANGELO. emperor in besieging as eagerly as they had formerly defended it against him. Here Gregory remained nearly three years, almost as a prisoner. During this period, and under these difficult circumstances, he conducted himself so as to extort the admiration even of his enemies ; maintaining his dignity and pretensions with unshaken firmness, not only with regard to his opponents, but also with respect to those of whose services and assistance he stood in need. In 1081, the enemies of Henry in Germany elected a new king in the person of Hermann of Luxemburg, to supply the place of Rodolph. They reported this election to Gregory, while the forces of Henry were besieging Rome ; and in reply the pope told them that he would recognise as king no one who would not promise strict obedience to the Church, and who would not consent to take an oath in the presence of his legates according to a formula which he prescribed, — an oath by which in fact the king of Germany was formally declared to be a vassal of the Roman see. In 1083, the Romans were urgent for the conclusion of a peace with Henry ; and Henry was willing to come to terms, on condition that Gregory would crown him emperor. But Gregory declared that the emperor must first be recon- ciled to the Church, confess his faults, and receive absolution, before he could treat with him. At the same time he applied to the Norman duke Robert, and called upon him to render the aid which he owed to him as his liege lord. Robert was the only man in the world who could render Gregory any effectual assistance. But he demanded, as the price of his support, to be left in undisturbed possession of some Church property which had lately been acquired DEATH OF GREGORY. 145 by plunder ; and Gregory would not give him this assurance any further than by consenting to say, " I now patiently bear with thee concerning the lands which thou unjustly occupiest." Immediately on the entrance of Henry into Rome, Clement III. was enthroned as pope, who in return placed the imperial crown on Henry's head, March 31, 1084. After a few months, by the aid of Robert and his Normans, Gregory was released from the castle of St. Angelo, and again enabled to hold a council, in which sentence of excommunication was pronounced against the emperor, the anti-pope, and all his ad- herents. Terrible, however, were the calamities which the Normans now inflicted on Rome, their ravages being described as not inferior to those of the Goths and Yandals of former times ; and the rage of the Romans being now turned against Gregory as the author of these sufferings, he was compelled to flee from a place in which his life was every moment in danger. After a short abode on Monte Casino, he took refuge with the Normans in Salerno, and in this exile he died, May 24th of the following year, 1085. His last words were " Dilexi justitiam, et odi iniquitatem ; propterea morior in exsilio." The great plan which Gregory had formed for securing the independence of the Church did not, however, die with him. He left behind him a considerable party, animated with his own spirit, and conscious that their interests were identified with the eventual success of his schemes. Henry had on his side most of the large towns of Italy, such as Milan, Parma, and Pavia, with the whole of Lombardy, and especially the Lombard bishops ; but from some of these allies the assistance VOL. II. T- 146 Gregory's successors. which he could derive was very small, and from others it was uncertain; while the power of the Normans, in the south of Italy, had so greatly increased that they had become formidable to the emperor, and were looking forward to the time when they should come into actual collision with him. It was even said that Gregory had promised the im- perial crown to Kobert as the price of his assistance against Henry.* That pontiff had also found a powerful friend and supporter in the countess Matilda, daughter and heiress of Boniface, marquis of Tuscany, whose large possessions in Italy enabled her to supply money and arms against the emperor. f After the death of Gregory, her interests, as well as those of the Normans, were identified with the anti- German party. Shortly before his death, Gregory nominated three persons from whom he requested the cardinals at Salerno to elect his successor. One of them, Desiderius, abbot of Monte Casino, was elected ; who, after long refusal and close retirement in his monastery, at length consented to ascend the papal A. D. 1086. throne under the title of Victor III. He died, however, after a brief pontificate ; having first pre- vailed upon the cardinals to choose as his successor another of the nominees of Gregory, the cardinal Otho, of Ostia ; who was accordingly elected, and A. D. 1088. assumed the title of Urban II. This pontiff" proved himself worthy of the double recommendation which he had received. Possessing no small measure of the dexterity and firmness of Gregory himselfj, he soon gave a turn to the war * Muratori, Anual. vi. 258. t Greg. Ep. i, 40, 47; ix, 3 ; Baron, ad an. 1074, n. 10. Gregory's successors. 147 with the emperor which promised a speedy result, highly favourable to the papal interests. During the last three years the emperor had not been able to obtain so decided a preponderance of power in Italy as to enable him successfully to resist the operations of the hostile party. He could not hinder the Normans, and the countess Matilda, from bringing again their new pope to Rome, and putting him in possession of a part of the city and some of the churches, a portion of the Roman people being inclined to his interests. On their part, however, they had not been able to expel the anti-pope from Rome, who still had possession of the most important part of the city, including the Lateran palace and the castle of St. Angelo. Hostilities were desultory, and the event doubtful ; when Urban, determined to bring the matter to a speedy issue, executed a mas- terly stroke of policy. He prevailed upon the countess Matilda to marry the son of the duke of Bavaria, by which means his father was induced to employ all his wealth and influence in the empire more zealously than ever against Henry. The effect of this alliance, however, not being so rapid or so great as Urban expected, he resolved upon adopting a still more vigorous measure. He prevailed upon Conrad, the only son of the emperor, to engage in open rebellion against his father, — caused him to be crowned king of Italy, and to be married to a Norman princess, — and thus brought about a change in the position of parties so complete that Henry soon found himself obliged to yield up Italy, in order to secure himself in Germany. Under these circum- stances Urban had little to fear from the anti-pope, who had never been recognised by any foreign prince L 2 148 URBAN II. except the emperor; for although, in the existing state of affairs at Rome, he had not yet been able to expel him from the city, but was content to purchase from him possession of the Lateran palace and church, still the party of Clement was so weak throughout the rest of Italy, and even in Lombardy, that it must have been impossible for it ever again to raise its head and obtain ascendency.^ It was at this juncture of affairs that Urban eagerly fanned the flames of that enthusiasm which had already taken possession of some men's minds for the rescue of the Holy Land out of the hands of the Mahometans, and lent his countenance to the first Crusade (a.d. 1091). Some such idea seems to have presented itself to the mind of pope Silvester II., as early as the begin- ning of the eleventh century.* Gregory VII. had incited Henry IV. to a holy war, assuring him that there were fifty thousand men in Italy ready to engage in it, and that he was willing to place himself at their head. It is exceedingly probable that the project was renewed during the present pontificate, by a suggestion made to a French monk, Peter the Hermit, during the course of a pilgrimage which he had undertaken to Jerusalem ; to whom it is said that Simeon, patriarch of Jerusalem, gave occasion to report that Christ himself had appeared to him in the church of the Holy Sepulchre, and had commanded him to stir up the whole of Christendom to the task of delivering the Holy Laud from its infidel and unjust possessors. With letters from the patriarch authorising his mission, Peter immediately hastened * Greg. M. Epii. lib. ii. Ep. 31 (if genuine) ; lib. i. Ep. 49 ; lib. i. Ep. 46. THE FIRST CRUSADE. 149 to Rome, and declared the matter to the pope, who prudently told him to publish the circumstance as widely as he could throughout the Christian world, and then to give him an account of the effect pro- duced by his labours. With this account Peter returned to Rome, whither the fame of his success had already preceded him. Wherever he had ex- pounded his mission and preached a crusade, the flame of enthusiasm in this cause had seized on countless numbers of persons in every rank of life ; and he could confidently assure the pope that, if he would but give the word, one half of the inhabitants of Europe would be ready to march into Asia at his bidding without delay. Urban could, therefore, no longer find room for hesitation ; indeed, it would have been difficult for him to repress the desire of Europe for a crusade. The pontiff applied himself to the task with promptitude and zeal. At a council which he convened at Placentia, in the be- ginning of 1095, he addressed the vast multitude assembled in a speech which at once enlisted all his hearers in the holy war ; and, at a second council, in August of the same year, held at Clermont, in France, he found himself called on to conduct the actual execution of the undertaking with all speed. In the following year (1096) the first crusade was on its march, draining Europe of no less than half a million of its people. If Urban possessed any measure of honest zeal in favour of this movement, still it is not to be supposed that his zeal was altogether blind ; and we may be sure that he did not lose sight of the advantage which it could be made to yield to the interests of the papacy and the promotion of his own designs. It was im- 150 ZEAL OF CRUSADERS ASSISTS THE PAPACY, possible that he could foresee all the important results which flowed from the crusades to Europe and the whole race of mankind ; but their bearing on his own interests, in one respect, could not fail to be appreciated by any pontiff of ordinary discern- ment, in the position which Urban at that time occu- pied. The universal fanaticism which had sprung up was an element capable of receiving a new direc- tion, and of being employed for other purposes than those which were now before it. In the great struggle of the Roman see against the civil power for the independence of the Church, the pope could not expect to prevail except by aid of the spirit of the age and popular opinion. And what might not he hope for from the existing state of excitement, if he could succeed in directing it to the fulfilment of his own purpose ? At the very outset, Urban began to make a good use of the power which already, to a certain extent, was at his disposal, A body of crusaders under Hugh, brother of the king of France, and the counts of Flanders and Normandy, having arrived at Rome, obeyed without hesitation the behest of the pontifi' to effect the expulsion of the anti-pope Clement III. from that city. At the same time. Urban began to assume a higher tone in the dispute respecting investitures, and generally in his intercourse with the sovereigns of Europe. He not only renewed the decree of Gregory concerning lay investitures, but he took accurate notice of particular instances in which princes offended against that decree. Conrad, the new king of Italy, having granted investiture to Arnulf, archbishop of Milan, Urban despatched a legate to deprive the archbisho)) of the see, or at URBAN QUARRELS WITH PHILIP I. OF FRANCE. 151 least to prohibit his consecration. Nor did he hesi- tate to arouse the haughty spirit of William the Conqueror, of England, whom Gregory had spared. The king having banished Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, from the kingdom, because he insisted upon fetching his pall from Rome and receiving it at the hands of the pope. Urban now declared himself ready to pronounce sentence of excommunication against him; from which he was deterred only by the earnest entreaties of Anselm himself. But he avoided controversy on this subject with his Norman friends in Italy ; and in order that he might with a good grace suffer them to proceed with their custom of granting investiture to their bishops, and other- wise interfering in ecclesiastical matters, he bestowed upon count Roger of Sicily, for himself and his suc- cessors, the rights of perpetual papal legates. Still more sensibly did Philip I., of France, feel what accession of real power had accrued to the pope from the state of popular feeling excited by the crusades, and how well Urban understood the fact. Under Gregory VII. the highest ecclesiastical offences of this sovereign had met only with rebuke ; and he probably hoped that no other results would follow under the pontificate of Urban. But in this he was mistaken. In 1085 or 1092, Philip had separated himself from his consort Bertha, and in the latter year he married the countess Bertrade, who had been separated from her husband Fulco, count of Anjou. Philip was married to Bertrade by the bishop of Senlis ; and a council at Rheims, in 1094, declared the marriage valid. In this transac- tion, however, there was sufficient irregularity to give occasion to Ivo, bishop of Chartres, to denounce it as 152 PHILIP YIELDS, AFTER EXCOMMUNICATION. scandalous. For this offence, Philip caused Ivo to be imprisoned ; and this proceeding;, together with the complaints of the count of Anjou, excited Urban to vigorous measures against him. In 1092, the pope addressed an epistle to the archbishop of Rheims, in which he severely rebuked him and his fellow-bishops, especially the bishop of Senlis, for their criminal connivance at the guilty act of the king, admonishing them to enjoin Philip to send away his new queen and take back the rejected Bertha, and declaring that, if the king should refuse compliance, he would be obliged " to draw the sword of Phineas against the Midianitish adulterers." He commanded the bishops also to insist upon the imme- diate release of Ivo, threatening that, in case of Philip's refusal, he would pronounce sentence of excommu- nication against him, and lay his whole kingdom under an interdict. Philip at first seemed willing to submit the whole matter to examination by the Church ; but, when it became evident that his object was only to gain time. Urban nominated archbishop Hugh as his legate in France (1094), who, in a synod at Autun, pronounced sentence of excommu- nication against the king.* Hereupon Philip as- sumed a very submissive tone, not only giving the pope reason to believe that he was ready to yield to his decision, but professing himself prepared to swear that he had abstained from all connubial intercourse with Bertrade from the moment in which the papal inhibition had become known to him. Upon this representation. Urban absolved him from the sen- tence of excommunication ;f but afterwards, having * Cone. Educnse sive Augustodunense, a. d. 1094. t Urbani Epist. ad Archieiiiscopos et Episcopos Francia; (Labbe). COUNCIL OF CLERMONT. 153 found that the king had deceived him, he renewed the sentence with still greater solemnity, in a council at Clermont ; and so great was the effect of that sentence, under the existing circumstances of the times, that Philip found himself obliged, after a short hesitation, to seek reconciliation to the Church by the actual dismissal of Bertrade. . At this council of Clermont it became evident, in another respect, how much the pope had begun to reckon upon the spirit of the age, for he now ven- tured to disclose to the eyes of the whole world that finishing stroke of papal policy to which the con- troversy concerning investitures was ultimately di- rected. He not only renewed the prohibition of lay investitures, but he caused it to be laid down broadly and universally as a new law that no ecclesiastic should take the oath of fealty to a layman.* And thus the complete dissolution of all feudal connection between the Church and State was formally effected, — a point at which Gregory aimed, no doubt, when he began the dispute concerning investitures. Urban died in 1099, after a pontificate of about twelve years, and was succeeded by Rainerius, a cardinal of the Gregorian, or anti-imperial, party, under the title of Paschal II. In the first year of a. d. 1099. his pontificate occurred the death of the anti-pope Clement, who had been already ejected from Rome ;f and in the year following, the countess Matilda, who had been separated from her husband, the duke of Bavaria, formally renewed the donation of all her goods and possessions to the Roman see. Philip had * Cone. Claromont. can. 17 : " Ne Episcopus vel sacerdos regi, vel alicui laico, in manibus ligiam fidditatem faciat." t 17 Nov. 1102 ; see Baron, ad an. 1103, n. 20, 21, 154 FURTHER HUMILIATION OF PHILIP. now taken back Bertrade ; and Paschal immediately commanded his legate in France to renew the sen- tence of excommunication. This was done in a synod held at Poictiers, which was, indeed, dispersed by William, duke of Aquitaine, probably at the instance of the king, but, on this account, only pro- duced the greater impression upon the popular mind. The king, shortly afterwards, having come to Sens, felt the effects of the sentence pronounced against him. The people closed all the churches, and threatened to murder Bertrade, who had caused one of them to be thrown open ; and thus again com- pelled the king to sue right humbly for absolution, which was not granted to him without some delay, nor until he had given full satisfaction to the demands of the papal see.* Events in Germany now took a turn decidedly in favour of the papal power. Conrad having died in the year 1101, it might have appeared possible that Henry would now again march into Italy. But even if he should not do so, still no political changes seemed likely to take place in Germany, adapted to put an end to the existing state of things ; while Henry, in fact, set the pope at defiance, freely granted investitures as formerly, and took no notice of the sentence of ex- communication which had been pronounced against him. Matters could not be suffered to go on thus ; and Paschal made a successful attempt to turn the spirit of the crusades in his favour against the em- peror. He employed every means to strengthen and increase the papal party among the German nobility and bishops; and in this he so far succeeded that Henry, the emperor's second son, raised the standard * Paschalis II. Ep. 35. PAPAL ENCROACHMENTS IN GERMANY. 155 of rebellion against his father in 1 105. From the manifesto published by the young prince, it is evident that papal machinations were closely connected with his proceedings, the only charge which was herein brought against the emperor being that he had occa- sioned a schism in the Church, and had refused obedience to the pope ; while, in a council, the prince declared his only design to be to bring back his father to due submission to St. Peter and his successors. The conduct of his adherents soon disclosed his real intentions. No sooner had the emperor been brought into their power by an act of treachery than they compelled him, in a convention at Ingelheim, to lay aside the royal insignia, and patiently look on while his son was elected and crowned king. This blow, which had so far subdued his pride, or his courage, as to induce him to address himself most submissively to the pope and his legates, at length broke his heart, and he died in August, 1106. Everything in Germany appeared thus far to pro- ceed in accordance with the wishes of the pope, the new king and future emperor having vowed the most complete submission to the holy see, and being apparently bound, by his previous conduct, to fulfil his engagements. In a council held at this time, at which the pope received an embassy from the young king, soliciting the papal confirmation of his election. Paschal again gave a new sanction to the decree against lay investitures, but, at the same time, pro- nounced an universal amnesty for all past offences.* This act of clemency was gratefully acknowledged by the German bishops and clergy, who made a promise of future obedience, — with the exception of the clergy * Couc. Guastall. a. D. 1106, can. 2. 156 HEXRY V. RESISTS THE POPE. of Liege, whose refusal so exasperated the pontiff, that he excited Robert of Flanders to undertake a crusade against them.^' The scene, however, suddenly changed, and the world was astonished by the discovery that all the previous movements of the new king had been de- signed only to deceive the pope, and to induce him to enter Germany. The ambassadors who went to Italy to sue for the confirmation of his election were also charged to entreat Paschal to visit that country in person, in order to put a period to the disorders which had arisen and were not yet thoroughly al- layed. Henry, however, was too impatient in this matter ; for, no sooner had the pope set out for Ger- many than, thinking himself now sure of success, he gave some significant indications of his secret and real design, and even let fall a hint that_, when once the pope had entered his dominions, he would no longer even treat with him on the subject of investitures. This was enough for Paschal, who henceforward regarded Henry as his most determined enemy, and not only suspended his journey towards Germany, but prepared to encounter future attacks fi-om an emperor whose hostility he now so justly feared. He went into France, where he hoped to engage Philip and his son Louis in a combination against Henry ; but he obtained, by this diversion, no more than a brief delay of the storm which had been already gathering against him in Germany. No sooner was Henry aware that Paschal had discovered his designs than he threw off the mask, and proceeded to measures of open opposition. He * Epistola Leodiensium advcrsus Papam Pasclialem II. ; Ep. Paschalis ad Robertum Comit. Flaiidrcnsiiim (Labbe). HENRY IN ITALY. 157 sent an embassy to the pope in France, declaring his intention to proceed, in future, with the investiture of bishops as anciently in the time of Gregory I., and that the pope must be satisfied with this conduct if he meant to preserve peace between Church and State. Paschal replied that he would never submit to the bondage which Henry sought again to impose upon the Church, — that his claim was an impious attack upon divine right, — and that he must not expect him to yield for a single instant. To this the ambassadors answered that they would waste no more words on the subject, the emperor being determined to decide the controversy with the pope himself, by an appeal to the sword, at Kome. In 1 1 10, Henry proceeded to put this threat into execution. He marched into Italy at the head of thirty thousand men, and sent deputies from Arezzo to the pope, asking him whether or not he desired to see him with his whole army at Rome, and saying that, if not, he must consent to crown him em- peror, and formally to recognise his right of granting investitures, sending an answer to that effect without delay. The situation of Paschal was now extremely difficult ; for, in a council lately held at Benevento,* he had renewed the threat of excommunication against all laymen who should presume to grant investitures to ecclesiastics, and yet, on the other hand, he had no adequate means of resisting the power of the emperor. He could devise no other way of escape than an attempt to draw Henry into delusive negotiations, and of this artifice he made a masterly use. He told the ambassadors that it was impossible for him to withdraw the decree against lay investitures, and therefore also impossible to concede the right of * Cone. Benevcnt. a.d. 1108. 158 THE POLICY OF PASCHAL investiture to their master, but it was possible to offer an adequate compensation. He could not deny that the pretensions of princes to that right rested on good ground, inasmuch as most of those temporal posses- sions which they delivered to the bishops by investi- ture had been originally presented to the Church by their bounty ; but, since this right of investiture could be no longer conceded to them upon higher grounds of conscience, nothing remained but to give back that which undoubtedly belonged to them. He therefore declared himself ready to consent, in the name of the Church, that the emperor should resume all those possessions and regalia with which he had formerly in- vested the bishops and abbots of his dominions. After this, the crown would have no ground upon which to found a claim of the right of investiture ; and, at the same time, the Church would be no great loser by the poverty into which she would thus be thrown, inas- much as her corruptions had proceeded chiefly from her wealth, and would probably cease with the loss of it, while the bishops would be able to attend to their proper business better than they could hitherto do, when clogged with the arrangement of so many tem- poral affairs ; and there could be no doubt that the voluntary offerings of the faithful would suffice for their sustenance, as in the early Church. No pro- posal could be more attractive and inviting to the emperor ; but it was, doubtless, this very circumstance which caused suspicion in the mind of the sagacious Henry, who could not also fail to perceive that, even if the pope was in earnest in making such proposal, yet it might not be acquiesced in by the German bishops, whose interests it immediately concerned. On the whole, he doubtless perceived that the design OVERMATCHED BY HENRY. 159 of Paschal was not only to secure his own present safety by empty promises, but to involve him in new difficulties in his own dominions. He therefore resolved to shut up the pope in the pit which he had thus dug with his own hands. After some appear- ance of deliberation, the king accepted the proposed conditions, and the compact was solemnly confirmed by oath,* Henry agreeing to renounce the right of investiture on the day of his coronation, and the pope engaging to command all bishops and abbots to restore whatever property had been granted to them by the emperors, from the time of Charlemagne. Henry now repaired to Rome, where he arrived, Feb. 12, 1111. Here he professed himself ready to take the oath declaring his renunciation of the rights of in- vestiture before that altar in the presence of which he was to be crowned emperor ; but he sarcastically added that it was, of course, necessary that the bishops present should first declare their assent to the conditions prescribed on their part. And this was the signal for a scene which had, no doubt, been previously concerted. The German and Lombard bishops in the train of the emperor vehemently attacked the pope, charging him with having helped himself, in his necessity, at their expense ; and they were followed by the imperial princes, who declared that their sovereign should receive the crown in the same manner as all his predecessors, from the time of Charlemagne. The pope having found himself obliged to consent to the coronation, it was demanded that he should also expressly recognise the emperor's right of investiture ; and upon his hesitating to do this, he was seized as a prisoner, and carried away, * Baron, ad an. 1111. 100 PASCHAL REVOKES HIS CONCESSIONS. while his palace was plundered by the imperial troops. Exasperated by an insurrection of the Komans, Henry conveyed the captive pontiff from Home, and is said to have threatened to give him a place among the martyrs unless he should immediately comply with his requirements. According to other accounts, he treated him with apparent respect, although as a prisoner ; but all agree in saying that, at length, the pope entirely yielded. A fresh compact was here- upon made, in which the pope pledged himself to consent that, in future, all bishops and abbots freely elected, with the sanction of the emperor, should receive investiture at his hands, with the crosier and ring, before their consecration. The emperor insisted upon receiving the sworn assent of thirteen cardinals to this engagement, and required that the pontiff should himself publicly deliver the document which contained it to himself at the time of his coronation.* He then set Paschal at liberty, returned in triumph to Ger- many, and exercised his right of investiture in the case of a newly-elected archbishop of Mayence. After the departure of the emperor, the pope, in a Lateran Council, a.d. 1112, revoked all the conces- sions which had been extorted from him, and annulled the whole transaction which had taken place between the emperor and himselff He was, to a certain extent, compelled to adopt this step by the clamour of the Komans and the cardinals, together with all the adherents of the Gregorian party in and out of Italy, By them he was vehemently accused of having timidly betrayed the rights of the Church ; even his acts in the Lateran Council were scarcely * Baron, ad an. 1111, n. 17, 18, If), t Cone. Lateran. A. r>. 1112. HENRY AGAIN IN ITALY. DEATH OP PASCH.U.. Ifil accepted, instead of what it was declared he ought to have done upon his own responsibihty, while he was blamed for not having proceeded to pronounce sentence of excommunication against the emperor ; and he was, at length, compelled to adopt even this extreme measure. A council of Burgundian bishops, convened by Guido, archbishop of Vienne, undertook, in its zeal, by a new right, to pronounce the desired anathema, and sent its decrees to Rome, wdth a declaration that nothing but the pope's assent to them should induce them to regard him any longer as the head of the Church and successor of St. Peter. There was now no reasonable prospect of extorting the right of investiture out of the hands of the em- peror as long as his power in his own dominions was unshaken ; and the prospect was diminished by the fact that the German princes and bishops had zealously assisted Henry in obtaining his victory over the pope. In a short time other circumstances arose, which not only threatened to interfere with the schemes of the Gregorian party, but seemed to be charged with danger to the papacy itself. In 1116, the emperor undertook an expedition into Italy, in order to take possession of the estates of the countess Matilda, who had died in 1115. At his approach. Paschal was so alarmed that he fled for safety to Bene- vento (11 17) ; and, even at this distance, he did not display any spirit in asserting the claims of the Roman Church to the property which had been formally be- queathed to it. By this means he so far increased the contempt of the Roman people that, on his return, they would not even admit him into the city. He soon after died, like Gregory, in exile. The car- VOL. 11. M lGr2 GELASIUS II. — CALIXTUS TI. dinals having elected John of Gaeta as his successor, A.D. 1118. under the title of Gelasius II.. the emperor incited Gelasius U- i t-> i i (Gregory the itoman people to make an attempt to recover ■^ their original right of election,* and they accordingly- elected a Spanish archbishop, Maurice Bourdin, under the name of Gregory VIII. The emperor exercised also his right of confirmation in favour of Gregory, and soon compelled Gelasius to quit Italy and seek refuge in France. It now seemed as if the ancient relations between the emperor and the pope would be, in a short time, fully re-established ; but, fortunately for the papacy, at this juncture affairs took a new turn in Germany, and soon brought about a change which, however, turned out more favourably for the emperor than he could have hoped. A.D. 1119. Gelasius soon died in France *, but the cardinals of CalixtusII. r\ r~i ■ l i • i • i • • the Gregorian party, who w^ere in his train, imme- diately elected, as his successor, Guido, archbishop of Vienne, who took the name of Calixtus II. This choice was well received by the Romans, who declared themselves ready to recognise the new pope as soon as he should come into Italy, a declaration which produced a highly favourable effect in Germany. When he undertook his present expedition into Italy, Henry left behind him a fermenting opposition in his German dominions, excited and maintained princi- pally by the bishops, especially Albert, archbishop of Mayence ; and a diet at Wurzburg, assembled during his absence, threatened to depose him unless he should appear personally and answer various charges preferred against him. When the account of the election of Calixtus reached this party, they did not * ]\rnvatori, Annal. torn. vi. pp. 300, 391. CALTXTUS FINDS SUPPORT IX GERMANY. 1G3 hesitate to recognise him as pope, and thus to identify their cause with his ; and they gave notice to the emperor that he must come to an understanding with the new pontiff on the question of investitures, at a council which he had summoned at E,heims. There was no reason why Henry should have been surprised at this change in the sentiments of the German clergy, and even of those who had been most forward in supporting him against the preceding pope. On his first return from Italy, he had made a use of his right of investiture, such as the German Churches could not long tolerate ; having in fact employed his power for the purpose of spoliation and plunder. The German bishops perceived that of the two evils between which they had to choose, — an entire submis- sion to the emperor, or a greater dependence on the pope, — the latter was the least; and they were accord- ingly now prepared to contend not so much on behalf of the papal see as for their own interests. Under these circumstances, the emperor was willing, or at least professed himself willing, to treat with the pope ; and the latter was no less willing to enter upon nego- tiations. Arrangements were even made for a formal interview ; but on this occasion the pope put for- ward certain demands with which the emperor could not comply, and they parted with less prospect of agreement than had existed before they met. The pope, greatly disappointed, not only gave a fresh sanction to the decrees against lay investiture,* but caused sentence of excommunication to be pronounced against Henry. The estates of Germany now became urgent in requesting the emperor to effect a recon- ciliation with the pope, while at the same time they * At the Council of Rheims. M 2 164 THE CONCORDAT OF WORMS. were themselves busy in their negotiations with him. These measures at length produced (September 23, 1 122) the celebrated Concordat of Worms, — a treaty made between the emperor and the pope at a council convened by the emperor at Worms, and afterwards ratified by a General Council in the Lateran palace in the following year, 1123.* By this Concordat, the emperor bound himself to maintain perpetual peace with the popes, and to re- store to the Church of Rome and all the churches in his dominions whatever property had been taken from them, — promising also that there should be in future no interference with the free elections of bishops and abbots, — and undertaking not to grant investiture with the crosier and ring. In return for this, the pope conceded the following particulars: 1. That all elec- tions of bishops and abbots in the German empire should take place only in the presence of the emperor, or his deputies or commissioners, but without simony ; in case of a disputed election, the emperor to decide in favour of the candidate who should be declared duly elected by the metropolitans and bishops of the province. 2. The elect to be invested with his tempo- ralities at the imperial court by the sceptre only, without the crosier and ring, and to pledge himself to fulfil all his obligations to the emperor and the state. 3. With reference to bishops within the empire, but beyond the limits of Germany, the same regulations should take place, but with this limitation, that such investitures should be performed within six months from the date of consecration. After the signature * This was the first (so-called) (Ecumenical, or General, Council held in the west ; it is reckoned by the Church of Rome as the ninth General Council. THE CONCORDAT OF WORMS. J 65 of this Concordat, one of the papal legates, the cardi- nal Lambert of Ostia, celebrated high mass, adminis- tered the communion to the emperor in token that be was absolved from the sentence of excommunication, absolved also his whole army with all his former ad- herents, and thus set the seal to the peace concluded between the Church and the State. We may at first be disposed to wonder that the terms of this Concordat were so favourable to the emperor. He lost none of his essential rights and privileges ; the only sacrifice which he made was that of a ceremony, and instead of this he was permitted to exercise another quite equivalent. The feudal connection of the Church with the State, and the rela- tion of vassals to the emperor on the part of the bishops, which it was Gregory's design to do away, were now formally sanctioned by the pope; and that too expressly in face of the new decree of Urban II., whereby it was declared high treason against the Church if any spiritual person should take an oath of allegiance to a layman. Besides this, the pope seems to have abandoned that which it was the immediate and ostensible design of Gregory to secure at the commencement of the dis- pute concerning investitures. It was his design to deprive temporal princes of that influence in the filling up of vacant bishoprics and abbacies which they derived from the practice of investitures: but the emperor does not appear to have lost any measure of this influence by the terms of the Concordat; rather, he was hereby placed in a situation which would command a more decided influence in these elections than ever. Elections which could take place only in the presence of himself or his com- 160 THE CONCORDAT OF WORMS. missioners would surely be, to a great extent, under his influence. It might have been considered as implied in the Concordat that the imperial investi- ture should precede the consecration of newly-elected German bishops, so that a delay in the investiture of an unwelcome nominee might have seriously interfered with his possession of the dignity. And the stipula- tion against simony was not more stringent than the regulations on this head which had formerly existed. Accordingly, when viewed in this light, it seems strange that this Concordat received the sanction of the pope, with the approbation of the whole Gregorian party. There was, at all events, no show of opposi- tion when the pope proposed the Concordat for con- firmation to the General Council at Rome in 1123. All that is thus surprising may, however, be explained by the concurrence of certain outward circumstances, especially one of a very singular and surprising cha- racter. There can be no doubt that the nobles of the German empire extorted the consent of the pope. They declared themselves satisfied of the equity of the terms proposed; and threatened, in case of his withholding assent, to charge him personally with all the ill consequences of a continued conflict between Church and State, and to support the emperor with all their power. In this the bishops also concurred. It is easy to understand the part which the tem- poral estates thus took in the aflair, after they had become acquainted with the real object of the contro- versy ; but what could have induced the ecclesiastical dignitaries thus to alter their o])inion and change their line of proceeding ? At the time in which an agree- ment began to be seriously contemplated, Godfrey, THE CONCORDAT OF WORMS. 167 abbot of Vendome, a cardinal, who had hitherto most strongly advocated the highest papal pretensions in the controversy relating to investitures, published a suggestion that the difficulty might be surmounted by the emperor's yielding the right of investiture with crosier and ring, and retaining that with the sceptre. A light appeared suddenly to have burst on men's minds, which was hailed with the utmost satisfaction by all parties alike, because all were equally weary of the conflict which had been so long raging. Under these circumstances, the pope found that he could no longer continue the struggle with any prospect of success ; and policy dictated the prudence of appa- rently giving a hearty acquiescence to the means of settlement which had been devised. At the same time, the pope and his party could not fail to perceive, that something had been gained during the last fifty years, — something which Gregory had designed as at least a subordinate issue of the struggle. The papal name and dignity had become more formidable than formerly in the eyes of temporal princes, and by this means opportunity was afforded to the pontiff* of exercising a more extensive influence in Church and State. The crusades, also, had mate- rially contributed to the promotion of this object. With these advantages, Calixtus was wisely disposed to rest satisfied for the present, regarding the existing position of the papacy as a good starting-point for further operations at some future day, and thinking it better to retain this ground than to run the risk of losing it by insisting, under unfavourable circum- stances, upon the immediate emancipation and ascen- dency of the Church. There was another dispute, in which Calixtus car- 168 CASE OF THURSTAX, ARCHBISHOP OF YORK. ried his point, not without opposition. A contest had long been carried on between the archbishops of Can- terbury and York concerning the independence of the latter. In 1072, a papal legate, in a council begun at Winchester and ended at Windsor, decided in favour of Canterbury. But Thurstan, who in 1118 became archbishop of York, maintained the independ- ence of the see, and was supported by Paschal II. When the Council of Rheims was held by Calixtus in 1119, Henry 1., king of England, who had declared in favour of Canterbury, permitted Thurstan to at- tend the council, upon condition that he would not cause himself to be consecrated by the pope. But this consecration having taken place soon after at Rheims, Henry forbade Thurstan ever again to enter his dominions in England or Normandy. Not long after, the king held a conference with the pope in Normandy, at which the latter consented that no legate should ever be sent into England, except by desire of the king himself, when his own bishops might be unable to settle the affairs of their Church. The pope requested the king to receive Thurstan again ; but Henry replied that this was impossible, since he had sworn never to yield this point. Calixtus thought it was sufficient to remind him that he was pope (Ego apostolicus sum), and that if the king would do what he desired, he would release him from the obligation of his oath. The king asked for time to consider, and ai'terwards told the pope that it was contrary to his honour to receive such absolution, since no one would ever afterwards trust a promise nuide upon oath if it should be seen by his example that it was possible for an oath to be set aside. He consented, however, to concede thus much, that if Thurstan would repair to SUCCESSORS OF CALIXTUS II. 109 Canterbury, and there give a written promise of sub- jection and obedience to the archbishop of Canterbury (as his predecessors had done), he should then obtain possession of the see of York. In 1120, Calixtus de- clared the Church of York wholly independent of that of Canterbury ; but it was not until the following year, — after Thurstan (in the manner in which every- thing is obtained at Rome, says Eadmar, the monk of Canterbury) had procured a written instrument from the pope, commanding his institution, under the penalty of excommunication of the king, and suspen- sion of the archbishop of Canterbury, in case of re- fusal, — that Thurstan came to York, and then it was only on condition that he should perform no divine office out of the limits of his diocese until he should have made satisfaction to the Church of Canterbury for the injuries he had committed, — a condition which was never fulfilled. Calixtus died in 1124. During the pontificates of a.d. 1124. his five immediate successors, a space of twenty-five "°^y"^ years, various events occurred, adapted to put to the proof the stability of the newly-acquired papal power. The election of his next successor, cardinal Theobald, (Celestine,)was opposed by a powerful party in Rome, who set up as antipope cardinal Lambert of Ostia, Honorius II. ; peace, however, was restored by the compliance of Theobald, who resigned his pretensions to the papal see, recognised Honorius II., and suc- cessfully em})loyed his efibrts to induce all parties to receive him. A fresh contest,* which arose upon the death of Honorius in 1 130, concerning the election of ^ ^ ^^^q his successor, threatened more serious consequences. ^""°<='^'^*^^- The new pontiff. Innocent II., and the party in the Anacietus * Baron, ad an. 1130, n. 3, 4. (rivals). 170 SCHISM IN' THE PAPACY. college of cardinals by which he was elected, were opposed by another party, which elected the cardinal Peter of Leon, under the title of Anacletus, the latter being supported by the greater part of the nobility and people, as well as by the majority of the cardinals. Roger and the Romans were also secured on the side of Anacletus, and Innocent was obliged to retire first from Rome and then from Italy, and to seek for safety in the ordinary place of papal refuge, France. Here he found an influential friend and supporter in the person of Bernard of Clairvaux, by whose means the kings of France and England, together with the emperor Lothaire, were persuaded to espouse his cause. In 1132, the emperor, at the head of his army, con- ducted him back to Italy, where many of the large towns were induced to declare in his favour. The Romans, however, still adhered to Anacletus, who retained possession of Rome until his death in 1 138 ; his party then elected another pontiff in his room, but soon afterwards submitted to Innocent, and thus put an end to the schism, which had lasted eight years. A still greater danger threatened the papacy from the troubles in which the immediate successor of Calixtus was involved with the Normans. Upon the death of William, duke of Apulia, the last descendant of Robert Guiscard, in 1127, his cousin Roger, coimt of Sicily, took possession of his dominions, consisting of the principality of Salerno, and the duchies of Apulia and Calabria. The pope was indignant at this act, inasmuch as Roger took possession of these countries without seeking investi- ture from him. He went to Benevcnto, where he pronounced excoinnumication against Roger and all his partisans. It was in vain that Roger sought to ap- THE SECOND GENERAL COUNCIL OF LATERAN. 171 pease him by large presents, and grants of territory ; the pope repeated his excommunication, and refused to invest Eoger with Apulia and Calabria, on the plea that William, when at the point of death, had be- queathed these countries to the apostle Peter and his representatives. Eoger, on the other hand, sought to defend his right by force of arms; when the pope, having a third time excommunicated Roger, advanced with some troops against the refractory count in 1 128. But he was in want of money and means ; and, being unable even to keep his army together, he concluded a peace in the course of the same year, by which he consented to invest Eoger with the two duchies, on condition of the usual oath of fealty, and a promise of tribute. Innocent now deemed it expedient to show himself as the head of the Western Church in a General Council, by the decrees of which he might remove out of his way all remaining obstacles, and make some ecclesiastical arrangements at his pleasure. This council (the Second General Lateran, in 1 139) was attended by nearly a thousand prelates ; it pronounced all the ordinations of Anacletus void, and passed a sentence of excommunication upon Eoger, who had received from Anacletus the title of king of Sicily. Of this sentence Eoger made little account ; but in the course of the same year he invaded Apulia, and after a vain attempt at compromise, he attacked and defeated the papal troops, and took the pope himself prisoner. Innocent now met with nearly the same treatment as had been experienced by Leo IX., about a century before. The king humbly entreated him to make peace, and the pope consented to all the conditions proposed to liim with an appearance of respect and 172 ROGER, KING OF SICILY. humility. Roger and his sons then threw themselves at the feet of the pontiff, besought indulgence, and took an oath of fealty to St. Peter, the pope, and his lawful successors, with the promise of an annual tri- bute. On the other hand. Innocent acknowledged Roger as king of Sicily, on the ground of great services rendered by his ancestors to the Church, and alleging that his predecessor, Honorius, had conferred this dignity upon him on account of his merits. Roger was then invested by the pope with this kingdom, with the duchy of Apulia, and the principality of Capua. Thus even the imprisonment of the pope tended to the establishment of his dominion over the new kingdom of Sicily. Craftily enough, but against the truth of history, the pope pretended that this kingdom had been founded by his predecessor, Honorius, — whereas this had been done by the antipope, Anacletus. Baronius says,* it is undeniable that nothing short of Almighty power could have converted so cruel a tyrant as Roger was into a humane, humble, and pious prince, and could have induced him to declare his subjection to a captive pope. But, in fact, this was only a repetition of the case of Robert Guiscard. Roger felt the necessity of being on good terms with the Church. The pope was capable of extending power- ful protection to his friends ; and at this time Roger was not secure from hostilities on the part of the emperor of Germany, — besides requiring some in- fluence and character as a set-off against the unpo- pularity of certain acts of violence in his newly- established kingdom ; and for all these purposes he knew of no better means than a renewal of his * Banm. ad an. ll'M), u. 15. ARNOLD OP BRESCIA. 173 former amicable relations with the papal see. It was, therefore, on his part only a matter of well-considered state policy ; and Imiocent, like his predecessors during so many centuries, derived great advantage from the well-employed name of the apostle Peter. During the course of these transactions, the papacy was called to encounter a more formidable enemy than even Roger of Sicily, in a man who by his bold- ness, zeal, and eloquence, endeavoured to shake one of the main pillars of the dominion of the popes and the clergy. Arnold, a native of Brescia or Brixia, in Upper Italy, after having studied under Abelard in France, and having taken holy orders in his native town, began to inveigh against the vices of the clergy, and their large possessions. He is said to have held unsound views on the sacraments ; but his real heresy appears to have been that of maintaining that the clergy ought not to possess lands and other fixed property, but ought to be dependent upon first-fruits, tithes, and voluntary offerings. He was condemned in the great Lateran Council of 1139; and this condemnation excited the spirit of opposition, and kindled the spark into a flame. Arnold fled first to France, arid there combined with his tutor Abelard against Bernard, by whom Abelard was so bitterly opposed. Bernard, by the representations which he made of the doctrines of Arnold, prevailed upon the pope to issue a command to the archbishops of Bheims and Sens to shut up both Abelard and Arnold in a monastery, and to burn their books. Arnold then fled to Zurich, where he propagated his former tenets. But here Bernard did not leave him unmolested ; he urged upon the 174 ARNOLD OF BRESCIA. bishop of Constance not to suffer in his diocese the presence of this enemy of the cross of Christ, this persecutor of the clergy, this raging hon who ate up the people as a morsel of bread, — but to cast him into prison ; and when the papal legate in France, the cardinal Guido of Castello, received Arnold secretly into his house, Bernard admonished him, according to the injunctions of the apostle, to avoid the company of a heretic after repeated admonition, lest he should appear to favour his cause and thereby . to contravene the sentence of the pope. By this time the doctrines of Arnold had made gTeat progress among the people, even in Home itself; and an opinion had gained ground that the pope had no right of dominion over that city. The spirit of insubordi- nation broke out into open rebellion on the following occasion. The people of Tivoli having manifested disobedience to the pope, and having been excom- municated on this account, the Romans laid siege to the place, but were repulsed with great loss. At length, Tivoli surrendered to the pope ; but the Romans were so exasperated as to demand that its walls should be demolished and its inhabitants re- moved to some other place. The pope not con- senting to these measures, the Romans assembled in the Capitol, proclaimed the establishment of the ancient republic, and again declared war against Tivoli, which Innocent endeavoured in vain by threats and presents to avert. r r..-'*ii' Iiiiiocent was succeeded first by Celestine II., and A. D. 1144. shortly afterwards by Lucius II. This pontiff found himself involved in conflict with the Romans ; who not only maintained their established senate, but also elected a Patrician, to whom they acknowledged sub- A REPUBLIC PROCLAIMED AT ROME. 175 jectioii as their prince, claiming for him all the landed possessions of the pope, who, said they, ought to be supported, as formerly, by tithes and free-will offer- ings. Lucius died, either from anxiety of mind, or through wounds received in conflict with the people, February 25, 1145. Upon his death, the cardinals proceeded to elect a a. d. 1145. successor without loss of time, in order that the dis- m.' " orders at Rome might not gather strength during the vacancy of the papal chair. They fixed upon Peter Bernard, of Pisa, abbot of a Cistercian monastery near Rome, a pupil of Bernard of Clairvaux, v»^ho had appointed him to this monastery. He took the title of Eugenius III. When about to be consecrated at St. Peter's, having learnt that the "senators" were on the point of coming to compel him to accept their confirmation of his election, he fled, with his cardinals, to the monastery of Farfa, where the cere- mony was completed. He then went to Viterbo, where he received intelligence of the loss of Edessa, and of the helpless state of the Christians in those quarters, which impelled him to incite the king of France, Louis VIL, to a new crusade. In the mean time the Romans had compelled the papal governor of Rome to quit the city, forced the leading men to submit to the patrician, destroyed the palaces of many of the nobles and the houses of many cardinals and clergy, and, turning St. Peter's into a fortress, compelled the pilgrims, upon their arrival, to deliver up their money, putting many of them to death in the outer court of the church. Eugenius excommu- nicated the patrician •, and, by aid of the inhabitants of Tivoli, the old enemies of the Romans, he at length compelled the Romans to sue for peace, which 176 EUGENIUS III. TAKES REFUGE IN FRANCE. he granted on condition that they should abolish the patriciate, restore his own governor to his office, and consent to appoint senators only according to his will. At the end of 1145, the pontiff returned to Rome, where he was received with great demonstrations of joy: but again, in 1146, he was obliged to quit the city, on account of his continued opposition to the Romans in their design to overthrow Tivoli and rase it to its very foundation. Soon after the accession of Eugenius, Arnold of Brescia, who had lived some years in retirement, again came forward, and promoted the existing disturbances, by abetting the Romans in their revolutionary mea- sures, and maintaining that the popes ought to possess no more than ecclesiastical power. Eugenius now sought refuge in France ; — and this seems to have been an excellent opportunity for the emperor of Germany to have gained entire supremacy at Rome. The cause of the exiled pontiff was warmly es- poused by the celebrated Bernard of Clairvaux. He wrote to the Romans ; and also to the emperor, exciting him to act in his behalf. But the most im- portant service which he rendered to the pope was that, in 1146, he went into Germany, and did not rest until he had persuaded the emperor to undertake a new crusade, — which prevented him for more than a year from taking any important part in the affairs of Rome. The pope, although an exile from Rome, was thus powerful enough to despatch both the emperor and the king of France, with the flower of their troops, into the east, on an expedition which was entirely under his own control. In France he himself held councils (Paris 1147, Rheims 1148) in EUGENIUS III. IN FRANCE. 177 which he condemned heresies, and settled other eccle- siastical matters according to his will. In 1143 the chapter of York was divided in the election of a new archbishop, the one party supporting William, sister's son to king Stephen, the other Murdach, a Cistercian monk, and pupil of Bernard. William, who had the majority of votes, was con- secrated by Henry, bishop of Winchester, the king's brother, and papal legate. Murdach having appealed to the pope was supported by Bernard ; while his party accused William of having suffered himself to be nominated by the king before his election. William, however, remained in possession of the bishopric ; but, in 1147, the pope deprived him of his office, in a council at Paris. Barouius himself has recognised the injustice of this sentence, only remarking that this was no matter for reflection upon the sanctity of Bernard, who did not deny that he was strongly im- posed upon by false statements. After the death of the pope, William recovered possession of his arch- bishopric ; and afterwards obtained a place among the saints of the English Church. Bernard was not content with directing all the actions of the pope during his residence in France ; he sought to guide him by a book of counsels after his return to Italy.* But it is probable that this work, having been courteously received, was laid aside without producing any beneficial etfects upon the principles and practices of the papal government. It was long before Eugenius could obtain peaceable possession of Borne. In 1149, with his own troops and those of Roger, he reduced the Romans to sub- mission ; but in the very next year he was again * De Uousideratiouo, libn v., ad Eugemum 111. VOL. II. N 178 FREDERIC I. IN ITALY. obliged to quit the city, doubtless because the people were not willing to abolish their new institutions. At length, however, in the year 1 152, he finally made terms with the Romans, and would probably have succeeded in dismissing the senate, if he had not soon after died. The emperor, Frederic I., who succeeded Conrad III. in 1 152, appears to have resolved upon fully recovering the regal rights of his predecessors in Italy. Under the reign of Conrad, who had never entered Italy, the very title of king of that country had been almost forgotten. Most of the large towns had become accustomed to a republican constitution, and were ready to consider their rights invaded and their liberty threatened at the very mention of sub- jection to a king ; while the possessors of the larger fiefs seemed to have forgotten that they were required to pay tribute or to render any feudal services. It seemed needful, therefore, not only for the dignity of the crown, but for the welfare of the kingdom, to revive the remembrance of these matters. Frederic was sensibly alive to his Italian interests, and was the more disposed to undertake their defence, as afiiiirs in Germany were tranquil and his authority there uni- versally acknowledged. It is probable that he had at first no designs against the pope ; and that he may have even calculated on his assistance for their exe- cution. Certainly, on occasion of his first expedition into Italy, Frederic betrayed no hostility to the papal sec ; and although he was embroiled with Eugenius on occasion of a disputed election of an archbishop of Magdeburg, still there is no reason to ascribe to him a plan of opposition. In this case he acted only according to the terms of the Concordat. ADRIAN IV. DEATH OP ARNOLD. 179 Anastasius, who succeeded Eugenius in 1153, died a. d. 1153. in the following year, and was succeeded by Nicholas "^j^'''"® Breakspeare, formerly cardinal of Albano, under the ^^,'J;"iv' title of Adrian IV. At the beginning of his pontificate, he encountered the formidable Arnold of Brescia, whom Eugenius and Anastasius had in vain endea- voured to eject from Rome, where he was supported by the senators and other leading Romans. Adrian commanded him to quit the city ; but he bade defiance to the pope and his cardinals, and is said to have even proceeded to acts of violence. Hereupon, Adrian laid Rome itself under an interdict (the first time that such an event had occurred in that city) ; which was continued until the senators, compelled by the clergy and people, promised upon oath that the heretic Arnold and his associates, if they would not submit themselves to the holy see, should be driven out of the Roman territory. The banished Arnold did not wander long before he fell into the hands of a papal legate. He was rescued by some powerful firiends ; but Frederic, being on his march to Rome, and being pressed by the papal nuncios to procure the delivering up of the heretic, compelled his protectors to abandon him. Arnold was brought to Rome, where he was hung, his body was burnt, and the ashes thrown into the Tiber. Frederic adopted vigorous measures for the esta- blishment of his authority among the cities of Lom- bardy. When he advanced tow^ards Rome, the pope, without any apparent reason, became alarmed, and took refuge in a fortress at some distance. Frederic, however, calmed his apprehensions, and arrangements were made for an interview at Sutri near Rome. On this occasion, when Adrian dismounted from his horse, N 2 180 HUMILIATION OF THE EMPEROR. Frederic having neglected to observe the custom of holding his stirrup, the cardinals were so horror- stricken with the omission that they retired in haste from the scene, and the pope seated himself in asto- nishment. Frederic, kneeling, kissed his foot ; but when he expected the kiss of peace in return, the pope - said to him, " Since you have declined to render to me that accustomed and due mark of respect which your predecessors, the orthodox emperors, have shown out of reverence to the apostles Peter and Paul, I will not admit you to the kiss of peace until you have rendered satisfaction for the offence." The emperor maintained that he was not bound to observe this custom ; and this question was debated during a whole day. At length it was conceded that the emperor should hold the stirrup when the pope should mount his horse.* Frederic was crowned June 18, 1155. Soon after- wards sickness among his troops compelled him to retire to Germany, in possession of the crown, but without having gained the mastery of Rome. In this case, all was in favour of the pope ; the emperor him- self having maintained the prejudice that no German king and emperor could possess the full right of domi- nion until he had received his crown at the hands of the pope, — while, on the other hand, he had gained no increase of substantial power. His false regard for the papal see, or rather perhaps his acquaintance with the popular feeling on this subject, prevented him from taking due advantage of the existing disposition of the Romans. Instead of this, Adrian and his successors were permitted to foment the jealous suspicions of the emperor against that people ; and by this means, * Baron. aU an. 1155, n. 4. WILLIAM, KINa OF PICFLY. 181 among others, they obtained at length the object of their desire, the full possession of Rome. Adrian was involved in an unpleasant affair with WilHam, king of Sicily. In 1155 this sovereign refused to receive the nuncios sent to him by the pope, because in the papal rescript which they brought he was styled only Lord of Sicily, probably with a view to show that, as a vassal of the holy see, he held the kingdom at the pleasure of the pope. Soon after, the king laid siege to the papal city of Benevento, and devastated the surrounding country. This little war led to a serious commotion. Many powerful nobles, evidently stimulated by the papal court, en- gaged in its quarrel; even the Greeks abetted its cause by invading William's territories ; and when William devastated the Roman territories, the pope excommunicated him. In the same year the king was master of the country ,• yet even now the pope, the promoter of these disturbances, although shut up in Benevento, maintained his superiority. He sued for peace ; but he obtained it on terms as advantageous as if he had prescribed them himself. William threw himself at his feet ; took the oath of fealty ; and was invested by him with the kingdom of Sicily, the dukedom of Apulia, and the principality of Capua, with Naples, Salerno, and Melfi ; in return for which he engaged to defend the pope against all enemies, and to pay him a yearly tribute. The emperor was not well pleased that Adrian had made an alliance with the king of Sicily without his knowledge and consent; having promised to render him assistance in the struggle, and having formed a design of reducing the Normans in Italy, and of cm- ploying the alliance of the pope in favour of this 182 THE POPE QUARRELS undertaking. It was, in fact, his discovery of the emperor's design to make the German power again dominant in Italy which induced the pope to hasten his reconcihation with William ; the power of the Normans being the only one which, in unison with his own, could form a check upon the emperor's influence in that country. Besides this, a letter from the pope, sent by the hand of two legates to the em- peror in 1157, tended to increase his displeasure and that of his nobles. A bishop had been plundered and made prisoner by some freebooters near Thionville, — an occurrence of no unusual kind, — the captive being detained by the freebooters until he procured a satis- factory ransom. No active measures having been adopted in connection with this event, Adrian sent an epistle by two cardinals to the emperor at the diet of Besan9on, containing bitter reproaches for his neglect, which he interpreted as a slight designedly cast upon the emperor's most gracious mother the holy Roman Church. Especially offensive to the diet was a passage in which the pope spoke of himself as having imparted to the emperor the plenitude of dignity and honour by the imperial crown, and as having been willing to confer upon him a yet greater benefit (beneficium). The latter expression was interpreted according to the common use of the word beneficium in those times, as if the pope regarded the Roman empire as a fief of the papacy, — an explanation pro- bable enough, considering the style of thinking and acting which the popes had adopted ever since the time of Gregory VII. One of the German nobles having expressed his dislike of the term beneficium, employed by Adrian, one of the cardinal legates asked, "And from whom then has the emperor his WITH THE EMPEROR. 183 crown if not from the pope?" — a speech by which the count Palatine of Bavaria was so highly enraged that he was on the point of employing his sword against the legate. Frederic sent back the legates safely to their house, but with injunctions to quit the place next morn- ing, and to go straight to Rome. He then published a manifesto to the whole German nation complaining in bitter terms of the haughtiness of the Roman see, protesting against the doctrine that the empire was a fief of the popedom, and solemnly affirming that the emperor held his crown directly from God and by the free election of the estates of the realm. And after the diet, Frederic sent a circular explanatory of this matter to all the estates, especially the spiritual. The pope now wrote to the German bishops com- plaining of the conduct of the emperor, and exhorting them to use their efforts in order to bring him to his right mind, — to induce him to follow the example of Justinian, — and to let him know that the Roman Church was so immovably founded that it could never be overthrown. On former occasions the pontiffs, in their struggles with the emperor, had confidently appealed to the German bishops, and had derived aid from them in forming a party against the emperor. But this time the attempt failed, partly on account of the disposition of the bishops themselves, and partly in consequence of the skilful and firm conduct by which the emperor had won their esteem. The bishops wrote back to Adrian, expressing themselves asto- nished at the language he had employed in his letters to the emperor, and saying that they were obliged to advise the pope to assuage the emperor's displeasure as soon and as well as he could. Under these circumstances, Adrian sent to the 184 THfS MISUNDERSTANDING CONTINUES. emperor two cardinals better versed in the arts of A.D. 1158. diplomacy than the former. They found him in his camp near Augsburg, and with many civil expressions handed him a letter from the pope, containing an explanation of the use of the term beneficium, as equivalent to " bene factum," and no more ; and with this the emperor and princes were satisfied. This good understanding between the emperor and the pope continued, however, only until the following year 1158, when Frederic entered Italy with a large army with the full purpose of reducing his Italian domi- nions to order. Having humbled Milan and obtained complete mastery in Upper Italy, he caused the im- perial rights with respect to the large cities of those parts to be clearly defined and understood, to the great increase of his legitimate power, but little to the satisfaction of the pope, who jealously regarded every accession of the emperor's power as a reduction of his own. Impelled by the representation of the Lombard and other Italian bishops, from whom Frederic had exacted the oath of allegiance and the payment of feudal dues, Adrian addressed a strong remonstrance to the emperor ; and he gave further offence by refusing to confirm the appointment of Guido, who had been elected archbishop of Ravenna. Enraged by this treatment, Frederic commanded his chancellor when writing to the pope to place his own name before that of the pontifi", and also to address him in the singular number. The pope then sent a letter to the emperor, expressing his asto- nishment at his refractory and irreverent conduct, and commanding him to reform ;* and to this the emperor sent a very spirited reply, in which he ex- * Baron, ad an. 1159, n. 5, 6. ADRIAN CEANTS IRELAXP TO HENRY IT. 185 hortcd the pope to humility, to imitate the example of Peter, and to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Adrian, however, was by no means willing to listen to this advice ; and at the time of his death he was on the point of pronouncing a sentence of ex- communication against Frederic. The pontificate of Adrian is remarkable, especially to the student of English history, for the grant of Ireland made by this pope to king Henry II. " The professed objects of pope Adrian in the gift of Ireland to Henry were to bring ' the rude and uncultivated people of Ireland,' as he calls them, ' to the truth of the Christian faith, and to enlarge ^the bounds of the Church.' The true meaning of these and many other ambiguous expressions in the pope's letter is not easily discerned. It was written the year after Becket was made chancellor, in the second year of Henry II. Henry, on the accession of Adrian, had written to him a congratulatory letter, in which he urges him in general terms so to govern the Churches that all may bless his nation ; and that his own country especially may have reason to rejoice in his elevation. The notion which a king may be supposed to entertain by these expressions would probably refer to the anticipation of the temporal greatness of his kingdom being increased ; for he sent a solemn embassy to Rome, and solicited Adrian to permit him to invade Ireland, to subjugate the country, and to reduce to the faith and to the Nvay of truth its less than human inhabitants. To this inicourteous letter, so far as it described the Irish, Adrian, their self- chosen lord, sent the celebrated reply. He con- gratulates Henry on his desire to honour the Church, insti'uct the ignorant, and take counsel of Eome; and 186 ADRIAN GRANTS IRELAND assures him, that such virtue must command success. He then proceeds to say, ' You have signified to us, dear son in the faith, your desire to subdue Ireland and its people to Christian laws ; and to render from each house the annual penny to St. Peter ; and that you will maintain the rights of the Church unaltered. We approve of your design. We grant your petition. That you may accomplish your great objects, invade the island, and execute there whatever pertains to the glory of God, and the salvation of the people; we grant that the people of the land receive and venerate you as their lord.' Adrian then proceeds to give the reason for his thus assuming to give away the island of Ireland to his petitioner. ' It is indeed true,' he says, ' that all islands which are illuminated by Christ the Sun of righteousness are a portion of the patrimony of St. Peter, and the holy Roman Church, which law your excellency recognises. Go on then. Study to improve the nation. Labour both by yourself and others who are qualified for the oflace, in faith, word, and deed, that the Church may be there honoured, and the religion of Christ planted and extended. Whatever pertains to the honour of God, and the good of souls, let it be so ordered that you obtain reward in heaven, and imperishable renown upon earth.' Such is the substance of the Bull of Adrian, which has been the charter of the English possession of Ireland. Fourteen years elapsed before the king acted upon its assumptions. The real meaning of the usurping pontiff, who thus suddenly afler his elevation to the holy see presumed to command the Irish nation to transfer their allegiance, and to submit implicitly to a new sovereign, has remained enveloped in much mystery. The appeal of the king of England to TO HENRY II. 187 Adrian to exercise the unhallowed power of sub- jugating to him a peaceable and friendly nation, over whom he had never before pretended to exercise any jurisdiction, was a circumstance so unheard of, as to seem too dishonest to succeed unless craftily managed. The bargain, novel as it was, from the barefaced manner in which the king asks the favour and the pope grants it, has the appearance of having been transacted on both sides as though it were nothing new. The popes now claimed by the newly-published canon law, as well as by the old decretals, a superiority over kings. This act of the English king in asking for Ireland as a gift from the pope, and the act of the pope in making the present, are instances calculated strongly to confirm the doctrine of the decretal and canon law as to the papal supremacy. Henry, on his part, fully acknowledged, by his appeal, the supe- riority of the pope to the king ; yet his own crown, by the same law, was placed at the disposal of Adrian, and the authority thus usurped was subsequently exer- cised upon his son John. Adrian boldly asserts his right to all isles of the ocean, far and near, wherever the Christian faith had spread, and insists that the king himself is aware that they belong to him, and are at his disposal. Having thus unscrupulously de- clared himself the sovereign of all islands, he proceeds to declare his motives for putting the king of England in possession of Ireland. Many of his expressions are so obscure that they are almost incomprehensible. Suffice it here to say that, by the cession of Ireland, the dominion and power of Rome was greatly enlarged and strengthened. Few doubted, at the time, that the bishop of Rome was empowered to act as Adrian had done ; and let us hope that the words of the Bull 188 RIVAL POPES. which served as the deed of gift may be prophetic of the day when the monarchs of Englnnd may be honoured as the dispensers of a better form of Christianity than that professed by Adrian, — the Christianity of their fathers before the corruptions of Home began, when Ireland was the island of saints in the west, — the Christianity of a scriptural creed which they have so long rejected, because they hated the hands by which the book of life was opened to them, and the lips by which the truth of God was spoken to them."* A. D. 1159. After the death of Adrian, in 1159, the emperor Alexander .. ..,.,-_, , ,. n ^ ' III. could not remam mdinerent as to the election ot his Victor IV. successor ; but, from the mode of his interference, it (rivals), jg ji^ianifest that he felt himself unable to assert the ancient right of other emperors in this matter. He had found means to enlist on his side a party in Rome, consisting of some of the nobility and people, which, as the result proved, was far stronger than the papal-Norman party in that city. But he could do no more than effect the election of an antipope, Victor IV., in opposition to the election of Alex- ander III. by the Norman party in the college of Cnrdinals, — avoiding all appearance of meddling in the affair. The emperor did not immediately declare for Victor ; but probably thought that, as the popes « had excommunicated each other, the decision ought to be referred to the universal Church, and that, according to the example of former emperors, he ought to convene a council before which the causes of both should be tried. He accordingly summoned a council to meet at Pavia, and wrote to Alexander (whom he styled only chancellor Roland), enjoining him in the name of God and the whole Church to * Townsend, Eccl. and Civil Hisiorj, book iii. chap. G. COUNCIL OF PAVIA. 189 attend, and to submit to the decision of this council. He wrote also to Victor (Octavian) ; but it does not appear to be true (as some affirm) that he styled him pope. Still, Alexander felt that the influence of the emperor would be against him, and he refused to obey the imperial summons, answering in the style of a pope, and expressing his astonishment that the em- peror did not pay him proper respect. Notwith- standing the resistance of Alexander, the council was held at Pavia, a.d. 1160, and Victor was present. Here the emperor, in the first place, admonished the assembled bishops to commend the cause of the Catholic Church to God by fasting and prayer, in which he joined with them. He then declared that, although he knew that, as emperor, he had the right to convene councils, according to the practice of his predecessors from Constantine to Otho, yet he would leave the decision of the present most important affair to themselves alone, since in Divine things they were his judges, and could themselves be judged only by God. He, therefore, quitted the assembly, and the examination of the disputed election was car- ried on during a space of seven days. The council declared in favour of Octavian (Victor IV.), and condemned Roland. This decision was immediately ratified by the emperor, who now paid all marks of respect to Victor as pope, including that of holding his stirrup. In his letter to the German bishops announcing this decision, the emperor plainly de- clared that the cardinals who had elected Roland had conspired with William, king of Sicily, and the rebel- lious Lombards, against the imperial authority. The council, in its circular epistle, explained the grounds of their decision yet more fully ; and this epistle was 190 COUNCIL OF PAA lA. subscribed not only by the German and Italian bishops, but also by some French prelates, with a declaration to the effect that the kings of England, Hungary, Bohemia, and Denmark concurred. The emperor exerted his authority for the acknowledg- .meiit of Victor throughout his German and Italian dominions ; and several of the clergy, especially all the Cistercian monks, who refused to acknowledge him, were obliged to quit the country. In a council at Lodi, A.D. 1161, Victor caused the acts of the Council of Pavia to be confirmed, and the refractory Italian bishops were deposed or excommunicated. > Alexander was no longer safe in Italy ; and in 1 162 he retired to France. Here he was well entertained ; he gained over to his interest the kings of France, England, Spain, and most other countries of Western Europe ; and his rival was condemned in several councils. In 1164 Victor died at Lucca; the cardinals of his party elected Guido, bishop of Crema, who took (A.D. 1164. the title of Paschal III., and was confirmed by the Paschal III. ' ai i in place of cuiperor. In the same year, however, Alexander was recalled from France by the Romans ; and his honourable reception at Rome, with the good-will of the larger Italian towns, and the prospect of sup- port from William of Sicily and the Greek emperor Manuel against the Roman emperor, gave him an advantage over his rival. The emperor, however, supported , Paschal with the greater zeal; and with this view convened an imperial diet at Wurzburg in 1166, when he caused all the bishops and temporal estates of his dominions to bind themselves by oath to obedience to him, and to declare that even in case of his death they would not recognise Alexander III. HENRY IT. AND THOMAS A BECKET. 191 111 1 166, the presence of the emperor in Italy being required to suppress an insurrection of the Lombards, he advanced to Rome, whence Alexander again fled, in the garb of a pilgrim, to seek refuge with the Normans. The emperor, having been successful in an engagement with the Romans, obtained possession of the city, and was crowned in St. Peter's by Paschal. At this juncture a pestilence made great ravages in the army of the emperor, and obliged him to return towards Germany ; whereupon the allied cities of Italy raised the standard of rebellion, shut up the emperor in Pavia, and compelled him to find safety only in a precipitate flight. By this circum- stance the spirits of Alexander and his party were raised; and in 1167, having recovered his power in Rome, Alexander again excommunicated Frederic, deposed him, and absolved his subjects from their oath of allegiance. The death of Paschal III., in 1168, was in favour (a.d.ugs. of Alexander ; and, — although the partisans of the Vii."^ former elected a successor, under the title of Calixtus '" P^^'^f of ' rascnal III., who was also confirmed by the emperor, — n^O yet this new pontiff" never attained any considerable influence. During this period the papal see had been gaining more power in other countries, especially in France and England, than it had lost in Germany. To this result the dispute of Henry II. of England with his archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas a-Becket, largely contributed. The history of this memorable affair is as follows : — The archbishop having manifested a desire to main- tain the system of clerical immunities even in case of flagrant breaches of the civil laws, and to make the 192 TUE CONSTITUTIONS OF CLARENDON. Church altogether independent of the State, Henry demanded that all the English bishops should bind themselves by oath to submit to the ancient usages of the realm concerning the relations between Church and State. In 1 164, an assembly of the lords spiritual and temporal was held at Clarendon, at which these usages, settlhig all limits of ecclesiastical and civil jurisdiction, were set forth in sixteen Constitutions, and embodied in a written law ; — a most necessary measure, since Becket had betrayed, by his proceed- ings, a desire to supersede the ancient customs by a new practice in favour of the Church. The first of these Constitutions provided that every suit which should arise between clergy and laity, or even between ecclesiastics themselves, concerning questions of patronage or the right of presentation to an ecclesiastical office, should be decided only by the king, or in the king's courts. — By the third, it was enacted that every ecclesiastic charged with a civil offence should be bound to appear before the civil courts ; and that a convicted criminal should not in any case be protected by the Church. (Becket had refused to deliver up to the civil court an ecclesiastic who had committed murder, and had insisted upon his being confined in a monastery.) — According to the fourth, no archbishop or bishop was permitted to travel out of the country without the king's permis- sion ; and it was enacted that, if required so to do, he should give a pledge that during his absence he would undertake nothing to the detriment of the sovereign of the realm. — The seventh required that no archbishop or bishop should presume to pronounce a sentence of excomnmnication or an interdict against any vassal or officer of the king, without having pre- THE CONSTITUTIONS OF CLARENDON. 193 vioiisly shown cause for so doing to the king himself. — According to the eighth, all spiritual causes were to be referred to the decision of the archdeacon in the first instance, from whom an appeal lay to the bishop, fi'om the bishop to the archbishop, and in the last instance from the archbishop to the king ; but could never be carried beyond the king without his consent. — The twelfth enacted that all revenues of vacant sees and abbeys should belong to the king, who, however, in due time should take care for the proper filling up of the vacant place, by summoning the parties entitled to elect ; it being also provided that the newly- elected party should immediately take the oath of allegiance. — It was moreover enacted that all archbishops and bishops should hold their possessions as a fief of the crown, and, like all other barons, should submit to the decisions of the king's courts, and perform all other duties of vassals. These laws were clearly made with a view to re- strict the power and pretensions of the clergy and the Church ; but the English clergy were not yet in a condition effectually to protest against them. By long usage, these regulations had already attained the force of law in England ; and the principles on which they were founded had been fully recognised in all courts. It could not be pretended, therefore, that such laws were unconstitutional ; and even Becket himself appears not to have withheld his sanction from these enactments. Great was the surprise, therefore, of the king and the assembly when Becket came forward with a protest against the proceedings which had taken place ; and so urgent was the entreaty of the prelates, and so formidable the displeasure of tlie king, in whose power Becket then was, that he VOL. n. o 194 corxriL of Nor/niAMPTo\. consented to withdraw this protest, and to subscrihe the Constitutions, binding himself at the same time with an oath to the observance of them, and that not only without the clause "salvo ordine suo," but with the addition of " bona tide." No sooner, however, had Becket quitted thfe assembly, and found himself under the protection of the people, than he declared his regret at the step which he had been compelled to take, appearing publicly in the habit of a penitent, and declaring that he regarded himself as disqualified from performing any of the duties of his office until he should have received absolution, and have been released from the obligation of his oath by the pope, to whom he had accused himself as a cowardly betrayer of the Church and its rights. He now no longer yielded to the menaces of the king ; but, having been pronounced guilty of perjury and treason by a council held at Northampton (a.d. 1164), and finding himself in danger of personal violence or constraint, he secretly fled (in contravention of the fourth article of the Con- stitutions) to France, where he could well calculate upon the protection of the pope, Alexander III., who was then in that country, and of the king of France, Louis VII., who was engaged in war with Henry. In France he not only obtained that royal protection which he had hoped for, but he found in the pope a more zealous supporter than he had expected. Great as might have been the inducement to Alexander, at that time an exile in France, to spare a sovereign whom the emperor was earnestly seeking to enlist on the side of the anti-pope, still he did not for a moment hesitate to espouse the cause of the archbishop. He wrote to Henry, saying that he had not been able even to hear without horror some of the impious BECKET IN FRANCE. 195 enactments which had been made at Clarendon ;* and not only admonished him to receive back his archbishop with respect, and to abstain from all attacks upon his rights in future, but even threatened to send Becket back to England armed with the dignity and power of a papal legate. This conduct of the pope was by no means so rash and hazardous as it might at first seem to have been. Alexander knew well that Henry was afraid of the English people, who were enthusiastically devoted to Becket and his cause, and that the khig could not but dread the effect of a sentence of excommunication pronounced against himself, and an interdict laid upon the realm. He had, therefore, good reason to hope that Henry would thus be deterred from extreme measures ; and his hope was completely realised. The first measure adopted by the king upon the flight of the archbishop betrayed his desire for an amicable settlement of the dispute. He confiscated the property and revenues of the deserted see ; but he gave orders that these effects should be carefully preserved, and at the same time despatched ambas- sadors to the pope, requesting him to send two legates into England, who should decide the controversy between himself and the archbishop. Exasperated at the refusal of the pope, who reserved to himself the examination of the matter, and by the demands which he made, Henry immediately adopted some strong measures of intimidation. He banished all the re- latives of Becket from the kingdom, with his friends and attendants, to the number of four hundred per- sons. He confiscated the revenues of all the clergy who adhered to his party. He issued an order that * Baron, ad an. 1164, ii, 27—30. O 2 190 THE KIXG MAKES TERMS WITH THE POPE, all persons who should come into the kingdom with letters from the pope or the archbishop should be taken into custody and treated as traitors.* He forbade all appeals to the pope, under the barbarous penalty of the loss of eyes in the case of a secular ecclesiastic, and loss of feet in the case of a monk. He prohibited the sending of money out of the country to Rome, and the payment of Peter's pence. Soon, however, he found it advisable to make advances for a reconciliation with the pope, well knowing that this quarrel, even if not positively dangerous in itself, was yet highly injurious to his interests while he Avas embroiled with France. The archbishop had already excommunicated the bishops of Oxford and fiAe barons ; and had threatened to proceed to the same length against the king himself The king now, therefore, applied once more to the pope, who had returned to Italy ; and made such strong representa- tions that they could no longer be resisted. Alex- ander complied with his wishes, and appointed two cardinals to go to England as his legates, and there decide the dispute. At the same time he forbade the archbishop to adopt any further proceedings against the king or any of his nobility, and gave power to his legates to take off every sentence of excommunication which had been imposed in this matter.^ The king at the same time promised to submit to the decision of the legates; and undertook to revoke the Consti- tutions of Clarendon, as soon as it could be proved that he had therein claimed any other or greater power over the Church than such as had been always exercised by the English sovereigns. * Baron, ad an. 1164, n. 42. i Ibid., 11G7, 11. 55—58. WITH WHICH BECKET REFUSES TO COMPLY. 197 Some have supposed that other means, besides entreaties (money and presents), were employed at Rome on behalf of Henry in order to obtain the pope's consent to these terms. And it is probable that Alexander gave secret instructions to his legates, by which a provision was made for deceiving Henry. But, if so, the plans of both parties alike were frus- trated by the obstinacy of Becket. He declared that any agreement or compact which could be made with the king concerning the Constitutions would be no less than high treason against the rights of the Church, and gave the pope to understand that he had already acted a treacherous part in manifesting a willingness to treat with the king. He therefore protested, by anticipation, against everything which the legates might do ; but, at the same time, he took care to prevent them from accomplishing anything, by persuading the king of France not to grant them a passage through his dominions on their way to Henry, who was then in Normandy.* The legates met Henry, however, near Maine. When they desired to treat with Becket himself, he resolutely refused to consent to such a proposal, until all the revenues and rights of his see should have been restored to him ; and he maintained this determination so firmly that at length Henry was obliged to yield the point. Now, however, it became manifest that the haughty prelate would not be satisfied with anything short of revenge for the injustice which he professed to have suffered •, and it was this which paved the way fiir the catastrophe that was so disastrous at once to the primate himself and to his sovereign. Attempts at * See Relatio Legatoruin, ap. Baiou. an. 1 168, n. 20 — 25 aii receive Charles for the sake of the pope and his con- firmation ; all the world perceived and knew that they had elected him for no other reason than because they were weary of the contest with the Eoman see. During the progress of these afikirs, matters were proceeding in other countries of Europe which indi- cated partly the remaining influence, and partly the decline, of papal authority. In 1312, Edward II., king of England, requested the pope to send legates into his kingdom for the adjustment of a dispute between himself and the other estates of the realm ; the cardinals who formed the legation brought with them full power to annul all treaties and compacts which had been formed against the king, to absolve from all oaths by which such treaties might have been confirmed, and to pronounce sentence of excouimunication upon all refractory persons, even although bishops or arch- bishops slionld be found among the luunber. The * July 2.',, 1349. THE PAPACY AND ENGLAND. 337 powerful party which was at that time combined against the king, took care, however, that the legates should not enter the kingdom ; and although they laid the kingdom under an interdict on this account, yet their measures took no effect, since the pope (for the king's sake) did not choose to push the matter to extremities. In 1316, the same sovereign appealed to John XXII. with a request which contained a fresh re- cognition of all previously existing relations of the papacy to the English Crown, and an express acknow- ledgment of papal rights in England. The war in which he was involved with the Scotch and their newly- made king, Robert Bruce, had taken an unfavourable turn ; and he felt obliged to seek the interference of the pope, even at a considerable cost. His ambassadors were instructed to promise payment of all arrears due to the holy see, and to pay at once the amount accruing for the current year. The pope hereupon commanded Robert to cease hostilities and to make a truce with Edward, sending at the same time to the Irish, who had taken this opportunity to rebel, an admonition to obedience ; and when his orders on this head were disobeyed, he laid both Scotland and Ireland under an interdict.* It was a mark of the decline of respect to the papal see, that both Scotland and Ireland at first cared little even for the interdict. In England, the papal legates were plundered by highwaymen. The king himself did not conceal the fact that he had applied to the pope only because he hoped to make good use of him; and in 1318 his position was im- proved by a victory obtained over the Irish. The pope, however, derived more advantage from this * Ixaynald. an. 1317, n. 2o, 42. VOL. II. Z 338 RELATIONS BETWEEN THE whole affair than he could at first have expected ; for the king of Scotland, being now hard pressed by the English, and having applied in his turn to the pope, succeeded, by his humble representations, and probably also by other means which had great influence at the court of Avignon, in inducing the pope not only to take off the interdict from Scotland, but also to compel the king of England to conclude a truce for two years.* It is probable that Edward felt himself controlled in this matter not so much by respect to the pope as by the interference of the king of France, who had made an alliance with Scotland ; still, how- ever, it was an advantage to the Roman pontiff that he had thus interfered in the temporal affairs of princes with an appearance of success, and with the recog- nition of his right by two sovereigns who had applied to him. At the same time Clement interposed also in the domestic affairs of Edward. His queen Isabella having fled from him to her brother Charles IV. of France, Edward applied to the pope, beseeching him to command her to return to England. Clement ac- cordingly wrote to the king of France, requiring him to send his sister back •, and with this request, under colour of a poor excuse, that sovereign complied. The kings of France, while they often made the popes of Avignon feel that they were in their power, yet suffered them to employ the old style of authority and dictation towards themselves; submitting, in some cases, to receive from them a refusal of their requests, and even the infliction of penalties. Thus, in 1323, John XXII. refused to grant Charles IV. a subsidy which he required, in order professedly to defray the expenses of an expedition to the East,t but in reality * Raynakl. an. 1320, n. 30, 38, 40, 42. f Ibid. an. 1323, n. 10. PAPACY AND FRAiSrCE. 339 to enable him to prosecute war with England. Eight years afterwards, when Philip of Valois made enor- mous demands under pretence of needing a supply of money for the purpose of a crusade, the pope did not directly and entirely refuse, but he accompanied his promise of a subsidy with such strict conditions, in the event of a crusade not taking place, that Philip did not find it desirable to continue the negotiation.* Benedict XII., the successor of John, finding that Philip had for many years collected the tenth of all ecclesiastical revenues as for the purpose of a crusade, insisted upon his either actually undertaking the crusade or ceasing to collect this money ; and, when the king entreated permission to continue to raise this revenue for assistance in his war with England, the pope replied that he could not conscientiously comply with his request. In 1340, when the English power had obtained such preponderance in France that Edward III. already regarded the country as conquered, and caused him- self to be crowned king of France, Philip seized an ambassador who had been sent fi:-om England to Avignon. The pope interpreted this act as an affront to himself, and laid the whole kingdom of France under an interdict, to continue in force until the am- bassador should arrive in Avignon ; and this measure took such effect that the king was obliged to submit, disclaiming any share in the commission of the crime, and offering to assist in punishing the guilty parties.f In the smaller states and republics of Italy there was for the most part a papal party, more or less powerful and important ; and the king of Naples was the firm friend of the pontiffl In Rome there was a * Eaynald. an. 1332, n. 2—7. t Ibid. an. 1340, n. fi, 7. z 2 340 INNOCENT VI. formidable faction against the pope. Here the removal of the court to Avignon was very unpopular, several embassies being from time to time sent to solicit a return ; and sometimes the opposition gained great head, as when the Romans opened their gates to Louis of Bavaria, and afterwards again at the exaltation of the tribune Rienzi.* Still, however, on the whole, Rome was loyal to the papacy, and well understood that it was indebted to it for its remaining greatness. A. D, 1352. Upon the election of Innocent VI., which took VI. place a few days after the death of Clement YI., in 1352, the cardinals compelled the new pontiff to take an oath to the effect that he would not create any new cardinals during his pontificate without the con- sent of the whole college, — that he would not add any new members to the college until the number was re- duced to sixteen, — and that the number should never exceed twenty ; — that he would never act without the advice of the college, and certainly would never de- prive or imprison a cardinal without its consent ; — and that he would place one half of the revenues of the Church of Rome at the disposal of the cardinals. At the same time each cardinal bound himself by oath to observe all the points of this agreement if at any time he should be elected pope. If this arrangement had taken effect, it would in course of time have changed the whole form of ecclesiastical government, and would have been highly injurious to the papal system. It was, therefore, an act of good service to the papacy when the new pope made it one of the first acts of his government to annul this capitulation, as containing a rash and insane attempt to set limits to the fulness of that power which had been committed to the pontiff * More pro]>orly, liienzo; — Nicolo di Rienzo. URBAN V. 341 by God himself; and very soon the cardinals, con- vinced of the imprudence of the measure, yielded a Milling assent to the deed o cassation. Circumstances placed it in the power of Innocent VI. to rectify some of the disorders which had abounded in the papal court at Avignon. The war which raged during his whole pontificate between England and France, and the weakness to which the latter was reduced, rendered him more independent of France than his immediate predecessors had been ; while at the same time the emperor Charles IV. con- sidered it prudent to make a show of submission to the pontiff.* Under Urban V., who succeeded to the pontificate a. d. 1362. in 1362, all things seemed to revert to the ancient ^'■^^'^^• order. He transferred the papal court again to Rome . (a.d. 1367), notwithstanding all the representations and remonstrances of the French court, and the com- plaints of the French cardinals.f The Komans were intoxicated with joy when, in the following year, the emperor having come to Rome, they beheld the spectacle, which had not been witnessed for two centuries previously, of a solemn procession in which the pope appeared as the emperor's superior, — the emperor leading the pope's horse from the castle of St. Angelo to St. Peter's church, and attending him as his deacon at the celebration of high mass. J Urban now remained undisturbed at Rome during a space of two or three years ; but, to the utter astonishment of the Romans, at the expiration of this time, he declared that regard to the general good of the Church rendered it his duty to return to France. * Raynald. an. 1354, n. 5 ; an. 1355, n. 1. t Ibid. an. 1367, n. 3. J Ibid. an. 1368, n. 5. 342 GREGORY XI. This step could hardly have been occasioned by any necessity of his presence in France for the sake of putting an end to the war between France and Eng- land ; still less could the pope have been urged to this measure by the entreaties of the French cardi- nals; and, in fact, he must have been impelled by reasons which are unknown to history. Be this as it may, this untimely return to Avignon was the occa- sion of many misfortunes to the papacy. The people of Rome were highly incensed at the proceeding; and. Urban IV. having died in the same year, 1370, they had an opportunity of organising their opposition while the pontificate was passing into the hands of his A. D. 1370. successor, Gregory XL Visconti again assembled i^gory j^jg followers, and carried matters with a high hand. At Florence and Bologna, at Genoa and Pisa, the Ghibellines again lifted up their heads; and in most of the cities belonging to the ecclesiastical states some leader, either aristocratic or democratic, was in possession of the chief power. In order to suppress these disorders, the pope determined, in 1376, to return to Rome, to which he was called, in the name of God, by the fanatical Catharine of Sienna.* But he was badly received by the Romans, who suspected that he intended to reside among them no longer than necessity should require. He made preparations for a return to France, but died before he could accomplish his object, March 27, 1378. The conclave being held in Rome, the Romans had now an opportunity of influencing the election ; and hence arose a long schism, disastrous to the Church, and injurious especially to the papacy .f In this matter some share of blame attaches to each party. * Raynakl. an. 137(), n. (!, 7. t Ibid. an. 1378. COMMENCEMENT OF THE GREAT SCHISM. 343 Immediately upon the death of Gregory, the Roman people declared their determination to insist upon the election of a Roman, or at all events an Italian, pope, and proceeded to measures of violence in order to enforce their demands. An Italian, archbishop of Bari, was then unanimously elected, and presented to the people, by whom he was joyfully received, under a. d. 1378. the title of Urban VI. There can be no doubt that, (Rome.) with regard to the majority of cardinals, this election was made under the pressure of intimidation, and, therefore, was not free ; but at the same time it is equally certain that the cardinals professed it to be the act of their free choice. It is also clear that they were in a condition of complete liberty, or were in a position to obtain their liberty, when they notified the election of Urban to the emperor, to the kings of France and Naples, and to their brethren who had re- mained at Avignon, without mention of any circum- stances tending to cast doubt upon the election.* Soon, however. Urban made it appear that he was bent upon reducing the influence of the French party among the cardinals. He upbraided them with their luxury and vices, diminished their pensions, and re- quired possession of the castle of St. Angelo, which had been in their occupation, or under the power of their adherents. Hence, therefore, in May of the same year, this section of the cardinals, having retired to Anagni, where they were protected by the presence of some French troops, invited the pope to hold a conference with them on the affairs of the Church, intending, no doubt, to compel his consent to the return of the papal court to Avignon. Still * See this remarkable documeut, subscribed by sixteen cardinals, in Raynakl. an. 1378, n. 19. 344 URBAN VI. AT ROME. they recognised him as pope.* Soon, however, find- ing that he was adopting measures with a view to maintain his ground against them, they resolved upon proceeding to extremities in self-defence. They in- vited the cardinals who remained at Rome to join them at Anagni, in order to consider what measures were to be adopted with reference to the late scan- dalous election. Upon their refusal to comply with this invitation, they sent to the king of France, Charles V., a report of the compulsion under which they had on that occasion acted ; and, as soon as they had received the assurance of his support, on the 2nd of August, they published a manifesto, declaring to all the world under what circumstances Urban had been elected.f Urban now endeavoured to enter into negotiations, and offered to submit the validity of his election to the decision of a General Council ; but this proposal was met by a new manifesto, warn- ing all persons to have nothing to do with this sacri- legious man, and calling upon him to vacate the chair of St. Peter without delay. | After the expiration of a month, the cardinals elected one of their own body, whom they set up as the only legitimate head of the A. D. 1378. Church, under the title of Clement VII. The fault vTl" of the protracted schism which ensued is to be equally (Avignon.) j^jj ^^^^^ ^^^^^ parties. The emperor of Germany, the kings of England, Hungary, and Poland, of Sweden and Denmark, declared themselves immediately in favour of Urban ; the counts of Castile and Arragon seemed to hesitate which side to take ; France, Scotland (in alliance * Haynald. an. 1378, n. 28. t Ibid. an. 1378, n. 42. X Ibid. an. 1378, n. 48—50. CLEMENT VII. AT AVIGNON. 345 with France), and queen Joanna of Naples took the part of Clement. Clement at first endeavoured to maintain his position in Italy by the assistance of Neapolitan arms ; but he soon found himself com- pelled to retire from Anagni to Naples (a.d. 1379), where, however, the court could not protect him against the people, so that he was glad to escape to France by sea. Each of the rival pontiffs now excommunicated the other, and declared his adherents schismatical ;* but Urban showed himself far more ready than Clement to yield to measures which might effectually put an end to the schism. Again he declared himself ready to refer the question of the validity of his election to a General Council ; but, as this was to be upon the understanding that in the mean time he should be recognised as the legitimate pope, he could hardly expect his opponent to assent to his terms. Six years afterwards, Clement made a somewhat similar pro- posal, but accompanied with conditions which secured its rejection. Urban died in 1389, execrated and despised even by his own adherents in Italy, where he had caused six cardinals to be put to death. f This unpopularity might have served as a ground for the Komans to desire reconciliation with the pope at Avignon ; but such was their aversion to the French that they hastened to elect another pope, Boniface a. d. isso. IX., before the other party could find time even to ^(Kome!f * enter into negotiations. Boniface made a proposal to Clement that, if he would resign his pretensions to the pontificate, he, on his part, would appoint him his legate in all countries * Raynald. an. 1379, n. 27. t Ibid. an. 1385, n. 1 ; n. 1387, an. 10. 346 BONIFACE IX. AT ROME. which had hitherto acknowledged him as pope.* At this juncture, the university of Paris, and especially its college of divines, including many eminent and excellent men, began to make earnest efforts for effecting a settlement of this dispute, for the sake of the general welfare of the Church ; and such was the influence of this university that it could not be disregarded either at Avignon or at Rome. In a formal memorial, drawn up by Nicholas de Clemangis on behalf of the university, and presented to the king (Charles VI.), June 30th, 1394, the university re- commended either the voluntary abdication of both popes, or submission to the decision of an umpire, or the decree of a council, as the only possible means of putting an end to the schism ; declaring their decided preference of the first of these plans, as at once the most certain and the most expeditious, and urging the king to employ his authority and influence in order to effect it. The university, at the same time, sent a copy of this memorial to Clement at Avignon, which exasperated him to such a degree as to occa- sion his death. At the instance of the university, the French court now called upon the cardinals at Avignon not to proceed to the election of a new pope. The cardinals declared that this was inconsistent with their duty ; but, having offered to bind the newly- elected pope, by an oath, to perform an act of abdica- tion as soon as the pope at Kome should do the same, they elected the cardinal Peter de Luna, under the A. D. 1394. title of Benedict XIII., — a man who had hitherto xTiir greatly contributed to prolong the confusion of affairs, (Avignon.) ^yjjjjg falsely pretending to be most anxious for the * Kaynald. an. 1389, n. 14 ; an. i;i!)0, n. 8. BENEDICT XIII. AT AVIGNON. 347 restoration of unity and concord. Benedict took the oath required ; but, when called upon to abdicate according to the prescribed terms, he refused. The question was now raised at Paris how to compel him to accomplish this act ; and it was resolved that the most effectual means would be to withdraw his revenues, by no longer allowing him to collate to French benefices, and by not paying the annates, or first-fruits.* At the same time, the king of France endeavoured to engage the courts of Europe in the work of pacification. In the following year (1396), Richard, king of England, began to co-operate with him,f and undertook to treat with his pope, Boni- face IX., in order to induce him to make a voluntary abdication. In 1397, the German estates also, in an assembly at Frankfort, deliberated concerning the same matter. A common embassy was sent fi'om several princes to Borne, bearing this proposal to the pope and cardinals ; and the emperor Wenceslaus seemed, for a moment, disposed to step in as supreme protector of the Church and settle the question by an imperial decree. But neither of the popes really desired this result ; rather, each was anxious to main- tain his own ground, and to throw impediments in the way of peace. This desire appeared more plainly in the conduct of the French pope than in that of the Roman, and hence he became the more unpopular amongst the sovereigns of Europe, who felt that their efforts at compulsion must be directed chiefly against him. France began the task. In 1398, the king published an edict, inveighing, in the strongest terms, against the disgraceful conduct of both popes, especially Benedict ; renouncing, in the name of the * Uayuakl. an. 1395, n. 15. f Ibid. an. 1396, n. 2. 348 ATTEMPTS AT PACIFICATION. French nation, all obedience to him ; refusing him all protection ; and enacting that the French Church should be governed only by its own bishops, by whom alone all vacant benefices should be filled up. At the same time, the king declared that the other pope should not be recognised as such, and called upon the king of England and the emperor to adopt similar measures ; and, having received the adhesion of the king of Castile* and the emperor, he proceeded against Benedict by sending an army to Avignon, which, though it did not succeed in dislodging him fi-om his strong palace, kept him shut up as a prisoner for the space of three years. These measures would probably have soon put an end to the schism, but for the deposition of Wen- ceslaus, and the election of Robert, in Germany, A.D. 1400. Robert thought that he stood in need of a pope such as Boniface ; he therefore declared himself on his side, and by an expedition into Italy, 1401, he contributed greatly to sustain his power.f Hence the great advocate of Benedict at the French court, the duke of Orleans, found it tolerably easy, in 1403, to induce the king to enter into negotiations with him ; the result of which was a reconciliation on terms suflSciently easy to Benedict, who was made only to promise that he would abdicate as soon as the interests of the Church should make such a step necessary. In order still further to protract and to complicate the affair, Benedict sent an embassy to Rome (in 1404), inviting Boniface to a personal conference for consultation concerning the best means of restoring peace. Boniface died during the visit of * Itayiiald. an. 1398, n. 25. t Ibid. an. 1400, n. 12 ; an. 1401, n. 2, (5, 9, 26. INNOCENT VII. AND GREGORY XII. AT ROME. 349 these ambassadors at Rome ; and they did not fail to employ their utmost influence to persuade the car- dinals to elect Benedict, and thus at once to put an end to the schism. Benedict, however, had already made himself so universally unpopular that the cardinals chose rather to elect a new pope, Inno- ^-d. i404. TTTT • • 1*1 T • r> Innocent cent Vil., nnposmg upon huu the condition of vn. abdication as soon as the same step should be adopted ^ "'™*^''* by Benedict ; and upon the death of Innocent, in 1406, they elected Gregory XII. on the same con- a. d. i406. dition. No abdication, however, took place ; and xn.'^ Europe began earnestly to look round for some other (''''""*^-) method of terminating the dispute. Benedict, still interposing excuses and delays, received notice from the king of France not to provoke him to withdraw his protection a second time ; whereupon he pub- lished a bull, pronouncing excommunication against all those who should, at any future time, withdraw their obedience from him. This it was which, at length, convinced the whole world that nothing could be accomplished by any of the methods hitherto attempted, and that some more effectual course must be adopted. As long ago as 1398, the university of Oxford had earnestly proposed the assembling of a General Council ;* and it was to this expedient that the minds of men now recurred, after the doctors at Paris had decided that even popes were bound to submit to the decrees of such council. The difficulty was, to determine what measures to begin with in order to the convening of this council. It was soon, however, resolved that this step should be effected by the cardinals of both parties ; nor was it difficult to * Rayuald. an. 1398, u. 32—38. 350 THE COUNCIL OF PISA. obtain a majority of them, who met at Pisa, in 1408, and convened a General Council, to assemble at that place in the following year, 1409. The announce- ment of this decision was everywhere received with great joy, notwithstanding that each of the rival popes had, in despair, convened a council in opposition, — Gregory XII. at Aquileia or Ravenna, and Benedict at Perpignan. The eyes of men were turned towards this council at Pisa for the accomplishment of an object still more important than the mere termination of the schism, which was nothing less than the general reformation of the Church, including a limitation of the papal authority and power. The aggressive nature of this power had been felt especially during the schism, when there were not only two popes instead of one, but each was driven to the adoption of violent measures for the support of his own cause, tending to deepen a con- viction already existing, especially in France and England, that some measures must be adopted in order to put an end to papal exactions and oppression. Such was the prevailing sentiment of the ambassadors of more than twenty of the European powers, great and small, the delegates of fifteen universities, and more than three hundred doctors of theology and canon law, who assembled at Pisa, in March, 1409. Somewhat different, perhaps, were the views of twenty-two cardinals, sixteen archbishops and patri- archs, and eighty bishops, who formed the nucleus of the council ; but, among the archbishops and bishops, at least one half were as fully bent as the civil power upon the accomplishment of the so-called reformation. Still more was this the case with three hundred proctors of absent bishops and abbots, and the THE COUNCIL OF PTSA. 351 deputies of more than one hundred chapters, — these being the parties who had suffered most severely from the oppression and exactions of the papal see. From the temper of the council, the cardinals soon found themselves obliged to promise that any one of their body who should be elected as pope should not suffer the council to separate without carrying into effect a fit, rational, and efficient reform of the Church, both in its head and in its members ; and they proposed that any pope who should be elected, not being one of their body, should enter into the same engagement. This was, in fact, to acknowledge that the reformation was the chief business of the council, and that its first duty was the termination of the schism. In the fifteenth session, June 5th, the council decreed that Benedict and Gregory, as schismatics, heretics, and perjured persons, were deposed from the pontificate, and that henceforward neither of them should be recog- nised as pope by orthodox Christians. In one of the sessions immediately following, the cardinals made their solemn promise concerning the work of reforma- tion ; whereupon the council did not hesitate to leave the choice of the new pope entirely to them. They went into conclave on the 15th of June, and on the 26th they presented to the council the cardinal Peter of Milan as the new head of the Church, under the title of Alexander Y. In the session of the 1st a. p. ung. of July, at which the new pope presided, he not only ^^'^■^f''^" promised immediately to enter with zeal upon the !|'^^^"' ''J' work of reformation, but he called upon the council to P'sa. form a committee, consisting of some of its most learned and fit members of all nations, to confer with the cardinals on this subject, and to take the necessary preliminary measures. But, after the despatch of 352 COUNCIL OF PISA. THREE POPES. some other business, the work of reformation was speedily postponed until the next council, to be assembled within three years. This must have taken the greater number of the members entirely by surprise, no ground for this postponement being apparent ; but the whole direction of the council had been left in the hands of the cardinals, and it could hardly have been expected that they would really endeavour to promote a reformation which would, in fact, consist, to a great extent, in withdrawing power and wealth from themselves. Nor was the new pope, whom they now chose, at all likely to act as a reformer. Immediately on his accession, he released the Church from the burden of many papal exactions, and he gratified the assembled bishops by a liberal and even profuse distribution of benefices, expectancies, and other favours ; while the promise of a future council served to suppress that outburst of indignation which might have been ex- pected to follow his refusal to fulfil the promise of immediate reformation. The sentence of deposition pronounced by the Council of Pisa against Benedict and Gregory took effect only in those countries which had already renounced obedience to them. Each of these popes retained a certain number of faithful adherents, who acknowledged him as the only lawful head of the Church ; so that the schism was not ended, but only aggravated, there being now three popes instead of two. But the party of Alexander V. was by far the strongest, Gregory being acknowledged only in Italy and in some of the smaller states of Germany, and Benedict XII. only by Scotland and Arragon, and one or two insignificant provinces. COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 353 In 1410, Alexander V. was succeeded by John a. d. i4io. XXIII., who had already become leader in the col- xxii". lege of cardinals. This pontiff, who in his youth had been a pirate, and had been subsequently distinguished by rude energy and the violence of his measures, probably expected to be able to rule with a strong hand, and to bring his two rivals to submission with- out the intervention of the promised council. Soon, however, he found himself constrained by circum- stances, and especially by the disposition of the new emperor Sigismund, to convene the council, only two years later than the time fixed at Pisa ; and he ordained that it should meet at Constance, within the dominions of the emperor of Germany. At the open- ing of this council it became evident that the desire for reformation had gathered strength since the date of the Council of Pisa, and that the elevation of John to the pontificate had contributed in no small measure to this result, the minds of men having been outraged by the appointment of an ecclesiastic so notorious for his vices and excesses, at the very moment when they had begun to call for reform of the Church in its head and in its members. It had been noticed at the Council of Pisa that the ancient manner of deciding by individual votes M'as greatly in favour of the pope and his party, on account of the number of Italian bishops who accompanied him, and from his influence in attaching individuals to his interests as his creatures and dependents. At the opening of the council at Constance it was proposed by some leading members that the votes should now be reckoned, not by individuals, but according to the nations represented ; that all individuals present should be divided into four national sections, as French, VOL. TL 2 .v 854 COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. English, Italian, or German, and that the bishops and divines of each nation should first deliberate in separate congregations upon all the questions brought before the council, and decide according to the majority of votes in that congregation, which decision should be reckoned as the vote of that nation in the general sitting of the council. By this means the overwhelm- ing number of Italian votes would no longer be dan- gerous, inasmuch as they would only contribute to make up the one vote of that nation ; while the votes of the creatures of the pope scattered throughout all other nations, which were of weight only when com- bined, would only form a minority in each nation. This measure was accordingly opposed by the pope and his adherents ; but its promoters enlisted the em- peror on its side, and succeeded in carrying it with- out any considerable delay. The adverse disposition of the council was still more decidedly displayed with reference to the ques- tion which next arose, as to the order in which the subjects before it should be discussed. It was soon, however, decided that the acts of the Council of Pisa must be regarded as null and void, and that all the existing popes must be called upon to make a volun- tary abdication. John, for his part, at first refiised to make any abdication. He was subsequently terrified, by an appearance of prosecution, into a promise to abdicate upon certain conditions ; but, when he found that the council would insist upon unconditional abdi- cation, he fled by night from Constance to the terri- tories of Frederic, duke of Austi'ia, who had undertaken to protect him. Here he hoped to be able to set the council at defiance, or at all events to compel it to consent to his own conditions. The council, however, COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 355 was resolute, and, under the auspices of the emperor, who had determined that its sittings should be conti- nued in the absence of the pope, it sent a message to John, requiring his immediate return or the trans- mission of his act of abdication. On the 7th of April, his protector Frederic of Austria was placed under the ban of the empire, and was soon compelled to submit to all the demands of the emperor, including even that of bringing back John to Constance. Here, while he still refused to abdicate, it was resolved to proceed against him in the way of prosecution for criminal conduct, with a view to his deposition. He was accordingly cited to appear before the council to answer the charges brought against him : upon non- appearance at the end of nine days, sentence of sus- pension was pronounced ; and, in the course of the next fourteen days, during which time he was brought as a prisoner into the neighbourhood of Constance, so many of the seventy charges brought against him were established as to justify the sentence of deposition, which was pronounced on the 29th of May. Gregory XII. sent in his act of abdication on the 4th of July following ; and was made cardinal bishop of Porto, and perpetual legate in the March of Ancona, a dignity which he retained during the remaining two years of his life. Benedict, however, continued obsti nately to resist all overtures. The emperor, who sent to him in person, could only obtain a promise of abdi- cation under the most monstrous conditions ; but he prevailed upon the kings of Arragon, Castile, and Navarre, to withdraw their obedience, and, on the 6th of January, 1416, formally to renounce their protec- tion of Benedict. After this, the council proceeded against this pontiff in the same manner as against 2 A 2 350 COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. John, and sentence of deposition was pronounced, July 26, 1417. Benedict, now ninety years old, would not yield ; he retired to a fortress at Pejiiscola, in the kingdom of Valencia, and thence fulminated a sentence of excommunication against the whole w orld, with an interdict also upon the kingdom of Arragon. Here he remained until his death in 1424,* with four cardinals whom, before he died, he bound by oath to elect one of their number as his successor. In this position, however, Benedict was no longer formidable to the Church ; the schism was, in fact, at an end ; and the council now felt satisfied that the new pope whom it should elect would be recognised by the universal Church. There was therefore now no im- pediment in the way of its proceeding to the great business of ecclesiastical reform ; and some measures in this direction had been already taken while it was occupied with the determination of the schism. During its fourth session, the council had prepared a decree establishing it as a constitutional principle that a General Council represents the whole Church catholic, and that, as the Church has received its power immediately from Christ, even the pope is bound to submit to all its regulations, especially to those which relate to matters of faith, and to the re- formation of the Church in its head and its members, — a measure which was strongly recommended by the celebrated Gerson, chancellor of Paris, and by Peter d'Ailly, cardinal of Cambray. It was now proposed by the emperor that the election of the new pope should be deferred until the questions of reformation had been settled ; but this proposal was met w ith so strong an opposition from all the national sections of * Kaynald. ;in. 1 1215, n. 7; an. 1427, n. 20. COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 357 the council, except the German, that he was obliged to abandon it, after a series of stormy debates. Even Gerson and D'Ailly resisted this proposal ; but at the same time they and others were fully prepared to make common cause with the emperor, if the new- pope, after his election, should throw any impediments in the way of reformation. At the suggestion of the German nation, the council agreed tliat the new pope should be bound by oath not to quit Constance, nor to dissolve the council, until the reformation should have been accomplished. And in the remarkable thirty -ninth session of the council, October 9th, 1417, it made the most important regulation that, for the future, a General Council should be held at least once in every ten years, but that the next should take place at the expiration of five years after the termination of the present Council of Constance. By a second de- cree of the same session, made with a view to prevent the recurrence of a schism, it was ordained that if a pope should at any time have notice of the existence of an anti-pope, he should immediately convene a General Council, at which neither of the rival pontiffs should preside, but, from the moment of its meeting, both popes should be bound to suspend their functions of government. The result of all this was that a work which bore the name of reformation was accomplished before the council separated, but a work so trifling and inefficient that the council was ashamed to recognise its own offspring. And thus the predictions of the emperor and the German bishops were fully verified. Each of the other nations having vainly endeavoured to secure a pope of their own, the choice was ultimately left to the Italians. The new pontiff elected by the 358 COUXC'IL OF CONSTANCE. cardinals* was raised to the papal chair under the title of Martin V. A.D. 1417. The new pontiiF was a man who had been hitherto Martin V. (jig^inguished by his moderation, and by a certain liberality of sentiment and conduct. All this, how- ever, had rested only on the surface of the character of an accomplished man of the world, belonging to one of the first princely houses of Rome ; and it is there- fore not surprising that the hopes which many persons had ventured to build upon this fair appearance were doomed to suffer disappointment. Immediately after his coronation, Martin nominated a commission of six cardinals who should confer with the deputies of the several nations on the matter of reformation. Before this committee were laid eighteen articles in which the council had already stated the grievances that required reformation ; and to these the German national section appended a project of their own, which they delivered to the pope under the title of Advisamenta Nationis Germanicse. In January, 1418, scarcely two months after it had begun its labours, this committee was ready with its report, which the pope laid before the council (Reformatio Martini papse in Capite et Curia Romana). But the committee had attended only to the points which were laid before it by the council, relating to some comparatively modern innovations and acts of papal oppression. Concerning the chief of these points, the re})()rt said that — circum- stances did not permit any alteration. With respect to some others, it promised an improvement, by which only a very small part of the evils complained of could be removed. With regard to two or three of the least important, the report magnanimously professed * Nov. 11, 1417. COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. :^59 to adopt the recommendation of the council for their entire removal. The council laboured in vain for any further concessions ; and, wearied out by the firmness and determination of the pope, it consented, to the great discredit of its wisdom and courage, to accept the few paltry concessions that had been made as an equivalent for that great and extensive work of ecclesiastical reform which it had so loudly de- manded. It had indeed so far a feeling of self-respect as not to embody its work in any synodal decree ; but at length it accepted the proposals of the pope in another form. Concerning the matters which the council had desired to be reformed, or the grievances which it had proposed to be redressed, almost every one of the nations represented at the council concluded a separate compact with the pope, by which he con- ceded on the whole about as much as he had already proposed to concede to the council. At the same time, consistently enough with his line of policy, Martin published, under the form of papal ordinances or constitutions, in a public session of the council, those other articles which were contained in his project of reformation. And after he had thus given the final blow to the character of the council, he announced to the members, in their forty-fifth session, that they might now separate, in the name of God, since their work had been accomplished. To each of the mem- bers, at his departure, he gave a plenary indulgence, the virtue of which, under certain conditions, was to last until the hour of death ; and to the emperor he granted, besides the plenary indulgence, a tenth of all the revenues of the German churches,' — a gift not only made without the consent of those churches, but one against which they protested. The whole council 360 COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. attended the pope in solemn procession to the gates of Constance, the emperor leading his horse by the bridle. At the opening of this council, it could hardly have been expected that the spirit of reform, which was then so zealous and ardent, could have been thus allayed. But, during the debates concerning the elec- tion of the pope, there sprang up a jealousy among the several nations of which the council consisted ; and especially there was a feeling of ill-will on the part of all the other nations against the Germans. It was this state of things which gave full scope for the machinations of the enemies of reform, and secured a preponderating influence to the new pope when elected. By this result of the Council of Constance, the measures which had been adopted for future progress in the work of reformation were rendered nugatory, and, in fact, reversed. As to the position which had been established relating to the superiority of a General Council to the pope, Martin published a bull, which he caused to be read in the council, declaring all appeals from a pope to a council unlawful and prohibited ; nor did the council venture to protest against this bull. What, then, could be expected from a new council, which, according to the regulations lately passed, was to assemble in five years, even if it should really meet ? Twelve years elapsed before another council was convened ; and it is probable that none would have been assembled throughout the remainder of the cejituiy, had not unexpected circumstances called one into existence. During the last quarter of the fourteenth century an opponent of the papal power had appeared in WICKLIFFE. 301 England, who boldly attacked it at some of its deepest foundations. This was no other than John Wickliffe, head of a college, and afterwards professor of divinity, at Oxford. In the year 1360, he engaged in a controversy with the powerful order of Mendicant Friars, who, upon their appeal to Urban V., obtained from him a decision in their favour, against Wickliffe, in 1370. Wickliffe, with the greater part of the English clergy and people, had already felt no small indignation at the treatment which the English had received from the popes ; and men were disposed to resist that claim of feudal sovereignty which had been put forward by the papal see with reference to this kingdom. To these sentiments Wickliffe now gave open expression ; and, at the same time, he found himself conscious that many of his views of divine truth were opposed to the decrees of popes and the influence of the Roman see. He did not hesitate to declare his conviction that it was now high time that a change should be made in the papacy and its relations to the Church. He not only insisted upon the necessity of recalling those new powers of pro- visions, reservations, and dispensations, of which the ancient Church and the old canon law knew nothing, — openly affirming that by these new claims the pope had become antichrist,— but he attacked, in general, the claims of the pope to ecclesiastical supremacy, or, at all events, he denied the divine right of this supremacy. He would not allow that the pope was to be regarded as the infallible depositary of religion, or the sure oracle of doctrine according to divine institution ; for popes, said he, like other men, may err, and it was even notorious that they had erred: and he said that it would probably be best not to elect 362 WICKLIFFE. another pope at all, since it was so difficult to obtain a good one, and the Church could do very well without one. These ideas were not wholly new. Some of the Franciscans, although adverse to WicklifFe, had ex- pressed themselves even still more strongly in the same way during their quarrels with the popes, and had systematically endeavoured to destroy respect for the papacy in the minds of the people ; and disgust at papal abuses had been often expressed by the nobility and superior clergy of England. So that WicklifFe could reckon upon the support of a powerful party in his opposition to the papacy, and against the attacks which he had reason to expect. In 1377, Gregory XI. called upon the king, the bishops, and the university of Oxford, to proceed against this heretic ; upon which the bishop of London made preparations for a formal process against him, to take place at a council : but the duke of Lancaster placed himself at the head of his protectors, and argued so strongly in his favour that the bishop would not venture to condemn him, but contented himself with prohibiting him from any further dissemination of his opinions.* This prohibition, however, could give no check to the opinions of WicklifFe ; and the great schism contributed to give them currency and favour. They spread beyond the limits of England, and, doubtless, tended to awaken men's minds to a sense of the necessity of ecclesiastical reform ; and, afler the Council of Constance, the effects of Wick- liffe's teaching on the Continent became manifest in connection with the movements excited by Huss. Soon after the beginning of the fifteenth century, * Council of Lamlietli, A. r>. 1378. THE BOHEMIANS. 363 the celebrated John Huss, professor of divinity and preacher at Prague, became acquainted with the MTi tings of Wickhff'e, which were said to have been brought to Prague by some Enghsh scholars who were attracted thither by the fame of its University. This acute and pious man felt the influence of AVickliffe's spirit the more readily on account of its resemblance to that of Conrad of Waldhausen, Milicz of Kremsier, and Matthias of Janow, — who had already distinguished themselves at Prague as bold and zealous preachers of a purer and more practical Christianity than that which generally pre- vailed. Huss boldly proclaimed his own convic- tions ; and the high esteem in which he was held by the people, in the university, and even at the court itself, soon procured him a large number of adherents in Bohemia. In this circle he propa- gated the doctrines of Wickliffe, especially those concerning the pope and the Church, penances and indulgences; and he accompanied this teaching with severe invectives against the ambition and avarice, the vices and excesses, the ignorance and follies, of the clergy and the monks. Soon, however, he encountered a formidable enemy in the person of Sbynco, archbishop of Prague, who adhered to the party of the Roman pope, Gregory XII., deposed by the Council of Pisa in the year 1409, while Huss, on the conti-ary, insisted upon obedience to the commands of the king, who desired that Bohemia should acknowledge the new pope elected by the council. Huss brought over the whole university of Prague to his side ; and eventually the archbishop found himself obliged to declare for the new pope. But Sbynco, now the determined enemy of Huss, denounced him to the 364 Huss. new pope as a heretic, and raised a storm of per- secution against him which tended to give pubhcity and effect to his opinions, while it aroused his adherents to stedfastness and zeal in their defence. The pope, Alexander Y., pronounced against the reformer a sentence from which he appealed " ad papam melius inform anduni. " From a second sentence, in 1411, Huss appealed to a council; and this appeal gave the emperor Sigisraund an apparently good ground for demanding his appearance at Con- stance. The council persuaded the emperor that, notwithstanding his safe-conduct, he was bound to deliver Huss into its power ; and, having failed in its attempt to induce him to recant, it then condemned him to the flames.* The whole nation, enraged at the insult which had been offered to it in the person of Huss, renounced obedience to the weak Sigismund, and, under the lead of Ziska, offered a successful resistance to his arms, while the doctrines of Huss gained a firm footing in the country. This commotion gave breadth and intensity to the desire that the question of papal authority and power should be finally settled in an orderly and peaceable way ; and hence the general demand for a new council, which the pope, at length, found himself obliged to convoke. Martin died before the time fixed A. D. 1431. for the assembly, which was appointed to take place, Eugenius -ri i • i i t i i IV. at iiasle, m the year 1431; but the cardmals ad- ministered an oath to his successor (Eugenius IV., elected March 3, 1431), binding him not to hinder the meeting of the council.f From this Council of Basle more might have been expected than even from that of Constance ; the ideas * July ei, 1415. t Raynakl. an. 1431, ii. 3, &c. COUNCIL OF BASLE. 805 and hopes of reform had gained ground ; and men, remembering how they had been disappointed bv the results of the two previous councils, were resolved to make good use of the experience they had gained. And yet, after all, they were deluded and disappointed, although not so easily, yet no less effectively, the third time also ! The temper of this council was from the first highly unsatisfactory to the pope, and menacing to his interests ; and he speedily formed the determination of putting an end to its sittings as soon as possible. Before its members were well assembled, he sent an order to the cardinal legate who had been appointed as its president to dismiss the few bishops and dele- gates who had already come to Basle, and to announce a new council to meet shortly at Bologna, under the presidency of the pope in person. To his astonish- ment, however, Eugenius found a firm resistance to this mandate on the part of the new and scarcely- assembled council, which he expected so easily to scatter. The cardinal legate himself remonstrated, and hesitated to make known the command he had received ; while several cardinals, who were dissatisfied with the new pope, hastened to join the council, which daily gathered strength, and set itself in an attitude of resolute opposition to Eugenius. In its first session, December 14, 1431, it formally constituted itself, and recognised the question of ecclesiastical reform as one of the principal subjects which lay before it. In its second session, Eebruary 15, 1432, it sanctioned the great principle of the Council of Constance concerning the superiority of a General Council to the pope, and adopted some prudent measures for its own protection, determining that the existing council 36G COINOIL OF BASLE. should not be dissolved, transferred, or prorogued by any external authority, without its own consent, — that its members should not be amenable to any other tribunal, not even to the court of Rome, — and that none of them should leave the council, without good cause, to be admitted as such by the council itself. The pope, however, notwithstanding representations from various quarters, continued to insist upon its dissolution. In its third sitting the council represented to the pope the injustice and impropriety of these attempts at dissolution, called upon him to revoke the bull which he had published to that effect, and fixed a term of three months within which he must appear at Basle, in person, or by a plenipotentiary, to take his proper part in the deliberations of the assembly ; and it decreed that this citation, which, probably, he would not permit to be served upon him personally, should be affixed to the doors of the papal palace and of the principal churches of Rome and other places. It provided also that in case of the non-compliance of the pope, the council should continue its sittings and proceed in its deliberations for the good of the Church. In its fourth session, it enacted that the pope should create no new cardinals during the sitting of the council, and that, in case of the vacancy of the holy see, the election should take place only on the spot where the council was assembled. These decrees were maintained with firmness during the fifth session, in opposition to the representations of an embassy which the pope had sent to Basle, pleading the infallibility and the " plenitudo potestatis " of the pope as head of the Church ; — against which the council contended that these qualities did not reside in the pope, but in the whole Church, represented COITNCTL OF BASLE. 307 by a General Council, — the pope being only the ministering' head, " caput ministeriale," of the Church. In the sixth session, the friends of the council moved that, the term prescribed having now expired, the pope should be declared contumacious ; but in the eighth session a new term of sixty days was allowed to him, — a decree, however, being passed, by which any new council, assembled at Bologna or elsewhere, was declared schismatical and irregular, and all kings, princes, and prelates were forbidden to attend it, under pain of excommunication and deposition. In the twelfth session, thirty days more were allowed to the pope ; and in the thirteenth session, September 1 1, another similar space was granted, the pope having shown some disposition to yield, and appearing to desire only to settle the form in which he should give his assent to the proceedings of the council.* The firmness and decision of the council prevailed. At the end of 1433, the pope, involved in a war with the duke Visconti of Milan, was obliged to quit Rome, and seek safety in Florence, his enemies professing that they had acted at the instigation of the Council of Basle, and with a view to compel him to obey its decrees. t Fearing a fate similar to that of John XXIII., Eugenius now determined to submit. He declared himself fully reconciled to the council, recognised the validity of all its acts, and revoked all his proceedings against it. While rejoicing in this reconciliation, the council at the same time made ample provision for its own security against papal encroachment or undue influence, and for the main- tenance of its rights and privileges as announced by the Council of Constance. In its eighteenth session, * Kaynald. an. 1433, n. 18. r Ibid., n. 35. 368 COUNCIL OF BASLE. June 25, 1434, it repeated the decree of Constance which declared the superiority of a General Council to the pope ; and soon after this a fresh rupture took ♦ place between the council and the pope. In its twentieth session, January 22, 1435, the council applied itself to the task of reformation, directing- its measures chiefly against the authority and claims of the pope. With the exception of a decree against clerical concubinage, and some regulations concerning certain abuses and disorders in matters of Divine worship and the conferring of benefices, almost all its acts of reformation had reference to the pope alone, being directed with a view to place the papal revenues and authority upon the footing of two centuries earlier. And now the pope resolved upon coming to open war with the council ; he felt that, at all events, he could lose no more than what the council was disposed to take from him, and this inspired him with an obstinacy and fixedness of purpose which, at length, but not until after a protracted struggle, led to victory. Eugenius, having taken this resolution, reverted to his old attempts to dissolve the council, or, at least, to remove it to some other place ; and the Greek emperor now furnished him with a better pretext for this proceeding than he had formerly possessed. Pressed by the Turks, the emperor had already declared himself willing to promote a reunion of the Greek Church with the Latin ; he was even ready, with his bishops, to attend the council now sitting, if only the Western Church would make convenient arrangements. Hereupon the pope declared that the emperor could not be expected to travel further than Italy, and announced that, on this account, the seat COUNCIL OF BASLE. 3G9 of the council was transferred from Basle to Ferrara. The bishops at Basle, determined not to remove to Italy, had already considered what they could do for the accommodation of the Greeks, and had consented to transfer the council to Avignon, there to await the arrival of the emperor ; having, however, prescribed a term within which the pope must appear among them. Eugenius, in the mean time, caused the Vene- tians to convey the emperor and his bishops to Italy ; and on the 8th of January, 1438, he opened his council at Ferrara, — declared the assembly at Basle schismatical, and all its acts invalid, — and proceeded with his council at Ferrara as if there was no other in the world. The council at Basle took no alarm at these proceedings. In its thirty-first session, January 24th, 1438, it declared the pope suspended, and announced that the administration of all the power of the papacy, whether civil or spiritual, had now reverted to itself. In its next session, March 24, it pronounced the council at Ferrara schismatical, and commenced formal proceedings for the deposition of Eugenius. The severity of this last measure, hoM^- ever, shocked many of the fathers of this council, and they themselves earnestly began to devise measures by which it might be rendered needless, and averted. Here, however, the firmness of the opposing party pre- vailed. In the thirty -fourth session, May 25, 1439, the sentence of deposition was formally announced; and on the 27th November following, the council agreed upon the election of a new pope in the person of Amadeus, duke of Savoy, who took the title of Felix V. (Feiix v.) If France and Germany had received these decrees of the Council of Basle, the cause of Eugenius would VOL. H. 2 B 370 COUNCIL OF BASLE. have been hopelessly lost. In 1438, when the new breach between the pope and the council took place, the king of France, Charles VII., had accepted the decrees of the council concerning ecclesiastical reform, and by an edict, known as the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, had constituted them fundamental laws of the French state and of the Gallican Church. In the year following, the most important of these decrees were also solemnly accepted by the German nation in a diet at Mayence. All these events threatened the pope with an unfavourable issue of the dispute now pending between the council and himself; but the intervention of more favourable circumstances effected his deliverance at the very moment when his cause appeared desperate. This result may be attributed, no doubt, very much to the dread of a schism, even in name, which pre- vailed especially in Germany, where such an event was regarded as the greatest calamity that could possibly occur. The estates of the empire accordingly admonished the council to desist from its proceedings against the pope. Not succeeding in this attempt, they then declared themselves neutral, with a view to put themselves in a position to mediate; and, upon occasion of the election of the emperor Albert II. (a. D. 1438), they agreed to employ their efforts for effecting a reconciliation between the pope and the council. All this was greatly to the advantage of Eugenius. The estates of Germany, — although in a condition of neutrality, during which Germany was nominally withdrawn from the obedience of the pope, — still were in constant intercourse with Eugenius. During this period liomish nuncios were perpetually COUNCIL OF BASLE. 371 treating with one or other of the states, and with these papal agents was soon united one of the most able men of the age, the celebrated ^iieas Sylvius, of the family of the Piccolomini of Sienna, who was thoroughly acquainted with all the German courts, and was well aware of the means which could be brought to bear upon them. By him the new emperor, Frederic III., was won over to the side of the pope ; and at length he found means to persuade all the electors, assembled at Frank- fort, in March 1446, to propose conditions which the pope would willingly accept. These conditions, in substance, were accepted ; the obedience of Germany was again declared ; and Nicholas V., who shortly a. d. 1447. after succeeded to Eugenius, immediately notified his assent to the act of his predecessor. By this means the authority of the pope was upheld against the Council of Basle; — ^the German nation, by the renewal of its obedience, declaring null and void all the measures which had been adopted by that council against the pope. All papal decrees against the council, so far as they were not inconsistent with the agreement now made with the German nation, were declared good and valid ; and a bull was accepted in which the pope pronounced absolution to all who had taken part with the council, on condition of their abandoning it within six months, and returning to their obedience to the papal see. At the same time the emperor formally renounced his protection of the council, and commanded the people of Basle not to suffer its members to reside any longer among them. The bishops who remained at Basle then retired to Lausanne, where, together with their pope Felix, they continued, or affected to continue, the sessions of the council, until Felix made his peace with Nicholas V., 2 B 2 372 RESXTLTS OF THE COUNCIL OF BASLE. and resigned the pontificate, in 1449.* Nicholas, however, was obliged to concede to the German nation the decrees of Basle, so far as it had accepted them. This concession assumed the form of a Con- cordat ; so that these articles received their validity, not from the authority of the Council of Basle, but from the compact made between the pope and the German nation. This Concordat was concluded at Vienna, February 12, 1448 ; and by it two principal decrees of Basle, which had been accepted on behalf of the empire, — the decree concerning annates, and that concerning reservations, — were again more or less sacrificed to the pope. Small, therefore, was the fruit of the labours of the Council of Basle in the matter of ecclesiastical reform ; and events occurred which contributed to make the condition of the Church in the latter half of the fifteenth century even worse than it had been before. At Home it had become evident that there was still a charm in the papal pretensions upon which men could reckon. When the pope had been deposed by the council, no state or sovereign proceeded further against him than the Germans, who only declared neutrality. At the same time, it was well known that there existed everywhere a numerous and power- ful party which desired that such measures of reform as those decreed at Basle should take effect, and that this party was likely to persevere in its efforts against the exorbitant power of the popes. It was, however, also plain that this party was not prepared to proceed to extremities, partly from the want of power, and partly from the absence of any determinate principles and aims. But at Rome there could be no * Raynald, an. 1447, n. 18 ; an. 1449, n. 1, 5. RESULTS OF THE COUNCIL OF BASLE. 373 hesitation as to the course to be pursued ; here it was resolved to maintain a firm and bold front against all opposition. With regard to any pontifical rights which were assailed, the policy of the papacy was openly and boldly to continue the exercise of these rights, and to ignore anything like contradiction or protest. It was certain that some voices would con- tinue to be raised against these things, and that the Councils of Constance and Basle would still be in men's memories ; but then every act of opposition could be enfeebled or nullified by a reference to the results of these synods, so well adapted to remind men of their own weakness, and of the preponderance of the papal power. And when Rome had for some time acted quietly and steadily upon the principles of this policy, under the government of several successive pontiifs, there was not only a return to the old state of things, for which a remedy had been sought by the Councils of Constance and Basle, but imper- ceptibly also, at least in some respects, existing abuses became more legally established and sanctioned than they had ever been before. Outward events contributed to this result. In 1453, the Turks captured Constantinople and put an end to the Greek empire in the East. A strong sensation was hereby created among the Christian states of the West, mingled with fear that the fanatical conquerors would push their way into Europe. Under these circumstances, the pope found it easy to rekindle zeal for the crusades, and to persuade men that pre- parations ostensibly made for this purpose were seriously and honourably meant. Perhaps, indeed, the professed designs of Nicholas V., and his successor, *• d. 1455. Calixtus III., during the two years after the capture in. 374 CAPTURE OF CONSTANTINOPLE. of Constantinople,* were real. Succeeding popes, however, turned the zeal for a crusade to the advantage of the papal treasury, according to the precedents of former times. They raised money, by their mere authority, from ecclesiastical property in the way of imposts, — as though no man could object to these imposts, because the money was required for war against the Turks. They demanded the payment of annates from all the larger benefices, which had been forbidden by the Council of Basle ; and they arbi- trarily raised the assessment of several bishoprics which they represented as being too lightly taxed, while the people were ready to believe that the proceeds were to be applied to the holy war. Whole troops of sellers of indulgences were despatched into all countries, under pretence that the money which they should remit to Rome would be employed with a view to redeem Constantinople from the hands of the infidels. So that, whatever had been denounced at Constance and Basle, as an abuse of papal authority, was restored to its former currency ; and oefore men could say how it had come to pass, they found themselves in all respects in the same relation to the pope as that out of which they had been extri- cated with so much pains. Not that this took place without some show of resistance. In 1452, when the pope's new crusading bull was laid before the German estates in a diet at llatisbon, they seemed to be more shocked at the announced levy of a tenth of all ecclesiastical revenues than at the capture of Constan- tinople by the Turks; and several German princes and bishops declared that they would not contribute a * Kayuald. an. 1453, n. 2, 10; an. 1455, n. 18, 25, 28; an. 1456, n. 49; an. 1457, n. 10, 21. REVIVAL OF PAPAL ABUSES. 375 penny to the crusade, on the ground that the whole affair was only a pretence for raising money, — a cover for papal extortion. The archbishop of Treves applied to the emperor for his interference against the new exactions of the Roman see, entreating him, at all events, not to let the German churches be plundered ; the archbishop of Mayence spoke of an appeal to a General Council ; while other bishops not only refused to contribute, but took from the papal collectors the money which they had raised in their dioceses.* In these proceedings the Germans doubt- less saw a violation of the recent Concordat, at all events as to its spirit and intention ; and at the same time the popes were violating this compact in the very letter. In 1457, the chancellor of Mayence complained to ^neas Sylvius that there was not a single article of the agreement which had not been violated on the part of the court of Rome, — by the arbitrary bestowment of German sees, — by the reser- vation of benefices and dignities which were expressly given to bishops and chapters by the terms of the Concordat, — and by pecuniary demands upon German Churches, which the Concordat had expressly for- bidden. Before the lapse of another year, additional instances of the breach of the Concordat occurred. The author of this compact, ^neas Sylvius himself, gave occasion to a fresh invasion of its terms ; for, in order to support the rank of a cardinal, to which he was now raised, he caused the pope to collect for him a yearly income of several thousand ducats from the German benefices and cathedrals. And when ^neas Sylvius himself ascended the papal throne, under the title of Pius II., it had become a common practice, * Kaynald. an. 14,57, u. 50. 376 REVIVAL OF PAPAL ABFSES. with respect to all dignities in cathedrals and col- legiate churches, which were expressly excepted in the Concordat from certain papal claims, that these were, notwithstanding, filled up from Eome, and that the rights of the pope in this respect were no longer disputed by the chapters. All these things took place notwithstanding the loud complaints of the German states and bishops. In a large assembly of electors, princes, and bishops, on the Rhine, in 1457, a long list of grievances in connection with the violated Concordat* was drawn up, and transmitted to the em- peror. At a meeting of the clergy of Mayence, Treves, and Cologne, in 1479, at Coblentz, a large number of instances, more or less recent, were col- lected. At a diet of Nuremberg, in 1487, the emperor and the estates declared that these grievances could no longer be borne. But all these complaints and movements effected nothing. At Rome it was not denied that the Concordat had been violated in some particulars ; but it was maintained that the pope must be left at liberty sometimes to act without regard to its provisions, when occasion should require, and that it was always to be supposed that a real occasion existed whenever he should so act, although he might not see fit to give an account of the matter. This was declared by Nicholas V., in his bull addressed to the archbishop of Salzburg, in 1452, scarcely three years after the date of the Concordat; and in 1457, Calixtus III., writing to the emperor, declared that the pope could not be bound by the terms of any compact (nullis pactioiuim vinculis coerccri), and that, whenever he might confine himself to the terms of the Concordat, this was to be regarded as a pure act of generosity or liberality on his part. RIGOUR OF PAPAL EXACTIOXS. 377 Not only were the German churches thus badly treated by the popes, but all the other states of Europe felt the oppression of Romish despotism during- the latter half of the fifteenth century, even more severely than they had before the Council of Basle. The six popes who reigned during this a. d. uss. i^ius II period not only resorted to those measures which a. d. uii. had been prohibited by the Councils of Constance a. d."i471. and Basle, and continued to pursue the same f '^"ilJi methods of exaction as heretofore, but even carried innocent the latter to a still greater extent, and acted as if a. d. 1492. • ,1,1 I • n • ill Alexander With the express design 01 exposing the decrees yi. of those councils to contempt. Thus, in a bull, "^p^^g^f^^' bearing date 1460,* Pius 11. condemned the principle, J^ii^s 11, sanctioned by both councils, that an appeal could lie from the pope to a General Council, — and thus also condemned the principle that a council is superior to the pope. The same pontiff pursued the system of exaction with extreme rigour; and during his ponti- ficate was introduced the new abuse of so-called Pensions, — that is to say, an assignment, with respect to all ecclesiastical offices disposed of at Rome, of a certain arbitrarily appointed payment to be made by the new incumbent to a cardinal or some other of the Roman courtiers, — a system which was pushed so far by succeeding pontiffs that, at length, by this burden, in connection with other imposts levied on ecclesiastical property, a full half of all the Church property of the West was claimed by Rome.f To no less an extent prevailed also the abuses in connection with dispensa- tions and indulgences ; and most insupportable of all was the haughtiness with which the popes ridiculed * Raynald. an. 1460, 11. 10, 11. t Thomassin, part. iii. liv. ii. c. 31. 378 WEAK OPPOSITION TO PAPAL PRETENSIONS. all complaints concerning these acts of oppression, and neutralised all attempts which men made to protect themselves against them. The last pope of this period had the audacity to annul the decrees of the Council of Basle, in a new council which he himself convened at Rome. We may well be surprised at finding that the world was content with thus merely making complaints, and entering protests, without effectually vindicating its independence. But there were various circumstances of the times which contributed to this result. Such was the weakness of the emperor Frederic III., and the high value which he set on his coronation by the pope, for which he went to Home in 1451, and sub- mitted even to the most humiliating part of the Koman ceremonial,* — at the same time calling upon the pope to aid him in a quarrel in which he was engaged with the estates of Austria, by pronouncing sentence of excommunication against his opponents, — thus even requesting the pope to interfere in the secular affairs of temporal princes. And the same may be said concerning the weakness of the French kings of this period. Charles VII. would not effectually support his subjects against the pope when the university of Toulouse and other spiritual corpora tions entreated him to aid them in resisting the levy of a tenth of the ecclesiastical revenues of the king- dom made, by Calixtus III., professedly for the purpose of a war with the Turks ; and Louis XI., who succeeded Charles, went even so far as to comply with the demands of the })ope for the abolition of the Pragmatic Sanction, — an act, however, from which the parliament of Paris withheld its consent. The papacy * Kayuald. au. 1452, u. 1—4. WEAK OPPOSITION TO PAPAL PRETENSIONS. 379 was favoured at this time also by the rising political im- portance of Italy, which made the European sovereigns desirous of obtaining or preserving some interest or footing in that country, and anxious, on that account, to secure the friendship of the pope, for which they were, of course, willing to pay some price, or make some sacrifice. Hence, the last three popes of this century more than once ventured, not only to resume the attitude of their predecessors in the thirteenth century, but even to lay plans for the aggrandisement of their temporal power such as no pope of that century would have been bold enough to devise. Louis XII, of France, highly incensed against Julius II. on account of his opposition to himself in Italy,* making common cause with the emperor Maximilian I., who had been grossly deceived and ill-treated by the same pontiff, and having gained some discontented cardinals over to his views, con- vened a General Council to meet at Pisa in 1511 ; — but never did an undertaking directed against the influence and dignity of the papacy meet with so disgraceful a defeat. The pope himself easily neutralised this council by convening another in the Lateran at Rome ; and the result proved that even this measure of precaution was superfluous. The whole assembly which actually met at Pisa consisted only of a few cardinals, two archbishops, five abbots, and some doctors, chiefly fi-om Prance ; the emperor having failed to induce even a single German bishoj) to attend. This assembly, a few days after its com- mencement, finding itself not safe in Pisa, transferred its sittings to Milan ; and at the end of two months, feeling the same insecurity in Milan, it separated, * KaynalJ. au. 1511, u. 9, &c. 380 TRIUMPHS OF THE PAPACY. after having in its eighth and last session suspended the pope, who had been cited but did not appear. The Lateran Council, on the other hand, was nume- rously attended from almost all the Christian states of Europe; and it continued its sittings four yeai-s after the death of Julius (in 1513), being universally recognised as a General Council. It received also the sanction of all temporal powers, the weak emperor Maximilian having sacrificed his Milan Council, under the pontificate of Julius, by recognising the Council of Lateran ; while the new pope Leo X. received a similar recognition fi-om France, under circumstances which gave it a greater value than that which belonged to the recognition of Maximilian. Francis I., the successor of Louis XII., in 1515, entered Italy the very year of his accession, and advanced in triumph to Milan. The pope was now willing to make terms with him ; and the young monarch, thinking that he could turn his friendship to good account, was equally willing to be reconciled. Francis met Leo at Bologna, and here concluded with him the celebrated Concordat, by which he fully and finally renounced the Pragmatic Sanction, and accorded other advantages to the pope, receiving nothing sub- stantial in return. Thus, at the close of this period, the papacy acquired in its temporal and ecclesiastical relations not only greater splendoiu* than it had formerly possessed, but also, in appearance, greater strength ; and it now seemed as if all the storms of the four- teenth and fifteenth centuries had tended only to root it more firmly in the soil of Europe. This, however, was only in appearance ; the truth is that its very foundation had been undermined by the doctrines of NEW PAPAL EXTORTIONS. 381 Wickliffe and Huss ; and when Leo came to the papal throne we find ourselves in an era, upon the consideration of which we do not propose to enter, — the era of the blessed Reformation, — a reformation, not such as had been designed by the Councils of Constance and Basle, consisting in the mere removal of certain ecclesiastical abuses, but one which, while it struck at the very root of all abuses, not content with overthrowing what was corrupt, and destroying what was evil or pernicious, accomplished the great work of giving liberty to the proclamation of gospel truth, and of presenting to men's minds the funda- mental articles of Christian faith. All the existing abuses of papal despotism had been long since directed to the same end, — that of making money. Every fresh act of power was an act of extor- tion ; every new oppression was connected with some financial speculation. Such was the extension of the papal rights of reservation and provision, which, at length, comprehended the unlimited disposal of all ecclesiastical offices and benefices. The way in which the Church of Rome went to work in this matter, and the insolence with which it proceeded in it, from step to step, exceeds all belief In 1317, John XXII. declared, in his celebrated bull Execra- bilis, that every ecclesiastical person who held a plurality of benefices was obliged to resign all except one, and also that every benefice so resigned by the incumbent was at the disposal of the pope.* In 1335, Benedict XII., by a new constitution. Ad Regimen,! not only confirmed the reservation of the bull Execrabilis, but, moreover, reserved for the * Extrav. Johannis XXII. tit. 3, c. imic. t Extrav. Commiin. lib. iii. tit. 3, c. 13. 382 RESERVATIONS. Roman see all benefices vacated by the deposition or translation of their incumbents, — and all which had been possessed by a cardinal, an official of the Roman court, or any other person whose names occurred under any title whatever in the calendar of that court. And this regulation brought at once into the papal grasp a large number of benefices, since the titles of papal officials and civilists were very hberally bestowed. These reservations were confirmed by Clement VI. Soon after followed the great Schism, during which the two popes wanted more money than ever ; and each of the contending popes established it as a general principle that the patronage of all vacant benefices, whether those belonging to Roman courtiers, or those at a distance, should be reserved for the pope, without exception. Under these circumstances, if only a moderate tax or fine were paid for appointment to benefices at the disposal of Rome, here must have been a source of vast wealth to the papal treasury. But, in point of fact, the greater number of these benefices were sold to the highest bidder, regular auctions of benefices being established both at Avignon and at Rome ; and almost every purchaser bought, not only his presentation to the vacant benefice, but also a dispensation whereby he was qualified to hold it. This, however, was not the oiily means of extortion, or source of enormous revenue, which the popes employed. John XXII. is usually regarded as the originator of Annates, or first-fruits ; but although this may be, to a certain extent, correct, yet he cannot be considered as entitled to the whole merit of invention in this matter. The payment of aimates, considered as a tax which an ecclesiastic, and especially a bishop, was bound to pay at his ordination, to the party who ANNATES. 383 ordained or consecrated him, may be traced to the beginning of the fifth century. It appears, from the Life of Chrysostom, that Antoninus, metropolitan of Ephesus, had ah*eady in his time estabHshed a tax to be paid to him by all bishops whom he consecrated, and that it was assessed according to the value of their revenues. Chrysostom abrogated this tax, and the Council of Chalcedon, in one of its canons, declared it to be pure simony when anything was given or received for ordination.* The bishops soon, however, put another appearance upon the matter, and made payment of those fees so regular and customary that the emperor Justinian found himself obliged to rest satisfied with merely moderating it, and restraining it within certain limits. f In the Latin Church the matter took the same course. In 595, Gregory L, in a council at Rome, most strictly prohibited any kind of payment for the ordination of bishops or other clergy, and called upon all princes and bishops to look well to the observance of this decree. In 829, a council at Paris opposed the same abuse. But Ivo of Chartres declares that, at the end of the eleventh century, it was prevalent at Rome. And from a canonist of the latter half of the thirteenth century we learn that, at that period, such consecration cost the whole of one year's revenues, — that a part of the fees payable on such occasions was designated "annates," — and that this portion was divided between the pope and the cardinals. He says, also, that great complaints were made concerning this practice in the time of Alexander II. Hence it appears that before the time of John XXII. there was such a payment * Couc. Chalced. can. 2. f Nov. 123, c. 33. 384 ANNATES. as that of annates ; but that the title was restricted to a certain portion only of the fees payable at the con- secration of a bishop. In 1318, however, John, by a special constitution, reserved to the pope the amount of one year's revenue from all benefices not elective, and so from all prebends, chaplaincies, and parish churches, under the name of annates, supporting his enactment by the plea that the wants of the Church made such contribution necessary (pro necessitatibus ecclesiee Romanse). This, therefore, was, in effect, to a great extent, a new impost, under a name which had already been in use to denote something else. John appointed this reservation at first for only three years, but he afterwards continued it, and his successors made it permanent; and Boniface IX., in 1392, extended it to all benefices, elective as well as non- elective, — that is to say, to bishoprics and the like, as well as to inferior appointments. The annates were fixed in the books of the Romish treasury for every benefice, extending to something less than the value of one year's income. Besides the annates, there were still certain fees for consecration or confirmation in an office, payable at Rome (servitia communia, et niinuta), which went partly to the cardinals (servitia communia), and partly to the inferior officers (servitia minuta). In 1470, Paul II. discovered that there were certain benefices which had escaped the observation of his predecessors, and were still untaxed, consisting of such as had gradually grown up in connection with monasteries, hospitals, and similar institutions. This pontiff caused a calculation to be made how of1;en these benefices would be vacant if they were unconnected with such institutions ; and as this was OTHER SOURCES OF PAPAL EEYEXUE. 385 thought likely to take place, on an average, once in fifteen years, the pope ordered the revenue of every fifteenth year to be paid into the papal treasury, in lieu of annates (quindena). Until the end of the eighteenth century, this payment was always exacted, except M^hen provision to the contrary was made by some special compact. Such were the principal and regular imposts upon Church property by which the Roman treasury was replenished. Other methods were occasionally em- ployed. Such were the " fructus medii temporis," or revenues which accrued during a vacancy, and the " fructus male percepti," revenues received by incumbents who were afterwards pronounced by the popes not to be legitimate. Thus, in 1403, Benedict XIII. made it the first condition of his reconciliation with the French, who had withdrawn themselves from his obedience for the space of three years, that the amount of tlie whole ecclesiastical revenues of these three years, throughout the kingdom, should be paid to him, as being " fructus male percepti," the occu- piers of all benefices during these three years having been in a state of schism, and not qualified to receive the incomes of Church property. As early as the twelfth century, tempor?fl sovereigns had claimed the right of inheriting the property of all deceased bishops and abbots (jus spolii, jus exuvi- arum) ; but the popes did not rest until, at the beginning of the thirteenth century, they had extorted this source of revenue, at least fi-om the emperors.* Throughout the thirteenth century, the ecclesiastical property of bishops, abbots, and other beneficed clergy, was appropriated to the collegiate body to which the * Thomassin, part. iii. liv. ii. c. 51 — r)4. VOL. n. 2 c 386 OTHER SOURCES OF PAPAL REVENUE. deceased belonged, or to his successor. But after the middle of the fourteenth century, the popes sent officials and collectors into every province, charged with the task of transferring to the papal treasury all the personal effects of deceased clergymen, before the appointment of their successors. This proceeding Mas altogether without law or precedent ; but these col- lectors met with no opposition until the beginning of the next century, at least in Germany and France. About this period, however, they began to attack even the real property of deceased ecclesiastics, to the injury of the heirs at law ; and this act of rapacity gave rise to loud complaints. In some places the civil power began to interpose. Rome, however, did not abandon the cause; and in 1487, the pope threatened an archbishop of Salzburg with deposition, because he had refused to hand over to his collectors the "spolia" of his predecessors. Other sources of profit to the papal treasury, and of injury to the Church, — the more disgraceful to the papacy, because the amount of profit derived from them was comparatively small, while the detriment to the Church was exceedingly great, — consisted in the system of commendams, unions, and incorporations. As early as the eighth and ninth centuries, bishop- rics and abbeys were sometimes commended to lay- men, — i. e., under the form of commendation, the revenues of those benefices were made over to them. But these abuses had always been protested against. These connnendams were declared illegal by several councils ; and they gradually fell into desuetude during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.* About the same time, a legal system of commendation was established, * Thomassin, part. ii. liv. iii. c. 10 — 13, 16 — 18. OTHER SOURCES OF PAPAL REVENUE. 387 which was innocuous, or even useful ; consisting of a provision whereby, when the patron of a benefice could not for some reason or other fill it up on occasion of a vacancy, the immediate superior was authorised to provide a temporary incumbent who should discharge the duties of the post. During the fourteenth century, however, the popes found that they could work this system to the advantage of their treasury. It often happened that some party who offered at Rome a good price for a vacant benefice was not canonically qualified to hold it : in order not to lose the sale, and at the same time to elude the force of the dis- qualifying canon {e. g.^ when a father wished to purchase a valuable living for his son, six or seven years old), the Roman curialist had now recourse to the system of commendation. It was found that parties could hold — i. e., receive the revenues of — one or more benefices in commendam, which they could not hold as regular ineumbents. By this means the laws of the Church were often most insolently set aside. But the papacy knew no shame, and the abuse prevailed; only we find that, in 1307, Clement, conscience-stricken, revoked all commendams which he had granted, except those which had been made to cardinals.* As late as under John XXII. these commendams were usually granted only for a limited period of time, — as when one was granted to a minor, to be held as such only until he came of age for ordination, when it was provided that he should be ordained, and hold the benefice regularly. But the immediate successors of John began to grant com- mendams for life, and they gave away even bishoprics in this manner. * Kaynald. an. 1307, n. 28. 2 C 2 388 OTHER SOURCES OF PAPAL REVENUE. It was an old }3ractice for bishops, after a war, pestilence, inundation, or other public calamity, when a parish had become too small or poor to support its own incumbent, to unite it to some neighbouring parish, and thus to make two benefices into one. Sometimes a provincial council united even two sees in this manner. In the twelfth and thirteenth cen- turies it often happened that such unions were effected for the benefit of monasteries, hospitals, or other religious institutions ; and even by this means a door was opened to many inconveniences and abuses. Afterwards, however, such unions began to be effected in favour of individuals, in order to elude the force of laws directed against pluralities, non-residence, and want of personal qualification. Thus, a child was not qualified to hold a " beneficium curatum," i. e. a living with cure of souls ; but when this was united or an- nexed to a " beneficium simplex," i. e. without cure of souls, such as a stall in a cathedral, it sufficed to bestow upon the child the latter benefice, which he could hold, and this drew after it the other as of course. Sometimes several sees were incorporated in favour of a powerful prelate, or one who had loudly com- plained of the payments required of him at Home in the shape of annates or other dues. Thus Baldwin, archbishop of Treves (1307-1354), held two or three bishoprics on the Rhine together with his archbishopric. Sometimes also rich abbeys were incorporated with bishoprics. At the very commencement of the fourteenth cen- tury there was scarcely a single spiritual community or college, hardly a monastery or religious foundation of any importance, which had not already been with- INSTITUTION OF JUBILEES. 389 drawn by the pope from the jurisdiction of its diocesan bishop, and declared exempt. The popes of the pre- sent period found therefore httle opportunity of fiUing their coffers by granting new exemptions. But, while this system could not be pushed to a much greater extent than formerly, its oppressiveness, and the mis- chief it involved, began to be now severely felt. The insolence and insubordination of exempt monasteries, and the like, towards those who were still their ordi- nary superiors, were excessive •, for it was generally felt that, in a contest between an exempt body and its diocesan, the pope would pretty surely decide in favour of the former. In 1300 Boniface published a bull,* proclaiming a year of universal Jubilee, and promising a plenary indulgence to all pilgrims to Rome who should visit certain churches and holy places of that place in a prescribed manner. On this occasion the concourse of pilgrims to Rome was immense ; Villani computes them at two hundred thousand. They left large sums of money behind them ; and so gainful was this visit to the papal city that the next jubilee was fixed by Clement V. for 1350-1 The next was held in 1390, having been proclaimed by Urban VI. in 1389. The pope in 1 390 was Boniface IX., who now proclaimed that all the benefits of the jubilee shoidd belong to those who should perform certain devotions in a neighbouring church, during a specified time, provided that they should })ay to the papal receiver or collector the sum, or at least one-third of the sum, of money which they would have expended on their journey to Rome. Boniface IX. proclaimed another jubilee for * Kayuald. an. 1300, n. 4. t Ibid. 1343, n. 11 ; au. V.ir>0, u. 1—4. 390 RISE OF THE TNIVERSITIES. A. D. 1400; Martin V. for 1423; Nicholas V. for 1450 ; and Paul II. ordained, in 1470, that a jubilee should be celebrated every twenty-five years, since otherwise, considering the shortness of human lifo, and the frequently occurring calamities of pestilence, war, and the like, only very few Christiaus could enjoy the benefits of a jubilee-indulgence.* By this means large sums of money were collected for Rome and the papal treasury ; but the greatest possible injury was inflicted upon the cause of religion and morality. All these things being considered, it is not sur- prising that before the end of the fifteenth century the papacy had become exceeding unpopular, even if regarded simply as a system of wholesale exaction and plunder. Other circumstances also contributed to make impressions upon the public mind unfavourable to the pretensions of Rome. The Universities, many of which were founded in the course of the fourteenth century, were at first highly favoured by the popes, and contributed not a little to establish the power of the Roman see by the study and explanation of the canon law ; but, in no great space of time, these seats of learning became sources of weakness to the papacy rather than of strength, by the advancement of intellectual culture, and the necessary development of a state of independ- ence, at variance with the papal system of despotic dogmatism and unscriptural pretensions. The Mendicant orders which, at the time of their establishment, were powerful auxiliaries to the papacy, became to it, before the close of this period, a source of perplexity and weakness. A great schism having arisen among the Franciscans, consequent upon dis- * Raynald. an. 1450, ii. 4 ; an, 1470, n. 55. BARENTS ADVERSE TO THE PAPACY. 391 putes respecting the more or less strict observance of their rules, the popes at first endeavoured to mediate between the two conflicting parties ; but at length, the papacy, being evidently inclined to favour the more moderate section, drew down upon itself the indigna- tion and opposition of the more strict or extreme Fratricelli, and thus found everywhere a number of men, in high credit with the populace, ready and eager to expose and denounce its abuses, and to assist in augmenting the general clamour for reform. We have already taken notice of the formidable opposition of Wickliffe, who not only denied the pre- tended divine right of the pa})al supremacy, but, by his exposition of the nature and rights of the Church, and especially by his appeals to Scripture, did much towards shaking the foundations of the whole papal system. The great Schism which existed in the papacy from 13/8 to the Council of Constance, during which one pope w^as continually hurling anathemas against another, while the burden of papal exactions was becoming more intolerable than ever in all the coun- tries of Europe, tended greatly to arouse a spirit of inquiry, and to alienate men's minds from the seat and origin of such manifold mischief. And this feel- ing was doubtless aggravated by the failure of succes- sive attempts to carry those measures of reformation which were obviously needed. Still, when the Councils of Constance and Basle met, under all these favourable circumstances, they missed the right starting-point from Nvhich they ought to have set out in the work of reformation. They regarded the evils of the Church as proceeding only from an abuse of papal power ; and their great object 392 REASONS OF THE FAILURE OF was to set limits to that power, and to restrain its abuse. Even the Council of Basle desired still to recognise the supreme power in the Church, or the complete fulness of ecclesiastical power, as committed to the pope alone by God ; and, — although it did not regard it as a necessary consequence that the pope was, properly speaking, the only ordinary in the Church, and that all other ecclesiastical power was derived fi-om him, and all other bishops only his repre- sentatives and delegates in their several districts, — still it did not hesitate to concede to the pope all the rights of an universal episcopate. It may be doubted whether the council intended actually to leave these rights in the hands of the pope ; indeed, several of its acts, and more of its explanations, appear to favour the contrary supposition, especially when it declared that the pope was to be regarded only as the " caput ministeriale," — the ministering head, — of the Church. The truth is that the council had not formed a distinct idea on this subject ; and hence came much that was inconsistent and contradictory in its acts, without its being aware of the incongruity. It was obviously the design of this council to restore the papacy as nearly as possible to its status under Innocent III. Only in one respect it maintained a great ante-Isidorian prin- ciple, by affirming the superiority of a General Council to the pope, and therefore also the validity of appeals from the pope to such council. But this again was in- consistent with the principles of many of the decretals, the authority of which it at the same time recognised. — The council was misled principally by its blind respect for the canon law, — a system which had taken com- plete hold on the minds of men during two centuries, and with which was bound u\) the rejjutation and very THE COUNCILS OF CONSTANCE AND BASLE. 393 existence of the doctors and graduates of all the uni- versities, who possessed great influence in the council. There were also other classes of men whose interests required that the existing relations of the pope to the Church should not be entirely destroyed, and even that the abuses of papal power should not be altogether removed. Hence it was that the council not only did so much less than was required, but that even what it did was done imperfectly and by halves. The bishops and other high ecclesiastics were persuaded that it was for the benefit of the Church and of church- men (such as themselves) that the Church should have a head possessing greater powers than temporal princes, against whom he might be able to protect them. The temporal princes also felt it to be to their inte- rest that the power of the pope should not be brought too low, since they had often found it useful to deal with the Church in their several countries through its sovereign head ; as when the pope granted them tenths of the whole ecclesiastical revenues of their realms, which otherwise they would not have been able so easily to levy. And many of them, especially the lesser princes of Germany and Italy, had also found it more easy to obtain bishoprics and abbeys for their younger sons and other members of their families as a grant from the popes than by way of election from the chapters. There is no room for doubt that the princes of that age were influenced by considerations such as these. Besides this, it is to be remembered that all these abuses were, either in fact or in appearance, connected with some real or ftincied good, and that they often appeared in the light of necessary evils, or as the lesser of two evils. Thus, amiates were supposed to 394 REASONS OF THE FAILURE OP be necessary, in order to maintain the necessarily large expenses of the papal conrt. If judicial pro- ceedings at Kome were troublesome and expensive, still it was considered a good thing that such an ultimate court of appeal should exist ; and the courts of law in the several countries of Europe were also expensive and corrupt, especially the ecclesiastical courts of bishops and metropolitans. Even the system of papal provisions and reservations was not unattended with its own advantages. Often, perhaps for the most part, benefices did not fall into worse hands in the Roman market, than those into which they would have come if this patronage had been more regularly exercised at home ; and sometimes the court of Rome made use of its power to reward merit, and to promote suitable and worthy men. The chapters, it should be borne in mind, were close corporations, usually in the hands of the aristocracy ; and all their ecclesiastical patronage, if undisturbed, would soon have come to be regarded as the patri- mony of a few great families : but by the strangers introduced from Rome this bond of family aristocracy was, in a great measure, broken, — men of talent and reputation were brought into these select circles, who would otherwise never have found their way into them, — and thus an aristocracy of learning was at all events made to mingle with the aristocracy of rank. So that the papal interference was thus felt to serve in many cases as a valuable corrective. Hence it was not so much against the papal supre- macy itself as against the abuses connected with the administration of that supremacy that the efforts of reformers in this age were directed. But, as long as this supremacy was conceded, the popes could always THE COUNCILS OF CONSTANCE AND 15ASLE. 395 find means of administering it according to their will ; and therefore it was found possible on their part even to annul the whole work of the Council of Basle. It was necessary that reform should be effected in quite another way. The dawn of a real reformation, however, had be- gun. Wycliffe and Huss, although themselves not fully aware of the worst grievances of the Church and the way to procure redress, were yet the forerunners of Luther. Respect to the rights of individual con- science, and regard to the supreme authority of the word of God in matters of Christian faith and practice, soon led to an extensive discovery and explosion of the gross superstitions and errors upon which the papacy had been founded; and, by God's blessing, the Church was, in great measure, rescued from the bondage of Rome and restored to the liberty of the Gospel. On this new field of history, in which the hand of God was so visibly displayed, accomplishing a Divine work by a chosen instrumentality, we do not propose to enter. But in order to represent in few words the blow which had thus been inflicted on the papacy, and the work which still remained to be accomplished, I refer, in conclusion, to the following passage from the work of a modern historian,* which is well worthy of attention, as being at once enlightened and earnest, and especially as having a strong practical bearing upon a question of no small importance : — " Though the pretensions of the popes, from the time of Nicholas to the present bishop of Rome, have never ceased, those pretensions have never been so fully regarded by the princes and kings of P^urope since the great Schism, as they were before it took * Towusend, Ecclesiastical and Civil History, book iii. chap. 1 1 . 396 CONCLUSION. place. The great Schism had the same effect on the influence of the papacy, as the war between James II. and William III. produced on the monarchy of England. Though war maintained the monarchy, it destroyed despotism, and strengthened the influence of the people. The popular power, which had uni- formly, in all ages of the English government, been opposed to the undefined pretensions of arbitrary princes, or of unreasonable laws, had hitherto wasted its strength in temporary oppositions, or in civil war. The Revolution of 1688 gave the more solemn sanction of public law to the power of the people. It defined their privileges more clearly. It limited the authority of the sovereign more effectually ; and, — while it utterly overthrew and destroyed, we may hope for ever, the legality of the intolerable maxim which characterises alike the presumption both of the legitimate or the usurping despot, and which was alike common to the Stuarts, to Louis XIV,, and to Napoleon, the maxim that the individual sovereign is the State (I'e'tat, c'est moi), — it so nearly defined the ever-undefinable boundaries between the liberties of the people and the prerogatives of the prince, that we have seldom or ever been in danger of the revival of the old doctrine of ' The right divine of kings to govern wrong.' So it has also been with the great Schism. The wars between the rival candidates for the papal chair compelled the more general con- viction that, of whatever nature was the supremacy which our blessed Saviour might possibly have con- ferred upon the pope and his successors, that supre- macy could not be limited to the individual bishop. The great Schism strengthened ecclesiastical j)ower, by destroying the despotism of the paj)acy. The o])- CONCLUSION. 397 position to Rome, which, before the age of Wyclifte, had manifested itself in irregular censures only, assumed the more definite form of a demand for ecclesiastical councils, to act with the bishop of Rome, in forming laws, and regulating the affairs of the Church. The consequence w^as that, as the popular power became blended with the monarchical power at the Revolution, so the ecclesiastical power became blended with the papal power. As the individual king ceased despotically to govern England, the indi- vidual pope ceased despotically to govern the universal Church. As the united popular monarchical power at the Revolution passed many questionable laws, and provoked much resistance on the part of the people from the reign of William III. till the present day, so the ecclesiastical power of the universal Church, though it crushed the Gregorian policy and power by decreeing that the councils of the Church had an authority which was so inherent in the universal Church that it was indestructible by the pope, came to many conclusions which Scripture did not sanction. The Reformation itself was not so much the eman- cipation of the universal Church fi-om the despotism of Rome, as it was the emancipation of the universal Church from the ecclesiastical despotism of which the papacy was the head. The Church universal, by resolving to be ruled by the decisions of councils, as well as by the laws of the popes, overthrew the Gregorian power; but Luther and the high-minded Reformers of England and Germany overthrew the despotism of the conciliar power itself, by restoring to every individual Christian the privilege, which God had granted to him, of arriving at religious conclusions from the study of their evidence, as soon as educa- 398 CONCLUSTOX. tion, and the power of reason, had conferred upon the individual the ability to exercise that first, noblest, and most invaluable of all privileges in this life which an immortal soul can possess. The ultimate effect of the great Schism, was to destroy Gregorianism, or papal despotism. The ultimate effect of the Reforma- tion was to destroy ecclesiastical despotism. Wycliffe accomplished the first ; Luther the second. The word 'popery,' as a general term, describes both sys- tems which were thus overthrown .... These reflections on the great Schism will enable us to recon- cile the extreme opinions of reformed and unreformed writers. ' Never,' says one of the principal Romish historians, ' was the unity of the see of Rome better preserved than during this Schism.' ' The grand Schism,' says Dean Waddington, on the other hand, ' frittered away the power of the papacy.' The unity of the see of Rome was for a time preserved, but its authority, though not its pretensions, ceased to be Gregorian. The power of the papacy was continued, but its uncontrolled despotism was destroyed. Many ages had contributed to its growth ; many ages must contribute to its fall. The Christian only wishes to destroy both papal and ecclesiastical tyranny. He neither wishes to destroy the bishops of Rome, nor the bishops of Christendom, nor the useful discipline ordained by Scripture, sanctioned by antiquity, and essential to the peace and order of every Christian Church." CONCLUSION. 399 I append the following remarks of Gieseler* concerning the general condition of the paj)acy at the beginning of the sixteenth century : — " By means of the reforming Councils at Constance and Basle, in opposition to the doctrine of the pope's universal monarchy which had been hitherto maintained, the other theory of the limitation of the papacy by the ecclesiastical aristocracy, which had already reached its full growth in France, obtained full recognition in the Church. The controversy betwixt these two systems was waged inces- santly from this time onward. General Council was raised up against General Council, author against author. . . . " The chief principles of the newly-risen monarchical- aristocratic system are these : — That the secular j)ower is not dependent upon the ecclesiastical; — that the supreme and legislating sovereignty in the Church belongs to General Councils alone, to which the greater number of the theologians of this party assigned at the same time infalli- bility ; — that the pope, being subordinate to them, was no more than a caput ministeriale ecclesise, and not authorised to give laws to the Church ; — and that appeals might be made to a General Council ; — that the episcopal power did not finally rest upon the papal power, but shared with it the same foundation. Although the reasons in defence of this theory were principally drawn from the earlier ecclesiastical laws, which were still preserved in the collec- tion of statutes in force, still, as the consideration of these might easily have led men on to widely-extended historical researches, its champions took their ground almost exclu- sively upon the dogmatical-scholastic platform. Undoubt- edly, individuals had attained, by the help of the newly- awakened knowledge of antiquity, to deeper insight into history. The fraud of the Pseudo-Isidore, and the spu- riousness of the gi-ant of Constantino, were known to many, and the latter publicly announced by Laurentius Valla. However, these discoveries were neither as yet made public * Gieseler, Compendium of Ecclesiastical History, Third Period, Div. 5, § 136. Edinburgh transl. 400 CONCLUSION. property, nor used by the libei'al canonists for their own advantage ; and so the weapons of history most fatal to the papacy were not yet directed against it with any effect. " Against this new monarchic-aristocratical system, which had grown up especially in France, and was regarded and defended as the groundwork of all Church freedom, the ancient papal system under the protection of the pope found no less decided champions, principally in Ital}', among the throng of men who were bound to the Curia partly by favours received, partly by their hopes ; roused by opposition, they maintained this system in its most unmitigated form, and without any fear for its most ob- noxious results. According to them, the pope's authoiity was exalted immeasurably high over every other dignity on earth ; the pope was supreme above all princes, as well as the source and the perpetual dispenser of all episcopal power ; he stood above all councils, which derived their authority from him alone ; he was the lawgiver on points of faith, and infallible. The excitement of controversy and mean flattery advanced so far that many persons elevated the Donatio Constantini, — proved by Laurentius Valla to be a falsehood, — to a Restitutio, and the pope to be a god upon earth. " Each of these systems declared the opposite view to be a pernicious error ; but the imminent danger of an iiTe- mediable schism hindered these condemnations from being vindicated to the utmost. A peculiar embarrassment was prepared for the popes by the fact that they were obliged to regard the Council of Constance as oecmnenical, in order to prove the validity of their own succession ; while they were nevertheless compelled to reject its fundamental prin- ciples, which were the groundwork of the Galilean system. For this reason they most readily passed over the unpleasant decrees of Constance in silence ; if they were forced to speak, they helped themselves out with a version of their own : many of their adherents did not shrink from a down- right denial of their validity. " Whilst this controversy took root in the hierarchy, the CONCLUSION. 401 secular power regained its ascendency in the different countries, from the fact that it principally depended upon this power which system should prevail. But the temporal governments allowed themselves to be principally swayed by political influences in their demeanour towards the pope. Whilst in France the principles of the papal system, if ever they preponderated, were immediately condemned by the Parliament and the University of Paris, in other countries the same fate befel the opposite doctrines of the Gallican system. And if, from the side of France and Germany, humiliating demands were not unfrequently made upon the popes, Spain and Portugal found it advan- tageous to their own interests to allow themselves to receive from Rome, as their peculiar property, the countries which had been conquered, and for the most part newly discovered, by themselves, and thereby to concede to the papal see its loftiest pretensions. On the whole, then, the pope, both by his spiritual sway over men's minds, and his temporal dominions in Italy, at that time the apple of dis- cord betwixt the most powerful monarchs, was of so great importance that all princes necessarily attached great value to his friendship, and that even a king of France was ready to sacrifice for it the welfare of his national church. These political connections now constituted the strongest hold of the papal see ; and so it became the aim of papal policy to win over the support of the princes of the world against the encroachments of the ecclesiastical aristocracy. True, the devotion of the nations to the papal see now rested no longer, as of old in the period of the Crusades, upon reli- gious enthusiasm, but only, for some time past, upon habit. However, even this would hardly have been destroyed by any theories, had not the immorality of the Curia, their avarice, their venality and injustice, so greatly injured the commonweal, and outraged public morality. The more closely any nation was brought into connection with the customs of the popes and their Court, the lower sank their feeling of reverence towards the pope ; and in Italy, although the papal system seemed to reign there supreme, VOL. n. 2 D 402 CONCLUSION. nevertheless the pope's excommunication was least re- garded. Accordingly, their most faithful counsellors recom- mended to the popes an abatement of their oppressions and a reform of the abuses prevailing at their Court ; and throughout the whole fifteenth century a strong feeling was displayed that unless there were some alterations on these points, spreading downwards from the highest rank, there would be a compulsory reformation rising upward from below, not effected without violence and schism. But, at the same time, the conviction that Rome would not undertake of herself so great a reformation, and that nei- ther the ecclesiastical aristocracy nor the temporal princes would be able to enforce it, from the want of union among themselves, was firmly established by the events of this period." THE END. ( 403 ) INDEX. Abbo, abbot of Fleury, ii. 57-60. Abelard, ii. 17-3. Absolutions, papal, ii. 95. Acacius, i. 189, 191, 198. Adelwald, i. 295. Adeodatus, i. 299. Adolph (Adolphiis of Nassau), emp. ii. 306. Adrian I. i. 324. II. ii. 22. III. ii. 32. IV. ii. 179. V. ii. 232. Adventius, ii. 10. Advisamenta Nationis Germanicse, ii. 358. iEneas Sylvius Piccolomini, ii. 371 ; 375; 377. Agapetus I. i. 204. II. ii. 39. Agatho, i. 299. Aistulf, i. 317-322. Aix-la-Chapelle, Councils at, ii. 5. Alaric plunders Rome, i. 152, 153. Alberic, Patrician of Rome, ii. 38. Albert I. emp. ii. 312, 313; 326. II. emp. ii. 370. Albigenses, crusade against, ii. 270, Alexander Severus, emp. i. 70-72. Alexander I. i. 19. II. ii. 118. III. ii. 188. IV. ii. 230. V. ii. 351. VI. ii. 377. Alfred, king, ii. 3. I Alphonso I. king of Portugal, ii. 201. Amadeus, duke of Savoy, elected pope (Felix V.) by Council of Basle, ii. 369. Anacletus i. 12. (II.) ii. 169. Anastasius, emp. i. 199. Anastasius I. i. 150. II. i. 192. III. ii. 37. IV. ii. 179. Anatolius, bp. of Constantinople, i. 180, 181. Angels, worship of, i. 290. Anicetus, i. 28. Annates (or first-fruits), ii. 382-384. Anselm, abp. of Canterbury, ii. 151. Anteros, i. 72. Antliimus, bp. of Constantinople, i. 204-208. Antioch, Council of, a.d. 269, i. 91, 92. A.D. 341, i. 134. Antoninus Pius, emp. i. 25-31. Apiarius, i. 165-170. Apostolical succession, i. 108, 109. Arcanius, of Tarragona, i. 187. Archdeacons, i. 384-386; ii. 99, 100. Arians, i. 132-141. Ariowald, i. 295. Aristides, apology of, i, 20. Aries, Council of, a.d. 353, i. 139. Arnold of Brescia, i. 173, 174; 179. Arnulf, king of Germany, ii. 33-36. Arnulf, abp. of Rheims, ii. 50-58. Arnulf, bp. of Orleans, his speech at the Council of Rheims, ii. .53, 54 2 D 2 404 INDEX. Aschaffenberg Concordat (properly, Concordat of Vienna), ii. 372. Athanasius, i. 132-140. Attila in Italy, i. 181. Augustin bp. of Hippo, i. 287. Augustiu, the monk, his mission into England, i. 215-219. Aurelian, emp. i. 92. Aurelius, emp. i. 31-35. Ausculta Fill, Bull of Boniface VIII. ii. 315. Avignon, papal residence fixed at, ii. 225 ; the court there very dissolute and corrupt, ii. 328. Baptism, heretical, controversy con- cerning, i. 84-88. Basil, bishop of Csesarea, complains of the conduct of Damasus, i. 145-146. Basil, lieutenant of Odoacer, i. 189, 190. Basilides and Martialis, i. 84. Basle, Council of, ii. 364-373. Becket, Thomas-k-, ii. 191-198. Belisarius, i. 207, 208. Benedict I. i. 210. II. i. 301. III. i. 345. IV. ii. 35. V. ii. 48. VI. ii. 49. VII ii. 49. - VIII. ii. Gl. IX. ii. 62. X. ii. 113. XI. ii. 322. XII. ii. 333. XIII. ii. 346. Benedict of Nursia, i. 250. Benedictines, ii. 27.5, 276. Berengar, duke of Friuli, ii. 32. , the son, ii. 37. , the grandson, king of Italy, ii. 39. Bernard of Clairvaux, ii. 170; 173; 175-177. Bertha, Robert king of France com- pelled to divorce, ii., 59, 60. Beziers, Council of, ii. 273. Bishops, appointment of, i. Ill, 112; 251, 252; 351-353; ii. 6.5-69; 241- 244; 247. Bishops, power and influence of, i. 109- 111; 248, 249; 258, 259; 358-362; 368-371; 386-389; ii. 77-80; 87-89; 281-283. , residence of, i. 261, 262. , translations of, i. 262, 263. , visitations of, i. 262. Bohemian preachers, ii. 363. Boniface I. i. 161. II. i. 201. III. i. 294. IV. i. 294. V. i. 295. VI. ii. 33. VII. ii. 49. VIII. ii. 305. IX. ii. 345. Boniface (Winfred), called the Apostle of the Germans, i. 309, 310 ; 396- 398. Boso, ii. 31. Bourges, Pragmatic Sanction of, ii. 370. , Louis XI. consents to its aboli- tion, but it is maintained by the Par- liament of Paris, ii. 378. finally renounced by Francis I., in his Concordat with the pope, a. d. 1516, after having been abolished by the Lateran Council, a.d. 1512, ii. 380. Breakspeare, Nicholas (Adrian IV.), ii. 179. Britain, introduction of Christianity into, i. 349, 350. Bruce, Robert, of Scotland, ii. 337. Bruno, abbot of Clugny, ii. 96. Bui-ying in churches, i. 284. C^ciMAN, bishop of Carthage, i. 95-97. Cajsarius, bishop of Aries, i. 198. Caius, bishop of Rome, i. 93. Caligula, emp., i. 3, 4. Calixtus I. i. 63-69. ■ II. ii. 162. (Ill ) ii. 191. III. ii. 374. Callistus. — See Calixtus. Canon Law, i. 280. 281; ii. 297-300. Canonical clergy, i. 382. Canonization, ii. 293. Caracalla, emp., i. 62-69. INDEX. 405 Cardinals, college of, established, ii. 1 1 7. Carloman, son of Charles Martel, i. 317, 318. Carlovingiau dynasty, extinction of, favours the advance of papal power, ii. 43. Carthage, Councils of, i. 85, 86, 87; 153-158; 165-170. Carthusians, ii. 275, Carus, emp., i. 92. Catharine of Sienna, ii. 342. Celestin I. i. 165. II. ii. 174. III. ii. 204. IV. ii. 226. V. ii. 235. Celibacy of the Clergy, i. 242, 243 ; ii. 89; 133-135; 259. Celidonius, i. 175, 176. Celsus, i. 20. Ceremonies, multiplication of, i. 282, 283. Chalcedon, General Council of, a.d. 451, i. 180. 181. Chapters, cathedral, i. 389 ; ii. 93 ; 98, 99 ; 296. Charlemagne, i. 324-327. Charles the Bald, ii. 6-13 ; 18, 19 ; 23-30. Charles the Fat, ii. 32. Charles IV. emp., ii. 335, 336. Charles of Anjou, king of Sicily, ii. 231-235. Charles II., king of Naples, ii. 304. Chorepiscopi. — See Rural Bishops. Christopher, pope, ii. 36. Chrodegang, Rule of, i. 381. Chrysostom, i. 152. Church, beneficial influence of the, i. 366-368 ; ii. 85. Church, degeneracy of the, after the reign of Julian, i. 142. Church government, i. 243-248 ; 383, 384. Church officers, i. 106. Church property, i. 112,113 ; 231, 232; 245-248; 357, 358; 371; ii. 74, 75; 90-92; 248-253; 260-263. Church reform, designed by the emp. Henry III., ii. 103-110; prosecuted by Gegory VII., ii. I . Church unity, Cyprianic doctrine of, i. 102, 103. Church and State, relations between, i. 119-123; 127-129; 131, 132; 225-230; 346-351; ii. 65-73; 86; 236, 237. Cistercians, ii. 275. Clarendon, Constitutions of, ii. 192, 193. Claudius, emp., successor to Caligula, i. 4, 5. Claudius, emp., successor to Gallienus, i. 92. Clement I. i, 13, 14. II. Ji. 65. (III.) ii. 143. III. ii. 203. IV. ii. 231. V. ii. 324. VI. ii. 334. VII. ii. 344. Clergy, morals of the, ii. 258, 259. , number of the, i. 239. , parochial, i. 266. , growing power of the, i. 106, 107. , revenues of. — See Church Pro- perty. , Roman, avarice and luxury of the, in the fourth century, i. 144. Clergy and Laity, distinction between, i. 57, 58; 109; 239; 243. Clerical Celibacy.— /S'ce Celibacy. Clerical Discipline. — See Discipline. Clerical habit, i. 240. Clerici Acephali, ii. 88. Clericis Laicos, a celebrated Bull of Boniface VIII. ii. 309-311. Clerogamy, earnestly opposed by Gregory VII. ii. 133-135. Cletus. — See Ar.acletus. Clugny, monastery of, ii. 96, 97 ; 275. Colonna, the house of, ii. 314. Commendams, or Benefices held in commendam, ii. 386, 387. Commodus, emp. i. 35-42. Concordat of Worms, ii. 167. Concordat of Vienna (commonly, but erroneously called, Concordat of Aschaffeuberg), ii. 372. 406 INDEX. Confirmation of bishops' elections gradually attracted to Rome from the hands of the Metropolitans, ii. 285. Conon, i. 302. Conrad, king of Italy, ii. 147, 148. Conrad of Waldhausen, ii. 363. Constance, Council of, ii. 353-360; 364. Constance and Basle, Councils of, ' reasons of their failure, ii. 392-394. Constantine the Great, i. 95; — the Church under him, i. 114-124; 227- 229 ; — his superstition, i. 284. Constantine, pope, i. 307. Constantinople, General Council of, A.D. 381, i. 146, 147; A.D. 691 (Qui- nisext), i. 303-305. Constantinople taken by the Turks, ii. 373. Constantius and Galerius, emps. i. 94. Constantius (second son of Constantine the Great) favours the Arians, i, 139-141, Constitutions of Clarendon, ii. 192, 193. Constitutions of the monastic orders, ii. 272-282. Contests for the Roman see, i. 143 ; 161 ; 193 ; 201 ; 203 ; 206, 207 ; 302 ; 302; ii. 169; 169,170; 188; 313. Cornelius, i. 72. Corona, i. 241. Coronation of a pope, first instance of, ii. 3. Councils, eai-ly Church, i. 51-53 ; 100, 101. Councils, General, i. 253; 278-280; 353-355; ii. 69-72; 291 ; 356; 360; 368; 377. Courts, spiritual. — See Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. Cresceutius, Patrician of Rome, and his party, ii. 49-59. Crusades and crusaders, ii. 148-150; 176; 203; 220, 221. Cyprian, i. 73-77; — his Church system, or doctrine concerning the unity of the Church, i. 78, 79; 102, 103:— his correspondence, i. 82,83; 86-89; —his death, i. 89 ;— writings attri- buted to him supposed by Mr. Shepherd to be a mass of forgeries, i. 78 ; 83, (notes). D'AiLLY, Peter, ii. 356, 357. Damasus I. i. 143, 144. II. ii. 265. Decentius, bishop of Eugubinm, epistle of Innocent I. to, i. 153. Decius, i. 72. Decretals, forged, of Pseudo-Isidore, i. 404-408. Demetrius of Alexandria, i. 71. Desiderius, i. 322-325. Deusdedit, i. 294. Diocletian, emp. i. 93, 94. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, i. 31, 32- Dionysius, bishop of Rome, i. 90, Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, i. 90, 91. Discipline, ecclesiastical, i. 105; 241 ; ii. 80, 81 ; 259, 260. Dispensations, ii. 287. Divorce, questionsof, i. 256, 257. — See also Matrimony. Dominicans, ii. 278. Domitian, persecutions under, ii. i. 14, 15. Domnus I. i. 299. TI. ii. 49. Donatists, i. 95-97; 124, 125, Douzi, Council of, a.d. 871, ii. 25. Dress of the clergy, i, 240. East and West, differences between the Churches of the, i. 181; 189; 191, 192; 198; 202; 224, 225 ; 299 ; 303 , 309; 311, 312; 314, 315; 327. Easter, observance of. — See Paschal Con- troversy. Ebbo, archbishop of Rheims, i. 333- 335. Ecclesiastical discipline. — See Disci- pline. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. — See Juris- diction. Edward I. king of England, ii. 306. II. ii. 336, 337. III. ii. 334; .339. Elagabalus, i. 69. INDEX. 407 Elections, papal, regulations concerning, ii. 115-117. Eleutherus, i. 33. Eunodius of Pavia, i. 197. Ephesus, General Council of, a.d. 431, i. 171. Epiphanius, patriarch of Constantinople, i. 202. Episcopacy, primitive, i. 97, 98. Episcopal power. — See Bishops. Ethelwolf, i. 34.5. Euaristiis, i. 17. Eugeuius I. i. 298. II. i. 330. III. ii. 175. IV. ii. 364. Eiilalius and Boniface, i. 161, 162. Eusebians, i. 134, 135. Eusebius, bishop of Rome, i. 94. Eutychian controversy, i. 93 ; 180-182 ; 189; 191; 199; 206. Excommunication, ii. 82 ; 256. Execrabilis, Bull, by John XXII. ii. 381. Fabian, i. 72. Felix I. i. 93. (II.) i. 139. II or III. i. 190. III. or IV. i. 200. (IV. or V.) ii. 369, Ferrara, council convened at, by Euge- nius IV. ii. 369. Firmilian, i. 85, 86. First-fruits, or Annates, ii. 382-384. Forgeries, early, i. 21-24. Formosus, ii. 33. Francis I. king of France, sacrifices the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, ii. 380. Franciscans, ii. 278. Franks, introduction of Christianity among the, ii. 347. Frederic I. emp. ii. 178-204. II. ii. 218-230. III. ii. 371 ; 378. Frederic of Austria contends with Louis of Bavaria for the empire, ii. 328-330. Frederic, king of Sicily, ii. 306; 327, Fructus male percepti, ii. 385. medii temporis, ii. 385, Gallienus, emp. ii. 90-92. Gallus, emp. i. 72. Gelasius I. i. 191. II. ii. 162. General Councils. — See Councils. Gensei'ic at Rome, i. 182. Gerbert succeeds Arnulf as archbishop of Rheims, ii. 54 ; becomes pope (Silvester II.) ii. 161. German, or Teutonic, knights, ii. 276. Gerson, chancellor of Paris, ii. 356, 357. Gnostics, i. 25 ; 27 ; 35 ; 37. Godfrey, archdeacon of Norwich, ii. 214. Gordian, emp. i. 72. Gregory I. or the Great, i. 211-225. II. i. 309. III. i. 314. IV. i, 330, V. ii. 58. VI. ii, 61. VII. ii. 123-145. (VIII.) ii. 162. VIII. ii. 203, IX. ii, 220. X. ii. 231, XI. ii. 342. XII. ii. 349. Guelphs and Ghibellines, ii. 327 ; 329 ; 331 ; 342. Guido, or Guy, duke of Spoleto, ii. 32, 33. Gunther, archbishop of Cologne, ii. 4 ; 8. Hadrian, emp., i, 19-25. Hadrian, a Thessalian bishop, i. 219. Hanno, archbishop of Cologne, ii. 219. Heathen rites of worship, adoption of by the Church, i. 282. Henry III. emp., his designs of Church reform, ii. 103-109. Henry IV. emp., his contest with Gre- gory VII. ii. 136-145. Henry V. emp., resists the pope, (Pas- chal II.) ii. 156-160. Henry VII. emp. ii. 326. I. king of England, ii. 168; 238. II. king of England, ii. 185-188; 191-200. 408 INDEX. Heretics, laws against ; in early times, under Theodosius, i. 254 ; in later times, ii. 267-270. Hermas, Shepherd of, i. 26, 27. Hilary, bishop of Vienne, i. 160. , bishop of Aries, his contest with Leo I. i. 174-180. Hilary, pope, i. 184-188. Hildebrand, his character and early measures, ii. 210; his measures from the death of the emperor Henry HI. until he became pope Gregory Yll. ii. 113-123. Hiucmar of Laon, his dispute with Charles the Bald and Hiucmar arch- bishop of Rheims, ii. 24-27. Hiucmar, archbishop of Rheims, his contest with Nicholas I., ii. 16-20; 21-22; his dispute with Hiucmar of Laon, ii. 24-27. Hippolytus, Philosophumena of, i. 64. Honoratus, i. 220. Honorius I. i. 295. (n.)ii. 119. n. ii. 169. HL ii. 217. IV. ii. 235. Hormisdas, i. 199. Hosius, bishop of Cordaba (Cordova), i. 127, 128; 135; 140. Hospitalers, ii. 276. Hugh, king of Italy, ii. 38. Hugh Capet, ii. 50-52 ; 57. Huss, John, ii. 363, 364. Hyginus, i. 25. Iconoclast controversy, i. 311, 312. Ignatius, i. 18, 19. lUyricum. — Sec Thessalonica, bishop of. Images, use of, i. 290. Immunities and privileges ecclesiastical, i. 233 ; 355, 3,56 ; ii. 73, 74 ; 248-254. Ina, i. 310. Incorporations, ii. 388. Indulgences, plenary, ii. 263-266. Innocent I. i. 151-156. II. ii. 169. III. ii. 205-217. IV. ii. 226. V. ii. 232. Innocent VI. ii. 340. VII. ii. 349. VIII. ii. 377. Inquisition established, ii. 274, 275. Interdict, ii. 83-85 ; 179; 213 ; 256-258. Investitures, ii. 76; 130-133; 104-166; 237-241. Invocation of martyrs and saints, i. 288- 290; 294. Ireland, grant of to Henry II. by Adrian IV. ii. 185-188. Irenseus, bearer of a letter from the Church of Lyons to Eleutherus, i. 33 ; succeeds Pothinus as bishop of Lyons, i. 37; remarkable passage in one of his works, i. 37-42 ; rebukes Victor, i. 47, 48. Ivo of Chartres, ii. 283. Jerome, i. 150, 151 ; 291-293. Jerusalem, destruction of, i. 12. Joan, pope, story of, i. 338-345. John I. i. 199. II. i. 203. III. i. 210. IV. i. 297. V. i. 302. VI. i. 305. VII. i. 306. VIII. ii. 26. IX. ii. 34. X. ii. 37. XI. ii. 38. XII. ii. 39. XIIL ii. 48. XIV. XV. XVI. ii. 49. XVII. ii. .59. XVIII. ii. 61. XIX. ii. 62. XXI. (properly XX.) ii. 233. XXII. ii. 328, XXIII. ii. 353. John, archbishop of Ravenna, ii. 21. 'king of England, his contest with Innocent III., and humiliation, ii. 212-217. John, king of Bohemia, ii. 332, 333, Jovinian, i. 291. Jubilees, ii. 389, 390. Julian, emp., i. 141, 142. INDEX. 409 Julius I. i. 132. II. ii. 377. Jurisdiction, ecclesiastical, 1. 234-248 ; ii. 254-256 ; 289. Jus Exuviarum, ii. 246. Justin Martyr, first Apology of, i. 27 ; second Apology, and death of, i. 31. Justin, emp., i. 199, 200. Justinian I. emp., i. 203-210. II. i. 303; 307, 308. Justus, a monk excommunicated by Gregory I. i. 212, 213. Justus, archbishop of Canterbury, i. 295. Knights, spiritual, ii. 276, 277. Lambert, emp., ii. 33, 35. Landus, ii. 37. Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, ii. 121, 122 Langton, Stephen, archbishop of Can- terbury, ii. 213-217. Laodicea, Council of, a.d. 360, abolishes rural bishops, i. 260. Lateran Council, First General, ii. 164. Second General, ii. 171. Third General, ii. 201. Fourth General, ii. 270. Lausanne, bishops retire from Basle to, ii. 371. Legates, papal, ii. 286. Leo the Isaurian, emp., i. 311; 315; 316. Leo I. i. 171-184. II. i. 300. III. i. 326. IV. i. 336. V. ii. 36. VI. ii. 38. VII. ii. 39. VIII. ii. 42. IX. ii. 105. Leontius, bishop of Aries, i. 184, 185. Liberius, i. 138-140. Licinius and Galerius, emps., i. 94. Litany ordered by Gregory I., i. 213. Literae formatse, i. 267, 268, Lodi, Council of, ii. 190. Lombards, i. 312-325; 348, 349; ii. 222-225. Lothaire, emp., i. 335. king of Lorraine, his contest -with Nicholas I., ii. 13-15. Louis I. (the Pious) emp., i. 327-335. II. ii. 8, 9; 23; 27. of Bavaria and Frederic of Austria contend for the empire, ii. 328-330 ; Louis, emp., contends with the pope, ii. 330-336. Lucius I. i. 72. II. ii. 174. III. ii. 202. Luitprand, i. 313-316. Lyons, epistle to Eleutherus from the church of, i. 33-35. Lyons, Council of, First General, i. 228. Second General, ii. 232. MA90N, Councils of, A.D. 581, and a.d. 585, i. 240. Macrinus, i. 60. Malchus, death of, i. 221. Maraertus, bishop of Vienne, i. 186, 187. Mammsea, i. 69. Mandates, papal, ii. 295. Manfred, king of Sicily, ii. 230, 231. Manichees, i. 191. Marcellinus, i. 94. Marcellus, bishop of Rome, i. 94. Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, i. 134. Marcia, i. 35, 36. Mark, bishop of Rome, i. 132. Marozia, ii. 36-38. Martel, Charles, i. 314-317. Martin I. i. 297. II. ii. 32. III. ii. 38, 39. IV. ii. 234. V. ii. 358. Martyrs, invocation of, i. 288, 289, Matilda, the countess, ii. 147; 153. Matrimonial causes, i. 237, 238 ; 255 ; ii. 93, 94 ; 266. Matthias of Janow, ii. 361. Maurice, emp., i. 213, 214; 224, 226. Maximilian I. emp., ii. 379. Maximus, emp., i. 72. a Dalmatian presbyter, i. 220- 222. Medard, St., monastery of, i. 333, 334. 410 INDEX. Meletian schism, at Antioch, i. 125, 126 ; 145, U6. Mendicant orders, ii. 277-279 ; ii. 361 ; 390, 391. Mennas, bishop of Constantinople, i. 205, 206. Metropolitan sj'Stem, its rise and growth, i. 99, 100; 129, 130; nature of its constitution, i. 266-268 ; 268-270 ; its decline, i. 389, 390; ii. 100, 101 ; rights of metropolitans transferred to Rome, ii. 290. Metz, Council at, a.d. 863; ii. 8. Milicz of Kremsier, ii. 363. Miltiades, i. 94. Monastic institutions,!. 249,250; 377- 381; ii. 96-98; 275. Monothelite controversy, i. 296 ; 297 ; 299; 309. Morals, corruption of Christian, i. 58-60. Mouson, Council of, a.d. 995, ii. 56. Narses, i. 209, 210. Natalis, i. 220. Nero, emperor, i. 5-12. Nerva, emperor, i. 16. Nicsea, Council of, First General, i. 125- 131. Second General, i. 326. Nicholas I. ii. 2. II. ii. 113. III. ii. 233. IV. ii. 235. (V.) ii. 332. V, ii. 371, Nicholas de Clemangis, ii. 346. Nogaret, ii. 313 ; 319-325. Normans, ii. 114, 115; 144-146; 151; 170, 171. Northamptou, Coimcil of, a.d. 1164, ii. 194. Novatians, i. 73-77. Nuremberg, Diet of, a.d. 1487, ii. 376. Oath of allegiance, exacted from Metropolitans by Gregory VII. ii. 284. Odoacer, i. 188, 189. Oiconomus, i. 247, 248. Orders, monastic, their rise, ii. 279; — their several constitutions, ii. 279- 282. Ordination fees, ii. 88. Origen at Csesarea, i. 71, 72. Otho I. emperor, ii. 39, 49. II. ii. 49. III. ii. 49-61. IV. contends with Philip of Suabia for the crown, ii. 208-210; — his coronation, ii. 210; — his conflict with Innocent III., ii. 211. Oxford, University of, ii. 349 ; 362. Paciarius, or Pacis Servator, i. e,, vicar of the Eoman empire in Italy, title bestowed upon Charles, king of Sicily, by Clement IV., ii. 233. Pandulph, cardinal, ii, 215-217. Papacy, rise and progress of the. i. 36-42; 50,51; .55-57; 61, 62; 80 81 ; 82 ; 83 ; 96, 97 ; 104 ; 123, 124 131; 132,133; 136-138; 144, 145 147-150; 152-156; 170, 171; 178 180; 186; 187-189; 192; 199; 204 206 ; 272-281 ; 297 ; 301 ; 302 ; 335 390-408; ii. 1, 2; 14,15; 22; 31 32 ; 43-46 ; 58 ; 60 ; 02 ; 72, 73 ; 95 101,102; 107; 117; 123-127; 150 153; 167; 206,207; 283-302. Paris, University of, ii. 346. Parishes, formation of, i. 263-265. Paschal controversy, i. 28-30 ; 45-49 ; 126. Paschal I. i. 328. II. ii. 253. (III.) ii. 190. Patriarchate, the, i. 270-272. Patroclus, bishop of Aries, i. 160, 161; 165. Patronage, system of, i. 386-388. Patronage extensively claimed by popes, ii. 294. Paul, St. i. 5-7; 11. Paul and Thecla, Acts of, i. 23. Paul of Samosata, i. 91, 92. Paul I. i. 322. II. ii. 377. Pavia, Council of, a.d. 1160, ii. 189. Pelagian Controversy, i. 154-159. INDEX. 411 Pelagius I. i. 209. II. i. 210. Penance, penitential discipline, i. 182, 183; 257; 363-3G6; ii. 94. Peniscola, retirement of Benedict XIII. to, ii. 356. Pepin, i. 317-324. Perigenes, bishop of Corinth, i. 171. Perpetual edict, i. 19. Persecution, religious, or legal and formal prosecution of heresy, i. 254 ; ii. 267-270. Peter, St. i. 8-12. Peter the Fuller, i. 191. Peter of Arragon, king of Sicily, ii. 234, 235. Peter of Castlenau, legate of Innocent III. ii. 270. Peter's pence, i. 310; ii. 196. Philip, erap. i. 72. Philip I. king of France, compelled by Urban II. to divorce Bertrade, ii. 151, 152. Philip of Suabia, his contest with Otho of Saxony for the crowu of Germany, ii. 208-210. Philip Augustus, king of France, ii. 211, 212; 216, 217. Philip le Bel (Philip IV.), king of France, ii. 306-328. Philip. of Valois (Philip VI.), king of France, ii. 333 ; 339. Phocas, emp, i. 225 ; 294. Pilate, Acts of, i. 2. Pilgrimages, i. 285. Pius I. i. 26. II. ii. 377. III. ii. 377. Pisa, General Council of, a.d. 1409, ii. 350-352. Pisa, Council convened at, by Louis XII. of France, signal failure of, ii. 379. Plenary Indulgences, ii. 263-266. Plotinus, i. 92. Polycarp, conference of with Anicetus, i. 28-30. Poutian, i. 70. Porphyry, i. 92. Pothinus, bp. of Lyons, i. 33. Prsemonstratensians, ii. 276. Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges. — See Bourges. Prague, celebrated preachers at, ii. 363. Prague, University of, ii. 363. Praxeas, i. 44. Preces papales, ii. 285. Presbyters, appointment of, i. 251. Privileges. — Sec Immunities. Probus, emp. i. 92. Proclus, bp. of Constantinople, i. 1 70. Proculus, bp. of Marseilles, i. 160, 161. Protogenes, bp. of Corinth, i. 1G3, 164. Provisions, papal, ii. 381, 382. Pseudo-Isidore, Decretals of, i. 404-408. Purgatory, i. 224. QuADRATUs, apology of, i. 20. Quartodecimani, i. 126. Quinisext Council, i. 303-305. Eachis, i. 316, 317. Ratisbon, diet of, a. i>. 1324, ii. 330. Ravenna, see of, becomes dependent on Rome, ii. 21. Ravenna, Council of, a.d. 877, ii. 31. Reformation of the Church, such as pro- posed by the Councils of Constance and Basle, not effected, ii. 392-394. Reformation, real, ii. 395. Regalia, ii. 245. Relics, i. 285-287. Reparatus, archbishop of Ravenna, i. 299. Reservations, papal, ii. 381, 382. Rheims, Council of, A. d. 991, ii. 52-55 ; A.D. 1119, ii. 168. Richard II., king of England, ii. 347. Rienzi (Nicolo di Rienzo), the Tribune, ii. 340. Robert, king of France, compelled by Gregory V. to divorce his queen Bertha, ii. 59, 60. Robert, emp. ii. 348. Rodolph, duke of Suabia, contends for the empire with Henry IV., ii. 142, 143. Rodolph of Hapsburg, emp. ii. 232. Roger of Sicily, ii. 170-172; 177. Romanus, ii. 34. 412 INDEX. Rothad, bishop of Soissons, ii. 16-20. Rural bishops, i. 98, 99; 259-261. Rusticus of Narbonne, ii. 184, 185. Sabinian, i. 294. Sacerdotal pretensions, i. 281, 282. Sacramentary of Gregory I. i. 223, 224. Sagittarius and Salonius, i. 210. Saints, invocation of, i. 289. Sanction Pragmatic, of Bourges. — See Bourges. Sardica, Council of, i. 134-138. Sardican canon quoted as Nicene by Zosimus, i. 166-168. Sbynco, archbishop of Prague, ii. 363. Sciarra Colonna, ii. 321. Schism, the Great, ii. 343-356; 391. Seguin, arclibishop of Sens, ii. 53. Senlis, synod at, a.d. 863, ii. 17. Serenus, bishop of Marseilles, i. 224. Sergius I. i. 302. II. i. 336. III. ii. 38. IV. ii. 61. Servitia communia et minuta, ii. 384, Severinus, i. 296. Severus Septimius, emp. i. 42-62. Severus and Galerius, emps. i. 94. Shepherd, the, of Hermas, i. 26, 27. Sibylline verses, spurious, i. 21. Sicilian Vespers, ii. 234. Sicily, affairs of, ii. 172 ; 181 ; 202, 203,204; 206, 207; 218, 219; 229, 230, 231; 233-235; 306; 327. Sigismund, emp. ii. 353 ; 364. Silverius, i. 206. Silvester I. i. 206. II. ii. 61. III. ii. 63. Simony opposed by Gregory I. i. 222, 223 ; opposed by the emp. Henry III. and popes of his appointment, ii. 104, 105 ; and by Gregory VII. ii. 129, 130. Simplicius, bishop of Narbonne, i. 160. Simplicius, bishop of Rome, i. 188, iricius, i. 147-1.52. irmium, Council of, a.d. 357, i, 140. Sisinuius, i. 306, Sixtus (or Xystus) I. i, 89. II. i. 89. III. i. 170. IV. ii. 377. Soissons, Councils of, a.d. 853, 861, 863, ii. 16; 21. Soter, i. 31. Spain, introduction of Christianity into, i. 346, 347. Spiritual Courts. — See Jurisdiction, Ec- clesiastical. Spiritual knights, ii. 276, 277. Stephen I. i. 72-89. II. i. 318. III. i. 318. IV. i. 324. V. i. 328, VI, ii. 33, VII, ii. 33. .VIII. ii. 38. IX, ii. 39, X, ii. 113, Stephen, bishop of Larissa, i, 202, 203. Stigand, archbishop of Canterbui-y, de- posed, ii. 120, 121. Suburbicarian provinces and churches, i. 131, Superstition, rise and progress of, i, 281- 293. Superstition of Constantine, i, 284, of Gregory I., i, 224, Sutri, Council of. A, d, 1046, ii. 64. Symmachus, prefect of Rome, i 161. Symmachus and Lauren tins, i. 193. Synodus PaJmaris, i. 194-196. Tancred, king of Sicily, ii. 204, 205. Tacitus, emp., i, 92, Telesphorus, i. 20; 25. Templars, ii. 276 ; abolition of the order of, ii. 326. Tertiaries, ii, 278, 279. Tertullian, i. 43; 53, 54; 57; 62, 63, Testamentary causes, i, 238. Teutonic knights, ii. 276. Theoctistus, bishop of Alexandria, i. 71. INDEX. 413 Theodora, empress, i. 20C-208. Theodora and Marozia, ii. 35-38. Theodore I. i. 297. II. ii. 34 Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, i. 298; 300. Theodoric, i. 185; 193; 197; 199, 200. Theodosiiis, religions persecution under, i. 254. Theodotus, i. 43. Thessalonica, bishop of, not made Ro- man vicar by Damasus, i. 145 ; — nominated by Innocent I. his vicar in Illyricum, i. 153 ; — authority of the vicariat supported by Boniface I. i. 163, 164; — maintained by Celestin against Perigenes, bishop of Corinth, i. 170, 171 ; — Roman authority in Illyricum successfully enforced by Leo I. i. 173, 174. Theutberga, ii. 3-15; 22, 23. Thietgaud, archbishop of Treves, ii. 8. Thomassin, reference to, concerning dispensations, ii. 288 ; — concerning decrees against sacrilege, ii. 262. Thundering Legion, i. 32, 33. Thurstan, archbishop of York, ii. 168. Tiberius, emp. i. 1, 2. Tithes, i. 372-377 ; ii. 92, 93. Titus, emp. i. 13. Tonsure, clerical, i. 241. Toulouse, Council of, a.d. 1229, ii. 271-273. Trajan, emp. i. 17-19, Troyes, Council of, a.d. 877, ii. 31. Tuscan party at Rome, ii. 35. Unam Sanctam, Bull of Boniface VIII. ii. 317. Unions, ii. 388. Unity of the Church, Cyprianic doctrine concerning the, i. 102, 103. Universities, rise of: and their influence on the papacy, ii. 390. University of Oxford, ii. 349; 362. of Paris, ii. 346. of Prague, ii. 363. Urban I. i. 70. II. ii. 146. IIL ii. 203. Urban IV. ii. 231. V. ii. 341. VI. ii. 343, Ursicinus, i. 143, 144. Valentinian and Gratian, edict of, i. 144. Valentinian III. edict of, i. 178-180. Valentinus, i. 330. Valerian, emp. i. 72. Vespasian, emp. i. 12, 13. Vespers, Sicilian, ii. 234. Victor I. i. 42-49. II. ii. 112. III. ii. 146. CIV.) ii. 170. (IV.) ii. 188. Vigilantius, i. 292, 293. Vigilius, i. 207-209. Vienna, Concordat of, ii. 372. Vienne, General Council of, ii. 326. Virgin Mary, worship of the, i. 290 ; 294. Vitaliau, i. 298. Wala, abbot of Corbey, i. 331. Waldrada, ii. 3-15; 22, 23. Wenceslaus, emp. ii. 347, 348. Wickliffe (Wycliffe, John de), ii. 361, 362 ; — effect of his doctrines upon the papacy, ii. 391. Wighard, i. 298. Wilfrid, archbishop of York, i. 300. William I., king of Sicily, ii. 181 ; 200. II., king of Sicily, ii. 204. I. (the Conqueror), king of England, ii. 151. William, king of Scotland, ii. 201. Wills. — See Testamentary Causes. Winfred. — See Boniface. Worms, Concordat of, ii. 164-167. Xystcs. — See Sixtus. York, contest concerning the see of, between Murdach and William, ii. 177. 414 INDEX. Zacharias, i. 316. Zeiio, bishop of Seville, appointed liy Simplicius his vicar in Spain, i. 189. Zephyrinus, i. 61. Ziska, in Bohemia, resists the emperor Sigismund, ii. 364. Zosimus, i. 156; his conduct in the Pelagian controversy, i. 156-1.58; his interference with the affairs of the Gallican churches, i. 158-lGl; his coi-respondence with the African bishops, i. 16.5-167. I ONDCjn : W . f LOWFS AND SONS, STAMFORD STIlKliT AND CHARING CROSS. Date Due ^;; 1 ^ >fr(ii vi'^'Wfc 1 " __________ ~ ' lEEFE: -— . — - — ¥] ^:%. qi't i'i' V ''I,' BW851 .R54 V.2 The history of the papacy : to the lmj""'°" ''"'^^°'°9i"l Seminary-Speer Library 1 1012 00066 7305 irfei'i'i'' m !!i>! l'!:!!llf -f li li! l! jli 4;iiil ! i 1 I iilili ! 11 ■; *'iii KM I*' I 111 !i ii skF