STU D I ES IN CHEUl RC H H ISTOR Y. STUDIES IN C UPtCRH I STOP Y. TIIE RISE CF TIHE TEMiIPORAL POWER.-BENEFIT OF GLE G Y.-EXCOIMIIVI UTICA TION. BY IIENRY C.. LEAAhi Costantin, di quanto mal fu mnatre Non la tua conversion, ma quell] dote, Che da te prese il primo ricco patre! Infern7o2o, XIX P H I L AD EL P E I A: HI E N R Y C. L E A. LO N DON: SAMPSON LOW, SON, & MARSTON, CROWN BUILDINGS, 188 FLEET ST, 1869. Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1869, by HENRY C. LEA, in the Office of the Clerk of the District Court of the United States in and for the Eastern District of the State of Pennsylvania. PREFACE. HE first of the following essays has already appeared, in a less extended form, in the North American Review. It records the establishment of principles of which the subsequent development is traced in the succeeding essays. Throughout the whole I have sought rather to present facts than to draw inferences, and I have endeavored to confine myself to points which illustrate the temporal aspect of ecclesiastical history, showing how the church in meeting the successive crises of its career succeeded in establishing the absolute theocratic despotism which diverted it so strangely from its spiritual ftunctions. If in this I have appeared to dwell too exclusively on the faults and wrong-doing of the church, it has arisen from no lack of appreciation of the services rendered to humlianity and to civilization by the organization which in all ages has assumed for itself the monopoly of the heritage of Christ. Yet if we ask what would have been the condition of the world if that organization had not succeeded in. bearing the ark of Christianity through the wilderness of the first fifteen centuries, in summing 1p the benefits which man has derived through the churchl we mlay also not unreasonablly inquire how mnuchl greater 1. Vi PR PEFACE. would have been our advance in all that renders us worthy of the precepts of the Gospel had that church always been true to its momentous trust. Lactantius, rejoicing over the conversion of Constantine, indulges in glowing anticipations of the approaching regeneration of mankind, when the false gods shall all be overthrown, and He alone be worshipped whose temples are not of clay or of stone, but are men fashioned in the image of their Creator:'1 If God alone were worshipped, then should wars and dissensions be no mnore, for men would know that they are all children of the same Divine Father. Bound together in the sacred and inviolable bonds of heavenly truth, they would no more plot in secret against each other, when they should know the punishments prepared for the slayers of souls by ani omniscient God, to whom all hidden evil and the innermost secrets of their hearts are revealed. Fraud and rapine would be no more, for men would have learned of God to be content with what they have, and to seek for the lasting gifts of heafven rather than for the perishable things of earth. Adultery and prostitution would cease whien they were taaugoht that God had forbidden disorderly appetites; nor would woman be forced to sell her virtue for a wretched snbsistence, when men should control their passions, and charity should minister to all the wants of the poor. These evils wouldl vanish from the earth if all were brought unto the law of God, and all should do what now our people )alone are found to do. How blessed would be that golden aige among men if throughout the world were love and klindness and peace and innocence and justice and temperalnce and faith There would then be no need of many PREFACE. vii and subtle laws, where innocence would need only the one law of God. Neither prisons nor the sword of the judge would be wanted, when the hearts of men, glowing with the divine precepts, would of themselves seek the works of justice. If they are evil now, it is through ignorance of right and truth.T"1 Read after the lapse of fifteen centuries crowded with crime and misery, these glowing day-dreams of a Christian who looked for their speedy realization may excite the sneer of the cynic or the smile of the unbeliever; but no one who feels the sublime beauty and truth of the precepts of Christ can fail to mark with sorrow the immeasurable distance which has ever separated Christendom froln the ideal of its aspirations. That our imperfect nature should be able to attain this ideal is of course impossible, but that we should still be so hopelessly afar from it may not unreasonably be attributed to that organization which assumed to be gifted with supernatural powers as the direct representative of Christ, and in His name sought and obtained complete authority over the souls and consciences of men. Hlad it been true to the law which it professed to administer; had it spurned the vulgar ambitions of power and wealth, and had it taught by precept and example the evangel of love, Christendom would not now, in the nineteenth century after the birth of the eledeemer, be groping as blindly as ever over the yet insoluble problems of existence. PIILADEI.LP:HIA, November, 1869.' Firm. Lactant. Divin. Instit. Lib. v. cap. viii. CONTENTS. TIIE SERISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. TEE CHIURCH AND TIEE EAPIRnE. Subordination of the church under the Christian emperors. 13 Gregory II. defies Leo the Isaurian.... 24 THE CHuRCH AND THE CARLOVINGIANS. Allegiance of the church transferred from Constantinople to the Franks 2 9 Alliance between Pepin-le-Bref and Rome.... 30 Charlemagne carries out his father's policy.. 33 But maintains at all points the supremacy of the secular power 3l4 Advantage to the church of reviving the Western Empire o 85 Louis-le-DWbonnaire maintains the subordination of thlle church 38 Lothair I. represses the attempted papal emancipation.. 40 Opportunities of the church in the failure of civil government 41 THE FALSE DECRETALS. Riculfus of Mainz probably the originator of the False Decretals...o.43. The Canons of Ingili'am.. 44 Charlemagne disregards the new doctrines. 46 They become established in the anarchy consequent on the division of the empire 47 Speculations concerning the False Decretals... Their influence on European institutions... 49 Their pretensions still maintained by the church. 53 CONTENTS. THE CHURCHr AND TIE STATE. PAGE Subordination of the church under the Barbarians... 5 Secular supremacy enforced by Charlemagne and his descendants O D O.... o 5 Adverse theories of the forgeries... 61 Immunity of the clergy from secular accusation and trial 63 Spiritual jurisdiction —its origin and extension.. 68. Asserted in the Forgeries and favored by the decline of the royal power.... 76 Episcopal investiture —election in the primitive church 81 Nomination of bishops by the lIerovingians... 83 Ancl by the Carlovingians... 87 Disputed by the church after the middle of the eighth century 91 The popes endeavor to obtain the nominating power 92 The bishops also strive to secure it.... 93 The metropolitans likewise take advantage of the general confusion...96 Division of the spoils between the sovereigns and the papacy 97 Episcopal oaths of fidelity.... 99 Their binding force under Charlenagne..... 100 The bishops endeavor to escape them... 102 THE PAPACY AND THE CHIURCIE Local autonomy of the prilitive churches.... 104 Causes of the gradually increasing power of Rome... 105 Yet local independence is-preserved in theory.. 109 A central head becomes necessary... 109 General counlcils prove insufficient for this... 110 Opportunities afforded to Rome by the quarrels of the East. 110 The rise of the Constantinopolitan church.... 111 Conflicts between Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople. 112 Triumph and downfall of Alexandria..... 113 Failure of Rome to reduce Constantinople to obedience.. 114 It is more successful in tile West.... 115 Vicissitudes of the struggle....117 Universal appellate jurisdciction claimed for Rome... 118 It has no foundation in the primitive church.. 119 But is temporarily granted by the council of Sardica.. 121 The Sardican canons destitute of authority,... 193 Rome attempts to attribute them to the council of Nica. 126 CONTENTS. PA.GE Appellate jurisdiction over Gaul obtained by Il oe I. 128 Valentinian III. confers universal jurisdiction on the Roman churchll 129'3 But it is refused by the East.... 130 And by the Barbarian conquerors of the West. 1 IUse of the Pacdlzft introcluced to strengthen the papal authority 134 St. Boniface endeavors to make the pallirnm obligatory 0 136 Thle Frankish prelates resist its introduction.. 137 Special privileges accorded to render the pallium attractive 139 Application for it enjoined on all metropolitans. 141 Appellate jurisdiction claimed in the False Decretals. 141 Futile attempts to exercise it 1.43 It is vigorously enforced by Nicholas I. 145 Evils of the new system... 147 Efforts of the church to escape from it. 149 Finally established by Innocent III. 10. Corruptions and injustice wrought by it 151e PAPAL OMNIPOTENCE. Applications of the power to bind and to loose 154 Supremacy of the papacy over secular rulers 1... i55,Thle donation of Constantine.. 156 Nicholas I. reduces to practice the principles of the False Dccretals 159 Papal omnipotence established by the case of Lothair and Teutberga 159 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. impnortance of the privilege of clerical immulnity 169 Clailll of its origin in the council of Nicmea... 170 Partial and temporary imm-Lunity granted by some of the Emperors 171 Disallow ed by others 171 Justinian allows restricted immunity in certain cases 1. 17 Successful efforts of the popes to obtain it. 174 x11 CONTENTS. PAGE It is refused by the Burgundians and Wisigoths,.. 174 Adlnitted by the Christian Britons... 175 And by the Franks.... 176 But is practically disregarded.. 177 Restored in principle by the early Carloyingians... 178 But not admitted in practice.. 179 Charlemagne and Louis maintain the supremacy of secular law 180 Charles-le-Chauve forced to admit clerical immunity. 182 Persistence of the church in asserting its claim to immunity. 183 Finally acceded to throughout Europe... 184 Legislation of England.... 187 Benefit of clergy not abolished until the nineteenth century. 190 Legislation of Germany-triumph of the church. 191 Naples and Sicily —restrictions imposed on immunity 192 Lombardy —tardy recognition of the privilege.. 193 Spain-the privilege finally established..... 194'rance-prolonged struggle to obtain clerical immunity. 196 Abuses of the system-ineffectual efforts at reform.. 198 Compromise between the church and the state.. 200 Cases illustrative of the protection afforded to criminals.. 200 Protests of the church against encroachments of the state. 205 The church maintains its groulnd until the Reformation. 207 Corruption in the church caused by immunity. 208 Attacks of the reformers.. 209 The church attempts internal reform.. 211 [Remonstrances of the orthodox at the council of Trent. 212 Efforts of the council to evade the demand for reform. 213 Conservative policy finally adopted.... 214 Resolute determination to maintain abuses.. 216 Corruption consequently flourishes unchecked.. 217 Indlependclent spirit aroused in the laity-restrictions laid on clerical immnunity... 218 The church maintains its pretensions to the present time, 219 CONTENTS. xiii EXCOMMUNICATION. Power arising from the control of the sacraments... 223 PRI3MITIVE DISCIPLINE. PAGE The doctrines of the Gospels..224 Temporary character of the apostolic regulations... 226 Nature of the Eucharist in the primitive church —the agapme. 227 Substantial character of the Eucharistic repast.. 229 It becomes the symbolic bond of union.2.. 31 Its deprivation entails expulsion from the church and segregation 2;e2 Necessity of coercive legislation within the church... 233 Growth and application of spiritual penalties.... 235 The church interposes between man and God. 6. 23 Expulsion from the church entails perdition. 236 Temporal penalties-segregation.... 237 Repentant excommiunicates-penitence....240 Simplicity of penance in the early church. 241 Gradual increase of severity...242 The church assumes the functions of a lawgiver. 243 Prolongation of penitence-disabilities connected with it. 244 Refusal of death-bed commun ion-lvarying policy of the church 246 The church assumes complete control over salvation. 248 Commencement of belief in purgatory... 250 Variation of practice as to death-bed reconciliation. 251 Its insufficiency in cases of recovery..... 252 Excommunication of the dead-varying practice of the church 253 Limitations on use of excolmmunication....255 Formal trial required.2.. 56 Lex talionis applied to unsuccessful prosecutor... 258 Disregard of these rules-abuses... 259 Excommunication clegraded by its frequency... 261 Interference of the state to prevent abuses.... 262 Police of the church-litterse commendatitide 2.. 262 Enforcement of respect for excommunication... 264 Policy of the church towards heretics-persecution.. 265 The organization of the church gradually becomes despotic. 267 Minute supervision of the hierarchy.. 268 2 xiv CONTENTS. PAGE Control acquired over potentates-Synesius, Chrysostom. 269 St. Ambrose-excomLmunication of Theodosius.. 272 His example not imitatedl-subordination of the church.. 275 Courtly toleration of imperial sins...276 THIE PAPACY. Transmutation of spiritual into temporal power... 278 Rendered effective by concentration in the papacy.. 279 Sources of papal authority-original and appellate jurisdictions 279 No supremne jurisdiction in the early church. 280 Gradual assumption of supremacy by Rome. 282' Ineffectual rivalry of Alexandria... 282 Struggle between Rome and Constantinople... 283 Papal use of excommunication in the East —humiliation of Constantinople. 283 Papal use of excommunication in the West-Maximus of Salona 288 TIIE CHURCH AND THE BARBARIANS. Dissociation of the clergy fiom the laity..,. 90 Necessity of supernatural protection for the clergy... 291 Increased use of excommunication consequent thereon.. 293 Miraculous interpositions for the protection of the church. 294 Reverence inculcated for relies and for the Eucharist.. 298 Fearful punishment for disregard of excommunication.. 299 Use of excommunication to control the Merovininans.. 300 Difficulty of enforcing obedience-introduction of the Interdict 301 Commencement of interpellation of secular power... 303 Secularization of the church under the later ilerovingians. 304 CARLOVINGIAN RECON STRUCTION. Use made of the church as a civilizing agent.. 306 The state undertakes to enforce the censures of the church. 307 Especially with respect to its control over marriages. 308 And to protect it fromn spoliation.. 314 Yet Charlemagne restrains the abuses of excommunication. 315 CHURCH AND STATE. Louis-le-Debonnaire allows the church to control him.. 316 Confusion of secular and spiritual jurisdiction.. 317 CONTENTS. XV PAGE Lothair I. pledges the power of the state to enforce excommunication..318 Increased authority of the church-dclegradation of Louis-le-D6bonnaire. 319 The church claims the right to call upon the secular power. 321 Spiritual censures disregarded in the increasing anarchy.. 323 The state seeks support from the church... 325 And relies on excommunication for enforcement of the law. 327 Yet still controls the jurisdiction of the church... 329 Prerogatives enuring to the church from its alliance with the state....... 330 THE CHURCH AND FEUDALISM. Struggle of the church for self-preservation.. 333 Ferocity of anathema arising from desperation. 333 Interposition of Providence to vindicate the anathema. 338 Case of Robert the Pious of France. 339 Opportunities of the church in the reorganization of society. 344 Use made of conflicting interests to break down each in turn and establish the theories of the Forgeries-Case of Henry IV... 345 Cases of Hugh of Gapenqais and Philip I. of France 8. 364 Triumph of the church over the empire.. 38 Power acquired to intervene in the affairs of states.. 372 And to nominate to clerical preferment.. 374 Illimitable authority thus conferred on the church.. 375 Concentrated in the person of the pope. 376 Who is regarded as a God on earth.. 377 TEMiPORAL PENALTIES. Disabilities and punishments inflicted on excommunicates. 379 Segregation-lpenalties for intercourse with excomimulicates. 380 Secular legislation punishing excomlmunicates-in England. 38-14 in France..386 in Spain......... 392 in Germany.. 395 in Italy.. 398 in Poland......400 in Sweden. 401 xvi CONTENTS. ABUSE OF ExcOM3IUNICATION. PAGE Power of oppression conferred by excommunication. 401 Insufficiency of monitions to -be guarded in its use... 402 It is valid however wrongfully abused..403 Its prostitution for private ends.. 404 Secularization of its penalties....40 Refusal of sepulture....40 Subjection of nature to the anathemna. 408 It becomes simply a ban or curse.... 410 Excommunication of animals..410 Its use in supplementing the secular law. 415 Employed for recovery of stolen property.. 417 And for the collection of debts..417 Aggravation of abuses caused by papal supremacy.. 426 And by ipso facto excommunications. 430 EMANCIPATION. Impossibility of internal reform in the church... 431 Gradual tendency to resistance by the laity. 432 Complaints of the abuses of excommunication... 433 Reactionary spirit of the council of Trent. 436 Conservative character of its reforms.... 437 Rapid growth of insubordination towards the church. 440 Final emancipation of the state... 442 Benefits to the church from the abolition of its temporal power 445 Reactionary efforts of its leaders. 446 THE REFORAIED CHURnCIES. Inevitable insubordination of heretics.. 44S WVickliffe's views on excommllllunication..448 Followed by Huss......... 449 Lutheran doctrine and practice..449 Calvinist practice in France..461 in Scotland-abuse of power by the church. 465 The Anglican Church-abuse of power by the state.,. 475 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWAER. THE CHURCH AND THE EMPIRE. HTIEN Constantine embraced Christianity, nothing was further from his intention than to abandcon to thle Church any portion of his imperial prerogative. He could not, it is true, be the Pontifex Maximus of his new religion, but it mattered little whether he personally performed the sacred rites so long as he retained supreme control over those who were privileged to do so. By the organic law of the Empire, the people, from the highest to. the lowest, were all equally at the mercy of the monarch, whose powers were only limited by his own sense of prudence and justice, and against whom the only remedy was assassination or revolution.' The church formed no exception to this universal subordination, and fully acquiesced in its condition. Its faith and discipline, its internal policy and its external privileges, were all subjected to the supremacy of the imperial power. Even when it gathered together in its most august and authoritative assemblies, the presumed inspiEven in the sixth century, Justinian asserts autocracy to be the fundamental constitution of the empire.'; Sed et quod principi placuit, legis habet vigorem, cum, lege regia, qus de ejus imperio lata est, populus ei et in eum ounnem imperium suum et potestatem concedat."-Institt. I. I. 6. 2 14 TTHE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. ration of the I-Holy Ghost afforded it no exemption fromr this domination. The confirmation of the sovereign was requisite to confer validity on the canons of General Councils, nor was that consent by any means given as a matter of course. Thus we find Constantius vetoing a portion of the canons of the synod of Rimini in 360,1 and the acknowledlgment of this subordination was expressed at the council of Tyre, during the heat of the Arian controversy, in 335, when the Catholic bishops appealed to Count Dionysius, the imperial commissioner, asking -hin to reserve the questions discussed for the decision of Constantine, whose prerogative it was to legislate for the church and its members.2 How complete was the control thus centred in the person of the emperor is manifest in the rescript of Theodosius II. and Valentinian III. respecting the disgraceful scenes which marked the opening of the council of Ephesus in 431, under the lead of St. Cyril. The tumultuous conduct of the holy fathers is rebuked, and the intention is expressed of sending an officer of the palace to review the proceedings, and to set aside what may prove to be improper, while none of the bishops are to leave Ephesus, either for the purpose of returning home or of visiting the court, under pain of the imperial displeasure.3 In fact, the business of general councils was regulated by imperial commissioners, who were ]aymen, and when the council of Chalceclon, in 451, had sat from the 8th to the 30th of October, we find these officials informing the assembled prelates that the work in hand must be hurried to completion, as grave affairs of state required their presence elsewhere, and they could not devote more time to the church.4 Of course, under these conditions, all general synods were convened by the authority and in the Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. iI., 1. 15. 2 Concil. Tyrium ann. 335 (Harduin. Concil. I. 543). Conciliab. Ephesin. cap. v. (Hlarduin. I. 1538-9). 4 Concil. Chalced. Act. xii. (Ibid. II. 559.) TIHE CHURCH AND THE EMPIRE. 15 name of the sovereign;l and the pretensions of the Rlomnan see to supreme authority in convoking and presiding over these bodies were too late in their origin and too fraudulent in their proof to merit extended examination. The lost canon of Niciea —" non debere printer sententiam Romani Episcopi concilia celebrari" -- might be alleged on the authority of endless texts drawn from the False Decretals, but no more substantial proof could be adduced in its support;2 and if the representative of Leo I., Paschasinus, Bishop of Lilyboeum, had the honor of presiding nominally over the. council of Chalcedon, it was not in virtue of any recognized prerogative, but because the pope had artfully requested it of the Emperor Marcian on the ground that, as Paschasinus had not been personally involved in the quarrels connected with the Eutychian heresy, his appointment would be unexceptionable.3 How little this presidency amounted to was shown when Eusebius of Dorylieum appealed in the council from the condemnnation inflicted on him by the Robber Synod of Ephesus, and addressed his prayer, not to the council, but to the emperor, whose special attribute he asserted to be the protection of ecclesiastics from injustice,4 That the sovereign should intervene authoritatively in ecclesiastical disputes was therefore a matter of course. When, for instance, the apostolic see of Antioch was claimed by two rival bishops, St. Meletius and Paulinus, and a synod was held in 377 to decide between their pretensions, it was Sapor, the imperial representative, to 1 For the proof of this, with respect to the first four general councilsNicsea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon-see lardouin, T. I. pp. 345, 807, 1354; T. II. p. 54. s Pseudo-Juilii Epist. 2; Pseudo-Marcelli Epist. 1; Pseudo-Damasi Epist. 4, cap. 2.-Pseudo-Pelagii II. Epist.; Capitular. Lib. vI. cap. 381.-The argument in favor of the prerogative may be found briefly stated in Cabassut's Synopsis Concil. sub. Concil. Chalced. Leon. PP. I. Epist. 89 (Ed. Ballerin). Concil. Chalced. Act. I. (THarduin. II. 70.) 16 THE RISE OF THlE TEMPORAL P0OWER. whom both parties appealed, and who approvedc andc enforced the extraordinary proposition of Meletius which gave two concurrent patriarchs to the church of the East.' So, when, a few years earlier, the contested election of Damasus and Ursinus filled the streets of iRome with carnage, the disgraceful strife was only put an end to by the Prefect laximin, who pronounced in favor of Damasus and inflicted severe punishment on both the lay and clerical adherents of his rival.2 About fifty years later, when a similar disgraceful quarrel arose between Eulalius and Boniface I., the decision was referred as a matter of course to the miserable shadow of an emperor-Honorius —who appointed a vicar to act as temporary bishop of Rome during his examination of the matter, and, after settling it in favor of Boniface, issued an edict to prevent the recurrence of scenes so unchristian, by providing that if two candidates should be consecrat.ed, both should be driven from the city.3 The most unequivocal evidence of the imperial autocracy, however, is to be found in the legislation of the period. The laws of the Christian emperors, from Constantine to Leo the Philosopher, manifest the absolute subordination of the spiritual to the temporal authority. The minutike of church government, the relations of the clergy among themselves and to the state, their duties, their morals, and their actions, monastic regulations, the suppression of heresies-all the details, in fact, of ecclesiastical life, internal and external, are prescribed with the assurance of unquestioned power, and with a care which shows how large a portion of the imperial attention was devoted to the managoement of the church. Under this despotic authority, the loftiest prelates were but subjects, whose first duty was obedience, and a long succession of feeble and worthless C sars was requisite beTheodoreti Hist. Eccles. Lib. v. cap. 3. Socrat. Iist. Eccles. Lib. Iv. cap. 29. Goldast. Const. Imp. T. IIM. pp. 587-92. —Harduin. I. 1238. THE CHURCH AND THE EMPIRE. 17 fore the able and vigorous men who occupied the bishopric of Rome could begin to emancipate themselves from the traditions of imperial authority. The persecution of Liberius by Constantius, for his bold adherence to the Athanasian creed under Arian preponderance, may perhaps be regarded as exceptional, since it was the work of an A rian; but no such exception can be taken to the council of Rome in 378, when, under the lead of St. Ambrose, it petitioned the Emperor Gratian, as a favor, that the BRoman bishop, when accused, might always be tried by the imperial council, and urged, as a precedent of binding force, the trial and acquittal of Sylvester I. by Constantine.1 With the fall of the Western Empire, the church madesome feeble efforts to assert its independence. Thus Odoacer, king of the Heruli, enacted a law forbidding the alienation of church property. Great as was this favor, the fact that it was the act of a layman rankled in the ecclesiastical mind, and, after the fall of the Barbarian king, the Roman synod of 502 pronounced it null and void on the ground that no layman had a right to interfere with the affairs of the church.2 The absurdity of this protest was manifest, for four years earlier, when Symmachus and Laurence contested each other's claims to the pontifical throne, Theodoric the Ostrogoth had intervened with all the authority of old, though, as an Arian, he was little better than a pagan in the eyes of the orthodox. He elevated Symmachus to the papacy, and gratified with a bishopric the defeated aspirant; and then, assembling a council, he caused the adoption of a canon designed to restrain the crinminal ambition which brought so much dishonor on the Christian name,2 When, moreover, a synod was convened 1 Epist. Concil. Roman. ad Impp. (Harduin. I. 842.) 2 Synod. Roman. IV. ann. 502, c. 3. 3 Synod. Roman. I. ann. 498.-Cf. Athalar. Const. 10. (Goldast. TII. 95, 613.) o, 18 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. in 501 to consider certain accusations against Symmachus, it was done in the name and by the authority of Theodoric, and when the assembled bishops demurred to sitting in judgment on their superior, Theodoric reassured them by stating that Symmachus had requested him to convoke them for that purpose, thus showing that the pope recognized the power as belonging to the kIing and not to himself. Yet the appointment by Theodoric of an ecclesiastic as "visitor," with authority to reform the disorders of the Roman church, was objected to by the synod as subversive of discipline; and the indignation which could not be gratified on the king was freely poured forth on the unfortunate visitor, who, in the exercise of his office, had doubtless earned the ill-will of influential prelates.' The futility of these pretensions was shown when Theodoric sent Pope John I. on an embassy to the Emperor Justin, and, being dissatisfied with his performance of its duties, on his return threw him in prison, where, by opportunely dying, he won the honors of martyrdom.2 The next Ostrogothic monarch, Athalaric, was no less absolute in his control of ecclesiastical affairs. Among his constitutions is one, addressed to John II., respecting the simony prevalent in episcopal and papal elections, in which, under a thin veil of courtesy, he regulates these tender points of discipline in a manner sufficiently imperious to show that the pope was his subject as completely as any other dignitary, and that his jurisdiction over the church was as unquestioned as over the state.3 Whethler the royal power was wielded by the heretic or the orthodox made little difference. The kingdom of Italy, which, under the genius of Theodoric, had for a brief space Synod. Roman. III. ann. 50l. Anastas. Biblioth. No. 55. —Cf. Martyrol. Roman. Maii 27.-The assert tion that John perished under the persecuting zeal of the Arians comes with an ill grace from those who for thirty years had enjoyed the toleration of Theodoric-a toleration of which Arians alone were capable. Calssiodor. TVartr. lib. ix. cap. 15, THE CHUI-RCH AND THE EMPIRE. 19 rivalled the civilization of former ages, soon became the battle-field on which Goth and Greek and Lombard by turns exercised a precarious dominion. When the victorious lieutenants of Justinian overthrew the Gothic dynasty, the popes were transferred anew to the sovereignty of the emperors, and the unlucky occupant of the pontifical throne during the revolution was the sport of both parties. Silverius, who had bribed the Arian Theodatus to force him on the unwilling iRomans, redeemed his character by refusing to obey the commands of the orthodox Justinian with regard to the Patriarch Anthemius of Constantinople. His apocrisarius, or agent, at the imperial court, Vigilius, conspired with the Empress Theodora for his removal. A charge of treason was readily fabricated, under color of which Silverius was deposed and exiled by Belisarius; and, notwithstanding the irregularity of his installation, was duly canonized as a martyr.l Theodora fulfilled her bargain with Vigilius, who was duly installed in the pontifical chair by Belisarius, but he was no more fortunate than his predecessor. The throne which he had gained by apostasy, simony, and false witness, he was obliged to secure by murder; and though he endeavored to elude the payment in gold and heresy which he had pledged, he was not allowed to escape by his imperial masters. In 544 the fulfilment of his written promise was exacted of him, and on his refusal, he was summoned to Constantinople, where he was subjected by Justinian to the depth of humiliation. Whether it was for his contumacy with regard to the Three Chapters, or for the crimes alleged against him by the Romans, is of little moment; and if his persecution was due to the vindictiveness of the empress, the degradation was the more bitter, as inflicted by a courtesan on the successor of St. Peter.2 Anastas. Biblioth. No. 60. s EjUsd. No. 61.-Victor. Tunenens. Chron. ann. 542-44. —Liberat. Breviar. cap. 22. 20 TIE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. Perhaps the most important feature of his career is the contradiction which it affords to the pretension that the concurrence of a pope, either in person or by legate, has always been requisite to the validity of an (Ecumenic council. The Fifthl General Synod was held in Constantinople in 553, to condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Three Chapters. Vigilius was then in the imperial city, and had assented to the assembling of the council, but, after many tergiversations, he declined to be present, and refused to join in the condemnation of Theodore. The council, after spending a day or two in urging his presence, proceeded to business without him. The holy fathers not only anathematized Theodore, but also all those who should refuse to join in the anathema; his defenders were stigmatized as Jews, and his followers as pagans.1 They registered a decree of Justinian ordering the removal from the diptychs of the name of Vigilius, thus excommunicating him,2 and the canons were issued in the name of Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople. This was so thoroughly at variance with the claims of spiritual leadership which Rome was now beginning to assert, that the West hesitated at first to receive the proceedings of the council as the unquestioned inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but it yielded ere long, and placed the assembly in the same rank with those of Nica — and Chalcedon.3 Evren the vigor of Gregory the Great did not venture to question the supremacy of the temporal power. When the Emperor M{aurice in 593 issued an edict reviving the old laws which prohibited the reception of soldiers in monasteries, Gregory felt acutely the blow thus dealt at the inviolability of the monastic vow, but the timid remonstrance which lhe uttered showed how implicit was the obedience Concil. Constantinop. II. Collat. III. (Harduin. III. 91.)'o Ejusd. Collat. vII. (Ibid. p. 187.) Quintum quoque concilium pariter veneror.... Quisquis aliter sapit anathema sit.-Gregor. PP. I. Lib. I. Epist. 25. TIIE CHIURCH AND THE EMPIRE. 21 to which he was bound. "Wrhat am I," he exclaimed, butt a worm and dust, thus to speak to my masters?... I have done what was my duty in every particular; I have obeyed the emperor, and have not hushed in silence what I felt to be due to God I'll The subordination of the papacy to the Eastern Empire during this period is further shown by the necessity imposed on the popes of keeping a resident agent, or apocri sarius, at Constantinople, thus placing them on the same footing as the patriarchs of the East, whose subjection has never been questioned. By a law of Justinian, bishops were required to keep these apocrisarii at the residence of their metropolitan, and metropolitans with their patriarchls. Agapet, who ascended the pontifical throne in 535, seems to have been the first pontiff subjected to this regulation, which could hardly but be regarded as an humiliation.3 The emperors, moreover, reserved to themselves the right of confirming the election of the popes, and thus, in most instances, had practically the power of appointment. In fact, the election itself, under such circumstances, was probably as idle a form as that of the Merovingian bishops; and the number of apocrisarii who attained the papal throne -Pelagius I., Gregory the Great, Sabinian, Boniface III., Mlartin I., &c. —shows how well were understood the opportunities which that position conferred of obtaining the imperial favor. When Justinian concluded to provide a successor for Vigilius without awaiting his death, the application of the RIomans for Pelagius I. indicates that his appointment was virtually in the hands of the emperor;4 especially as an expression of Victor Tunenensis warrants the belief that the prospect of obtaining this splendid prize converted Pelagius from a stern supporter of the Three Chapters into Gregor. PP. I. Lib. II. Epist. 65. 2 Novell. 123, cap 25. 3 Thomassin, Ane. Discip. de 1'Eglise, P. II. Lib. 1, chap. 51. 4 Anastas. Biblioth. No. 61. 22 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. a, courtly impugller of their orthodoxy.' The same power is confessed when Gregory the Great desired to avoid the bui'den of the papacy, and, to accomplish his object, secretly entreated the Emperor Maurice to refuse his confirmation of the election.2 During this disastrous reunion of Italy with the Empire the interminable Monothelite controversy followed close upon the Monophysite heresy, and lent its powerful aid in embittering the relations between Rome and Constantinople. Among the ecclesiastical privileges of the Cesars had always been assumed the right of dictating to the church its form of belief; andcl, whether the reigning conscience were orthodox or Arian, Eutychian or Monothelite, efficacious means were always found of enforcing conformity on the part of the hierarchy. The Western Emperors, for the most part, had troubled themselves but little with the subtleties of theological speculation, and the Arian Goths had tolerantly respected the established worship of iRome, so that the popes, as the primates of Latin Christianity, had gradually come to consider themselves as the guardians of orthodoxy. When Italy, therefore, found herself under the despotic rule of the successors of Justinian, the pretensions of the Holy See, as the arbiter of Christian doctrine, led to long and intricate quarrels. It would be unnecessary here to enter into these dreary details; suffice it to say that the arbitrary rule of the sovereign, when it could not enforce an unworthy submission, had no hesitation in inflicting exemplary chastisenment, as Martin I. experienced when in 655 he ended his days in exile for anathematizino the Type by which Constans II. endeavored to end the Monothelite controversy-R-and this in spite of the miracle which had protected the Holy Father from the first unhallowed attempt upon his person.3 Yet at the same t Victor. Tunenens. Chron. ann. 558. Greg. Turon. Hist. Franc. Lib. x. cap. 1. 3 Anastas. Biblioth. No. 76. THE CHIURCHI AND TIHE EMPIRE. 23 time the immense extension of ecclesiastical prerogative accruing to the papacy from the ceaseless wranglings of the East is shown by the act of the same Martin I., when in 649 he appointed John Bishop of Philadelphia apostolic vicar over the dioceses of Antioch and Jerusalem, with power to consecrate bishops and ordain priests throughout those extensive regions, at that time devastated by the conquests of the Saracens.1 If the next Emperor, Constantine Pogonatus, reimitted to the popes the payment previously exacted of them on their installation by the emperors, he was careful to retain the right of confirming their electiol.2 The diminishing power of Constantinople, however, was manifest in the failure of Justinian IT., when he endeavored to follow the example of his grandfather and to punish Pope Sergius for his contumacy with regard to the acts of the Quinisext in Trullo; and Sergius enjoyed the rare and holy triumph of rescuing his intended captor, Zacharius the Protospatharius, from the enraged Italian soldiery.3 As the power of Greece declined in the West, the influence of the Apostolic See was making steady progress. The Greeks were foreign masters, exercising an odious despotism, and unable to defend Italy from the constantly widening ravages of the Lombards. Between the Greek and the Barbarian, almost equally hateful, stood the popes, the sole representatives of nationality, the sole defenders against tyranny. As the one permanent institution amid incessant change, the papacy was the only centre around which a national spirit could rally; and the increase of its temporal as well as spiritual authority might well appear to be the only feasible remedy for the pervading and increasing anarchy. This conviction was 1 Martin, PP. I. Epist. 5. Anastas. Biblioth.:No. 81, 3 Ejusd. No. 86. 24 TIHE RISE OF T'IIE TEMPORAL POWER. doubtless strengthened by the rule of celibacy which rendered it impossible for any occupant of the Holy See to found a dynasty; and the quasi-elective nature of the office which made the popes in some sort representatives of the popular feelings, strengthened them in their struggles for common interests, and diminished the jealousy with which a new line of hereditary rulers might have been regarded. Thus the time at length came for a formal declaration of independence, and under such leadership independence meant ecclesiastical supremacy. The occasion was well chosen, and the leader was not wanting. When Leo the Isaurian, in his iconoclastic zeal, decreed that image-worship should cease throughout the empire, the obedience which after some trouble he enforced in the East was refused him in the West. Less accustomed than the Greeks to mould their religious beliefs on those of the Coesar, the Italians clung to their venerated symbols and effigies, and Gregory II. as their chief boldly confronted the sacrilegious emperor. Times had changed, he boasted, since Martin I. tamely surrendered himself to the heretical Constans. All the West now looked upon St. Peter as an earthly deity, and was united in abhorrence of the wicked sacrilege perpetrated throughout the East. If attempts were made upon his person, at four and twenty stadia from Rome he would find himself in safety, where the emperor might as well pursue the wind.l The open defiance of this address was not calculated to render agreeable the refusal of obedience, and Leo threatened to break down his rebellious spirit by force, to which Gregory responded with fiery audacity, for the crime of the Isaurian could be fitly mnet only with the most awful anathema in the ecclesiastical armory-' Tyrannically you persecute us with the sword and arm of flesh.:Naked and unarmed, guarded by no earthly Gregor. PP. II. Epist. 12. THE CI-URCH AND TIIE EMPIRE. 25 armies, we invoke the Lord of hosts, Christ on high, leader of the heavenly virtues, to send unto you a devil, even as saith the Apostle, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved."' After this there was little prospect of accommodation, and at length the fleets and armies of the insulted monarch sought to reduce the incipient rebellion. Though Gregory had proudly asserted that his sole reliance was in God, he did not, when the persecution came, neglect the fleshly arm. Charles Martel was too busy in consolidating his power and making head against the Saracenic invasions to heed the appeal for assistance; but the Lombards declared for Rome, and when they in turn stood aloof a tempest shattered the forces of Leo, and the orthodox Latins were enabled to enjoy the peaceful satisfaction of excommunicating the heretical Isaurian and his obsequious hierarchy. It is true that their orthodoxy cost them the separation of Southern Italy and Sicily, which were not fully recovered from the Greeks until the foundation of the Norman kingdom of Naples, some three centuries and a half later. The breach was evidently complete, and when a restoration of images rendered a reconciliation possible, the popes no longer looked to the East for their sovereigns. By a happy stroke of audacious policy, Gregory had thus availed himself of a strong popular feeling to present himself as the leader of Italy against the domination of Constantinople. In searching for allies, his keen eye had discerned the rise of a new power in Gaul and Germany, and the cherished scheme of Rome thenceforth was to link the fortunes of St. Peter with those of the family of Pepin.2 1 Gregor. PP. II. Epist. 13. 2 It is not a little singular that those to whom Gregory appealed for protection against the Eastern Iconoclasts, and by whose ilfluence the'Latin church was supported during the quarrel, wcre fitlly 3 26 TIIE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWERe. as heretical in principle as Leo the Isaurian and Constantine Copronymnus, though not animated with the persecuting zeal which led the latter to enforce their tenets with such unrelenting ferocity. As early as the year 305 the council of Elvira in Spain had forbidden that churches should be ornamented with paintings, or that objects of adoration should be depicted on the walls.' At the beginning of the seventh century, Serenus, Bishop of Marseilles, destroyed the images in the churches to prevent their adoration, whereupon many of his flock withdrew from his communion. Gregory the Great, in 602, addressed him, approving of his motives but strongly condemning his acts, on the ground that pictures and images were placed in churches not for adoration but simply to instruct the ignorant in ecclesiastical history, as a convenient substitute for writing, and that, therefore, they should not be removed.2 The Synod of Gentilly, held by Pepin le Bref in 767, while allowing pictures and statues to remain as harmless ornaments in churches, declared that they should not be objects of any particular respect or veneration.3 Nor was this merely a temporary assertion of independence, for three hundred bishops in the council of Frankfort, held by Charlemagne in 794, rejected with contemptuous unanimity the canons of the second general council of Nicmea;4 and Charlemagne himself lent his all-powerful name to an elaborate refutation of the Roman teachings on the subject, in the Caroline Books, where he stigmatized the doctrines of the Nicene council as crazy, and his only concession was that lie would not permit the wanton destruction of images.5 As this council of Nicema had been held for the purpose of reconciling the Eastern churches with Rome, as it was received as cecumenic and its acts had been formally approved by Pope Adrian, this was rank heresy. With all his aggressive energy, however, Adrian had sufficient discretion to gloss over this spiritual rebellion on the part of his benefactor, to whom he owed so much, and to whom lie hoped to owe more, and lie, therefore, contented himself with a doctrinal refutation of his patron's errors.6 So determinecl was the resistance of the Western churches that when the reformatory zeal of Claudius, Bishop of Turin, led him to abolish 1 Concil. Eliberitan. ann. 305, can. 36. o Gregor. PP. I. Regist. Lib. xi. Epist. 13. 3 Goldast. Const. Imp. I. 16-Cf. Harduin. III. 2012. 4 lartzheim Concil. German. I. 324-Goldast, op. cit. I. 18. Goldast. I. 23-144. Migne's Patrolog. T. 98, pp. 941, sqq. 6 Hadriani PP. I. ad Carolun Epist. (Hiarduin, IV. 773). TIHE CHURCH AND THIE EMPIRE. 27 all the imnages in his diocese, in spite of the injunctions of Charlemagnce, lie was exposed to nothing more formidable than the dreary polemics of Theutmir and Dungal.' St. Agobard, of Lyons, who was superior to so many of the superstitions of his time, was not disposed to allow them even as ornaments;2 while the council of Paris, in 825, reaffirmed the doctrines of the synod of Frankfort.3 Louis le Debonnaire endeavored to bring about an accord on the subject, and in sending to Rome two bishops with the proceedings of the Paris council he had no scruple in expressing to his envoys his dread of the "Roman pertinacity," and he cautioned them to be careful lest by too rigorous an upholding of the Western doctrine they should lead the papal court into irrevocable antagonism.4 Not long afterwards Walafrid Strabo, Abbot of Reichenau, whose character stood deservedly high for learning, piety, and orthodoxy, treated of images in a spirit identical with that of the Caroline Books, showing that the second council of Nicca continued to be held in utter contempt. He admits the propriety of placing pictures and statues in churches as objects of art and decoration, but is careful to deprecate the veneration with which they were often foolishly regarded; he will not concede to them any special sanctity, but compares them to the ornaments of Solomon's Temple-flowers, trees, and beasts. At the same time he objects strongly to iconoclasm, and is very severe on Claudius of Turin.s It is true that the council of Trent draws very delicate distinctions between worship, adoration, veneration, &c., and points out the exact quality of respect due to paintings and images witll a refinement not easily appreciated by the popular mind, which naturally transfers to the representation the veneration clue theoretically only to the thing represented.6 The organ of the new school of liberal' Catholics in Italy defines the orthodox doctrine taught by the Mag. Biblioth. Patrum, Ed. Colon. 1618, Sic. IX. ii. 875. Agobardi de Pict. et Imagin. This is to be found in the edition of Papire Masson (Paris, 1605, p. 212), but the edition was consequently at once put in the Index Expurgatorius, "' donee corrigatur," by decree of Dec. 16, 1605. The treatise was therefore carefully suppressed in the works of Agobard as given in the Magna Biblioth. Patrum, but may be found in Migne's Patrologia, Tom. 104. 3 Goldast. Const. Imp. I. 154. The proceedings of this synod are not admitted into the greatcollections of councils, but Migne gives it (Patrolog. T. 98, p. 1293), with ample apparatus to correct its heterodoxy. 4 Baluz. I. 663. Walafridl. Strabon. de Rebus Eccles. cap. viii. G Conoil. Trident. Sess. XXV. De Invoc. Sanctor. 28 TIIE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. church to be that God alone is to be adored, the saints are to be venerated, and images only to be respected, but it admits that adoration of ilmages is largely practised, and that it is encouraged as a-" useful superstition" by many whose position renders it difficult for the church to escape responsibility for their acts.' In fact, when special miraculous powers are attributed to certain images or pictures, which are thus rendered tile objects of particular veneration, the worship of the holy subject infallibly merges into the worship of the representation. The image becomes no longer merely a vehicle to elevate the grosser intellects incapable of abstraction, and the worship before the specially sacred object becomes so nearly idolatrous that it is impossible to draw a definite line of demarcation.2 In the middle ages there was no attempt to draw such a line, nor were special miracle-working images requisite to call forth authoritative commands for image worship. How little, indeed, these subtleties were appreciated previous to the Reformation is manifested in the oath imposed, in 1396, on the iconoclastic Lollards-" that fro this day forthward I shall worship ymnages, with praying and offering unto them in the worschop of the saintes that they be made after."3 And in 1400, at the trial of William Sawtree for Lollardism, by the convocation of the province of Canterbury, the first article alleged against him was " that he will not adore the cross on which Christ suffered, but only Christ suffering on the cross. "4 Not long after, the clear intellect of Gerson perceived the danger to which the purity of faith was exposed by these decided tendencies of the ultra orthodox, and in his enumeration of the reforms necessary to the church he says: "Judge whether it is well to have so great a variety of pictures and images in the churches, and whether they do not pervert many simple folks to idolatry.'5 During the progress of the Reformation, the council of Frankfort and the Caroline Books were duly appealed to by the Protestants in support of their doctrines as to images. At the Colloquy of Poissy. they formed a prominent subject of debate, when the Catholics, instead of accepting the principles set forth in them, endeavored to impugn their authenticity, and, moreover, alleged that Esaminatore, Firenze, 1 Agost. 1867, p. 237.' Mr. Lecky has treated this matter witl his accustomed clearness and acuteness in his admirable " History of Rationalism," Chap. III. W3 ilkins, Concil. Anglic. III. 225. Ibid. p. 255' Gersoni Declarat. Defect. Viror. Ecclesiast. No. 67. THE CHURCH AND THE CARLOVINGIANS. 29 the council was merely provincial and not cecumenic, and that the tract of Charlemagne hacd never received the approbation of Adrian I.' THE CHURCHt AND THE CARLOVINGIANS. The policy of Gregory II. in seeking the support and alliance of the Barbarians of the West was fully appreciated by his successor, Gregory III. After some overtures to Constantinople, couched in terms which insured their rejection, he followed in the same path. So subordinate, however, was the position of the ecclesiastical power, that, until after the middle of the century, the Roman councils and the papal rescripts continue to bear the dates of the reigns of the heretical emperors. It is true that when, on the death of Leo, the usurper Artavasdes obtained temporary possession of the throne, the Roman notaries eagerly seized the opportunity of using the name of an orthodox monarch; but when the son of Leo put down the rebellion, they obediently adopted his date in turn, until the Frankish alliance raised a rival to the elder empire. Up to 772 the papal documents bear the name and date of the hated Constantine Copronymus, the vigorous upholder of the Iconoclastic sacrilege.2 So little thought, indeed, had the popes of maintaining their position of independence, that a new lord paramount was immediately sought as soon as they had successfully defied the heretic Leo. Assuming the disposal of thrones, Gregory III. offered to Charles Martel the sovereignty of Rome and of Italy as the price of active assistance agsainst the encroaching and detested Lombards. The services of Luitprand, however, were too recent, and their common 1 Lettere del Cardinale di Ferrara (Baluze et Mansi, Miscell. T. IV. pp. 385-6). Jaeff, Regesta. 3* 30 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. enemy, the Saracens, too active and dangerous, to permit the wary Frank to dazzle himself with visions of transalpine conquests, and in return for tile keys of St. Peter laid at his feet he returned only flattering words and rich preselnts. Of old the weighty javelin of the Franks had earned for itself the respect of NIorthern Italy, when the Merovingian chiefs found leisure amid family dissensions for a wild foray across the Alps. The empire of Clovis, so long rendered powerless for foreign aggression by ceaseless civil wars, was now consolidating its forces under the stern and able hands of its Austrasian dukes, and the time soon came when common interests and reciprocal services elevated the aspiring leaders of church and state to the summit of their respective ambitions. When Pepin le Bref, disdaining at length the farce of delegated power under which for two generations his family had ruled the state, sought to unite the dignity with the reality of royalty, he seems to have felt that some unusual solemnity was requisite to consecrate to himself and his children the election which placed a usurper on the Merovingian throne. The facility with which the allegiance sworn to Childeric was transferred to a new suzerain was not reassuring to the founder of an upstart dynasty, and some new sanction was felt to be necessary to guarantee the perpetuation of a new race. Every consideration conspired to lead the pope to gratify the wishes of Pepin. The Lombards were a perpetual mcnace, and the persuasiveness which had converted King 1Rachis from a conqueror to a monk could hardly be relied uplon as a safe precedent for the future. To bind a new aud powerful ally with the strongest ties of gratitude, and to secure for the successor of St. Peter the disposal of thrones and the judgment of the destinies of kings, were advantages not lightly to be despised. When the deputa1 Gregor. PP. III. Epist. 5 (Cod. Carolin.).-Fredegar. cap. 110.-Chron, S. Bertin. cap. IV. P. ii., cap. v. TIHE CHURCH AND THE CARLOVINGIANS. 31 tion of the Franks asked the Vicegerent of Christ what choice was to be made between a king without power and a king without title, the answer was therefore unhesitating; and the Carlovingian historians are careful to specify that the transfer of royalty and the enforced tonsure of the degraded regal spectre were commanded by the unerring wisdom of the Supreme Pontiff.' The buckler of the Field of Mars-the warlike installation of the primitive Frankswas not sufficient for the intruder; the ministry of the church must sanctify the transfer, and St. Boniface, the apostle of Germany, consecrated the head appointed by the pope, thus proclaiming that the suffrages of the nation were insufficient without the blessing of the priest. Even this, however, was not enough. When Stephenll II. claimed the services of his ally, and journeyed into France to implore the aid of the secular arm, after proving the insuffii Eginhart. Annal. ann. 752.-Ejusd. Vit. Car. Mag. cap. l.-Annal. Fuldens. ann. 752.-Ado Viennens. —How dangerous were the favors of the church is well exemplified by this. When came the struggle which eventually laid the empire prostrate at the feet of the papacy, this deposition of Childeric did not fail to be adduced in proof of the supremacy of the spiritual over the temporal power. Christendom was hardly prepared for the extension of jurisdiction claimed by Gregory VII. when, in 1080, he excommunicated Henry IV., pronounced him to have forfeited the imperial dignity, and recognized Rodolph of Suabia as his successor; but Gregory defended his acts by quoting the example of Zachary and Childeric: "Alius, item Romanus Pontifex, Zacharius videlicet, regem Francorum non tam pro suis iniquitatibus, quam eo quod tanth potestati non erat utilis, a regno deposuit, et Pippinum, Caroli Magni imperatoris patremn, in ejus loco substituit, omnesque Francigenas a juramento fidelitatis, quod illi fecerant, absolvit" (Gregor. PP. VII. Regist. Lib. vIsI. Epist. 21). So Paul of Bernried, in arguing the same question, relies on the same precedent (Pauli Bernried. Vit. Gregor. VII. No. 86). Honorius III. haughtily refuses to entertain a doubt upon the question-" Quis ergo, nisi mente captus, ignorat regiam potestatem pontificibus esse subjectam" (Vit. Gregor. VII. No. 6)showing how complete was by that time the triumph of the papacy. The Schwabenspiegel (cap. 351., ed. Senckenberg. II. 422), in admitting for the pope the right to dethrone and excommunicate a heretic emperor, bases it on the action of Zachary, and asserts the justification of it to have been the protection accorded to heretics by the deposed monarch "Leschandus."' 32 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. ciency of clerical authority to control the restless and sacrilegious Lombard, a second coronation by his holy hands was not only a fresh proof of his supremacy, but also the price of the assistance which he desired, and he assumed that Pepin's title was incomplete without this last ceremony.1 In his eagerness to f6rtify the throne for his descendants, Pepin little thought how dearly the church was accustomed to sell her favors, and how that throne was eventually to be overshadowed by the power based upon the precedents which he was thus establishing.2 IMeanwhile the alliance prospered, and Pepin hastened to perform his share of the contract. Two Italian expeditions brought Astulphus the Lombard to reason, restored to the Holy See-or rather to the Roman Republic-the territory of which it had been despoiled, and added to its boundaries important provinces, which the generosity of the conqueror, careless of such distant acquisitions, bestowed on him to whom he owed his crown. The union' See his letter to Abbot Hilduin in Regino, Annal. ann. 753. I think it safe to assume that the coronation of Pepin by Boniface is the first instance of priestly ministration on such occasions. The allusion to a similar ceremony performed by St. Remy on the person of Clovis (Testament. S. Remigii. ap. Flodoard. I-list. Remens. Lib. I. c. 18) is evidently one of the innumerable forgeries by which the church in those days manufactured precedents to bolster up its pretensions. Its whole tenor is so completely at variance with the customs of its assigned period, that it must be admitted as an interpolation of the ninth or tenth century. The unforeseen results of Pepin's incautious interpellation of sacerdotal ministration were instructively manifested in little more than a century. Pepin's great-grandson, Charles le Chauve, who held his kingdom- of France by all the rights, hereditary, testamentary, and elective, that were recognized by the public law of the period, was told, after a reign of more than twenty years, by Hincmar of Rheims, that he owed his sovereignty much more to the episcopal unction and benediction than to the temporal power (Ilincmar. pro Eccles. Libertat. Defens. Expos. I.). A century later, St. Stephen of Hungary, in his instructions to his son, adduces, among other reasons for rendering special honors to bishops, that without them kings and princes cannot be elevated to the throne (S. Stephani Hung. Reg. Monit. ad Filium, c. iii.). THE CHURCHI AND THE CARLOVINGIANS. 33 thus cemented by mutual benefits was lasting; nor did the ambitious Frank complain, even if he recognized the fact, that the papal mnunificence had secured to its dispenser eventual advantages far greater than those which it had bestowedl. Charlemagne inherited his father's alliance. Scarcely had he reunited the divided kingdom by disinheriting his brother's children, when, on the invitation of Adrian I., he invaded Italy, to put an end to the perennial quarrel between Rome and Lombardy. The resistance was stubborn, notwithstanding treason in the Lombard camp, but Charlemagne was not accustomed to leave his work incomplete. The generosity of Pepin was no longer in place, and the spoils were divided between the royal and sacerdotal confederates, who mutually confirmed the extension of territory acquired by the sword of the one and the prayers or intrigues of the other. The dread inspired by the Lombard must have been intense and the donation splendid, for the grateful Adrian, calling a council of one hundred and fifty-three bishops, conferred on his deliverer not only the Patriciate, but also the privilege of nominating all future successors to the Holy See.l Charlemagne had received the sacred oil and benediction from the holy hands of Stephen II. at the same time as his father; but in due course another generation appeared to clain the same advantages, and the kingdoms of Italy and Aquitaine were secured to the royal infants, Pepin and Louis, by the efficacious ministration of the accommodating Pontiff, who was equally ready to extend his jurisdiction in another direction, by excommunicating the rebellious subjects of his liberal patron. Step by step the process of mutual aggrandizement went on, while the subordination of the spiritual to the temporal power was undisputed. The Patriciate of Rome, to Charles' The authenticity of this grant has been called in question. Its genuineness will be considered hereafter (p. 87). 34 THE RISE OF TIIE TEMPORAL POWER. Martel an empty honor not worth the responsibilities connectedc with it, had become to his grandson a substantial dignity, which secured the subjection of the papacy. The confirmation of the papal elections was in the hands of the Frankish king, to whom each new pope sent a solemn embassy to offer the emblematic keys and banner, and to ask the opportunity of rendering the necessary oath of allegiance. Charles was the suzerain of Rome and of its bishop, who, notwithstanding his primatial rank, was merely a subject, to be addressed in the language of royal command, and in no way exempt from the jurisdiction exercised over all other dignitaries of the Frankish dominions. Thus, when Leo III., in 796, announced his election to Charlemagne, the latter acknowledges with courtly phrase his pleasure in receiving the assurance of humble obedience and the pledges of fidelity to the throne offered by the pope;1 and the instructions to his envoy on the occasion of Leo's consecration were that he should diligently admonish the pope to live with propriety and to obey the canons.2 In fulfilment of his duties as supreme judge, Charlemagne, in the year 800, visited Rome on the solemn errand of trying Leo III. for offences alleged against him by the factious Romans. The position of the Pontiff was that of a subject before his sovereign, a criminal in the presence of his judge; but the wily Italian by a master-stroke reversed the position, and created for his successors a power which may almost be said to have secured their ultimate triumph. After the pre-arranged acquittal of the pope, while Charles was humbly kneeling at his devotions in the Basilica of St. Peter, his brows were suddenly encircled by the imperial crown, confirmed with the papal benediction, " II Valde, ut fateor. gavisi sumus, seu in electionis unimitate, seu in humilitatis vestrn obedientia, et in promissionis ad nos fidelitate." Epist. ad Leonem Papam (Baluz.). 2 Carol. Mag. Commonitor. ann, 796 (Baluz. I. 195, Ed. Venet.). THE CHURCH AND THE CARLOVINGIANS. 35 and the populace shouted for the new Emperor of the iRomans-"- Carlo Augusto, a Deo coronato, magno et pacifico Imperatori Romanorum, vita et victoria." Whether this clever coup de theatre was in reality a surprise to the passive actor in it, or whether it had been rehearsed the year before at Paderborn, when Leo had laid his griefs before his protector, is of small importance. If, as Eginhardt asserts, Charlemagne accepted the unexpected dignity with reluctance,' he only manifested therein his customary sagacity. To him it was nothing but a nominal dignity, which in no way enhanced his real power, but which, among his descendants, proved a source of endless and ruinous contention.2 The pope, on the other hand, had revived, motu proprio, the glories of the elder empire. Not only was Constantinople humiliated and degraded from its solitary dignity, but throughout the West, as the creator is always greater than the created, the pope, while no less a subject than before, had vastly increased the moral supremacy of his high office.3 His successors learned to turn the precedent to good account, and the necessity of papal intervention to convert a king of the Romans into an emperor on more than one occasionl lurned the scale in 1 Eginh. Vit. Carol. cap. 28. " Charlemagne may have had a foreshadowing of the evils arising from the possession of the imperial crown, for in his Clharta Divisioscis of 806, he makes no allusion to it as being heritable, nor does he bestow it upon any of his sons. They are all to be kings, and even the sovereignty of Italy confers no additional supremacy on Pepin. 3 How thoroughly this came to be understood is manifest from a passage in the canons of the Synod of St. Macra, in 881, where the bishops, in contrasting the regal and sacerdotal dignity, give this as the argument for the supremacy which they claim for the latter —" Et tanto est dignitas pontificum major quam regum, quia reges in culmen regium sacrantur a pontificibus, pontifices autem a regibus consecrari non possunt" (Synod. ap. S. Macram, cap. 1). Even in England, in 1142, during the imprisonment of King Stephen, when his brother Henry, Bishop of Winchester, called a council of the clergy, in a speech directed against the king, he spoke of " majori parte cleri Anglise, ad cujus jus potissimum spectat principem eligere, simulque ordinare" (Wilkins, Concil. I. 420). 36 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. difficult conjunctures, or enabled the Pontiff to sell his benediction at his own price, as when the fagot and stake of Arnold of Brescia purchased the imperial crown for Frederic Barbarossa. Nor was this all, for even as the right of confirmation practically gave to the emperors the appointment of popes, so, when protracted dissensions reduced the temporal power, the popes in turn became able to nominate their emperors. Even before the close of the century, the quarrels between the grandsons of Charlemagne gave to John VIII. the power to select between them; and he, who could not defend his own suburbs from the Saracens, or keep the petty barons of Gaeta or Capua in order, was able to assume the bestowal of the diadem of Augustus.1 A charter issued by John XII., in 962, a few days after the coronation of Otho the Great, assumes that the emperor received the imperial crown from St. Peter through the hands of his representative.2 When Innocent III. declared that the pope had a right to examine and reject emperors after their election, if he did not deem them worthy of the dignity, he took care to base the privilege on the gift of the imperial crown to Charlemagne by Leo;3 and this power was too fiequently exercised for it to remain a disputed point. It was the natural result of these principles that John XXII., in his quarrel with the Emperor Louis of Bavaria, was able to assume that the imperial authority and power are derived from the pope, and that he who is elected King of the Romans cannot, from his election alone, be really considered emperor, nor exercise power, jurisdiction, or authority before his consecration and coronation by the pope.4 Charles IV. was obliged to admit all this when, prior to his election, he swore to the pope that if elected he would, before asking coronation, submit his perAct. Synod. Pontigonens. cap. 1 (Baluz. II. 345). o Annal. Saxo, ann. 962. u Can. 34, Extra, Lib. I. Tit. 6. 4 Ludov. IV. Respons. ([Hartzheim, IV. 323). THE CIHURCHI AND THE CARLOVINGIANS. 37 son to the papal approbation, which was thus admitted to be a condition precedent.l Bishop Alvarez Pelayo was, therefore, justified, in 1335, in proving' from the deeretals that the emperor was merely the vicar of the pope in temporal affairs and derived from himii the title to the empire.2 Leo had thus, by a simple expedient, succeeded in counterbalancing the imperial supremacy which had existed fromr the days of Constantile. The precedent from the first was binding. Although, when Charlemagne associated his son Louis in the empire, in 813, he performed the ceremony of coronation himself at Aix-la-Chapelle, apparently mistrustful of papal or sacerdcotal miniistrat-ion,3 and though the pope was not asked to ratify the solemnities which marked Louis's accession on his father's death in 814, yet Stephen IV. seized the opportunity of t-lleir interview at itheims, in 816, to crown and anoint him emperor with a Cdiademl which he had brought Juranment. Carol. IV. ann. 1346 (Liinig, Cod. Ital. Diplom. II. 771). The eagerness with which every incident was turned to account in the long struggle for supremacy is well illustrated by the fact that when in 1133 Lothair II. reinstated the wandering Innocent II. who had been ejected from Rome by the antipope. Anaclet, and when he was rewarded with the bestowal of the imperia-l crown, before his coronation he swore to defend the person and rights of the pope. The oath, as given by Baronius from the Vatican MSS. (Annal. ann. 1133, No. 2), is in no sense an oath of homage, but it pleased the papal court so to regard it, and the popes recorded their assumed triumph by a painting hung in the Lateran, representing Lothair at the feet of Innocent, with the explanatory inscriptionRex venit ante fores jurans prius urbis honores. Post homo fit Pap.e, sumit quo dante coronamn. When Frederic Barbarossa first entered Rome this excited his indignation, and he exacted its removal (Radevic. de Gest. Frid. I. Lib. I. cap. 10). In 1157, Adrian IV. renewed the pretension, but the prompt measures of Frederic quickly obliged him to abandon it formally..De Planctu Ecclesiw, Lib. I. Art. 68, No. I. 3 Eginhart. Annal. ann. 813. —Thegan, who, though not so good an authority as Eginhardt, gives a much more detailed account of this ceremony, asserts that Charlemagne ordered Louis to place the crown on his head with his own hands (Thegani de Gest. Ludov. cap. 6), which seems to indicate a suspicion that the priestly alliance might turn out to be an expensive one. 4 38 THE RISE OF TIIE TEMPORtAL POWER. with him from Italy for that purpose, and Louis's faithfull biographer is careful not to style him emperor until after that consecration.' That the ceremony was considered necessary to perfect the imperial dignity may also be gathered from an inscription by Ebbo, Archbishop of 1Rheims, Louis's foster-brother, commencing"Ludovicus Ctcsar factus, coronante Stephano." 2 Charlemagne apparently considered the papal assent and ratification requisite to give binding force to his division of the empire in 806, and Louis le Debonnaire followed his example in 817.3 Still, the subordinate position of the popes as subjects and vassals of the empire continued unaltered. When in 815 a conspiracy was discovered by Leo III., and he exercised summary justice in dispatching the criminals, Louis, irritated at this invasion of his jurisdiction, sent his nephew, Bernard, King of Italy, to investigate the matter, and Leo was obliged to make his peace with the emperor by a special legation. In the following year, his successor, Stephen IV., immediately on his election, hastened to solicit Louis's confirmation, and travelled with all diligence into France, ostensibly to crown the emperor, but doubtless, in reality, to secure his position.4 It was possibly in fulfilment of a condition imposed on him at this time, that in the same year he caused a canonl to be adopted in synod providing that for the future no newly elected pope should be consecrated except in the presence of imperial delegates sent for that purpose, guarding the papal rights, however, with a clause that no new form of oath should be exacted of the Vicegerent t of Christ.' This Thegani op. cit. cap. 17. Cf. Eginhart. Annal. ann. 816. Flodoard. Hist. Remens. Lib. II. cap. 19. 3 Eginhart. Annal. ann. 806.-Agobardi de Divis. Imp. Epist. 4 Eginh art. Annal. ann. 816. 5 Gratian. Decret. Dist. 63, can. 28. The genuineness and date of this have been the subject of no little controversy. An allusion to it, however, by Nicholas I., in the council of Rome in 862, would seem to settle the question in favor of its authenticity. TIIHE CIIURCT AND THE CARLOVINGIANS. 39 was neglected in the case of the next pope, Paschal I., who was consecrated without waiting for the imperial ratification, but the necessity for it was admitted by a deprecatory epistle which he prudently dispatched to his suzerain, asserting that he had been unwillingly forced to undergo the ceremony, against his strenuous resistance.' Louis's gentle character was eminently unsuited to the ferocity of the age, while his sensitive superstition rendered him the willing slave of his ghostly advisers. Unable to control the fierce elements of discord around him or to resist the encroachmlents of ecclesiastical ambition, he allowed his influence to diminisli rapidly. Emboldened by this, Paschal soon took another and an important step in the enhancement of the papal prerogative. In 817, Louis had crowned his eldest son, Lothair, and had placed him on the throne as co-emperor, in precisely the same manner as lie himself had received that dignity at the hands of Charlemagne. In 823 he sent the young emperor to Italy, to repress some disorders there. His mission accomplished, Lothair was about to return, when Paschal invited him to Rome, received him with all honor, and solemnly crowned him as Emperor and Augustus —and this, to all appearance, without the knowledge or consent of his father. This independence of action was followed up shortly afterwards, when two officials of high repute in the papal court were cruelly murdered in the Lateranl, and Paschal was popularly accused of complicity in the crime. He endeavored to escape the imperial jurisdiction by hastily clearing himself of conmplicity by a purgatorial oath before the arrival of the commissioners dispatched by Louis to investigate his connection with the murders, but he nevertleless acknowledged his accountability to the emperor by two legations sent with his explanations.2 These efforts of the Holy See to shake off the imperial Eginhart. Annal. ann. S17. " Ibid. ann. 823. 40 THE R, ISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER, domination called fot some cotunter-(demonlistratioin, and it is probable that the reckless and energetic Lothair was less willing than his father to permit any curtailment of his ancestral prerogatives. When, therefore, Paschal died during the following year, and his successor, Eugenius II., after a hotly contested election, contented himself with sending a legate to apprise the emperors of his accession, Lothair proceeded at once to Rome. Eugenius was compelled to subscribe a written oath of allegiance, and another oath was administered to all the Roimans, lay- and clerical, in which they swore not only fidelity to the emperors, but also that they would never consent to the installation of a pope elect until after he should have taken a similar oath before a special imperial commission;1 and Lothair's exercise of sovereign power was further shown by an edict limiting the extent of stuffrage in future elections.2 These proceedings had the desired effect for the time, and when, in 827, the chair of St. Peter was again vacant, the consecration of Gregory IV. was postponed until the arrival of an envoy with powers to confirm his election. The effort, however, was too late. Events were hiurrying on which were destined to render all such measures futile, and Lothair himself was one of the chief instruments in the hands of Providence by which was accomplished the revolution "Et ille qui electus fuerit, me consentiente, consecratus pontifex non fiat, priusquam tale sacramentum faciat in prssentia missi domini imiperatoris et populi, cum juranmento quale dominus Eugenius papa sponte pro conservatione omnium factum habet per scriptum" (Baluz. I. 438). The expression "pro conservatione omnium" renders it probable that Lothair had manifested his indignation by proceedings so violent as to awaken fears for the safety of the city. The change occurring during the century is well exhibited by comparing this oath with that taken by the Romans on the coronation of the Emperor Arnoul, in 896, wherein the papal claim to their allegiance is expressly reserved-'" salvo honore et lege mea, atque fidelitate domni Formosi papre, fidelis sumi et ero omnibus diebus vitr mene Arnulfo imperatori" (Annal. Fnldens. ann. 895.) 2 Baluz. TI. 317. TIE CHURCH AND THE CARLOVINGIANS. 41 of European institutions, resulting in the power of the priesthood and the irresponsible autocracy of the pope. The turbulent ambition of Lothair and his two brothers, their hatred of their stepmother Judith, and their envy of their half-brother, Charles le Chauve, the youngest, best, and most beloved of the children of Louis, filled the rest of his miserable reign with open war or secret intrigues. 1i-s death added fresh fuel to the flame, and until the exhausted combatants swore a hollow truce at the Treaty of Verdun, in 843, the empire was a scene of universal confuision. This parricidal and fratricidal strife, continuing with scanty interinission until the close of the century, reduced the royal power to a shadow. Truth, faith, loyalty, patriotism, all the virtues which lend stability to governments, seemed unknown. Everywhere the chiefs and deputies of the nominal monarch, striving for independence and hereditary authority, were bartering their allegiance, and wringing fresh concessions from the infatuated brethren, as the price of their fidelity or of their treachery. The only element of universal anarchy lacking was supplied by the external enemies of the empire. Invited by ceaseless civil conflict, on every-side the Northmen poured in upon the ungularded coasts, ascended the rivers, and, gathering confidence from almost uninterrupted success, ravaged every portion of France and of the fertile Pihinelands. On the West the Bretons, on the East the Wends anld Serbs, on the South the active and unsparing Saracens, released from the terror of the invincible Charles, revenged the wrongs and the humiliations of generations. Faction in the council, discord in the court, cowardice or treachery in the field, could offer inadequate resistance to the only power which maintained its unity, which understood its aims, and which pursued its purposes with energy and consistency. Nor is it surprising that the people, ground to the dust by the senseless quarrels of their rulers, exposed 4t* 42 TTHE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. alike to the unchecked tyranny of their immediate masters, the devastations of neighborhood wars, and the hideous barbarities of pagan pirates-the people to whom civil government was known only as an instrument of oppression, and never as a means of defence or redress-should turn in despair to the church as the only source of consolation in the present or of hope in the future, should welcome any change which tended to elevate the spiritual power at the expense of the temporal, and should give eager credit to the doctrine which taught that the Vicegerent of Christ and his ministers were paramount over those who had so wofully abused their trust2l THE FALSE DECRETALS. In this remoulding of European institutions, so necessary to the interests of Christianity and civilization, one of the most efficient agencies was the collection of canons known as the False Decretals. About this period there began to circulate from hand to hand a collection of Papal Epistles, on which the names of the early Bishops of Rlome conferred the authority of the primitive and uncorrupted church, instinct with pure and undisputed apostolic tradition. The name assumed by the compiler was Isidor Mercator, or Peccator, and as the original copy was said to have been 1 The manner in which the church at times earned the gratitude of the masses while extending its power and influence, is well illustrated in the election of Guido as King of LIombardy, by the bishops assembled at Pavis in 888 or 889. One of the conditions imposed on him was that no exactions or oppressions should be inflicted on the people; but that if, in any case of the kind, the counts did not actively interfere to repress it, they should be excommunicated by the bishops-thus rendering the latter the legal pro, teetors and guardians of the liberties of the people. —Widonis Regis Elect cap... (Muratori Antiq. It;l. Iisset. ITI.) TIE FALSE DECRETALS. 43 brought from Spain, he was readily confounded with St. Isidor of Seville, the eminent canonist, who, two centuries before, had enjoyed a wide and well-merited reputation for extensive learning anid unquestioned orthodoxy. Denis the Less, who, in the first half of the sixth century, made an authoritative collection of canons and decretals, commences thle latter with Pope Siricius, whose pontificate reached from 384 to 398; and there are no earlier papal epistles extant in the nature of decretals. When, therefore, the decisions and decrees of Imore than thirty apostolic fathers, of venerable antiquity, were presented under the sanction of ecclesiastics high in rank and power, and when these decrees were found to suit most admirably the wants and aspirations of the church, it is no wonder that they were accepted with little scrutiny by those whose cause they served, and who were not accustomed to the niceties of strict archbeological criticism. It could hardly be expected that a prelate of that rude age would analyze the rules presented for his guidance, and eliminate the false, which served his interests or his pride, from the true, with which they were skilfully intermingled. Some, more enlightened than the rest, perceiving that, if their own power was enhanced, at the same time their bonds of subjection to the central head were drawn closer, muttered faint and cautious doubts; but the vast majority received the new decretals with unquestioning faith, and though political causes delayed their immediate adoption, yet soon after the middle of the century we find them received with scarcely a dissentient voice. Riculfus, who occupied the archiepiscopal see of Mainz from 784 to 814, is credited with the paternity of this, the boldest, most stupendous, and most successful forgery that the world has seen. Whether or not it- was brought friom Spain by him, or constructed under his supervision, there is little doubt that he employed himself industriously in 44 TIIE RITSE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. disseminating copies.l Another collection, somewhat less bold in its pretensions, btut equally destitute of authority, had made its appearance a little earlier, having been given by Ingilram, Bishop of Metz, to Adrian I., in 785; and it was likewise extensively circulated and cited, although tIinc mar of Rlheims condemns it as bearing falsehood on its face.2 Other documents of various descriptions were also t-lbricated for the same purpose, and indeed it is probable that the whole series grew by gradual accretion under the hands of those who were watching the progress of events, and who became emboldened by the ease with which they escaped detection. An examination of these documents, indeed, leads to the conclusion that they were not the result of one effort or the work of one man. Their constant repetitions and Hincmar, created Archbishop of Rheims in 845, thus describes the introduction of the False Decretals:''Sicut et de libro collectarum epistolaruin ab Isidoro, quem de Hispania allatum, iiculfus Moguntinus episcopus, in hujusmodi sicut et in capitulis regiis studiosus, obtinuit et istas regiones ex illo repleri fecit;" and he evidently considers them as of dubious authority, when he declines to cite them in support of his argument,. because he had plenty of authorities from among the popes after Damasus —" superfiuum duxi non necessaria in medium devocare" (Opusc. adv. Hincm. Laudun. c:ap. 24). This does not, however, prevent him from using them when later and more unimpeachable precedents are wanting.'Thus (op. cit. cap. 14) he adduces an epistle of St. Anacletus, whose pontificate dates within twenty years of the death of St. Peter, in which is described a complete hierarchy, such as in the ninth century was regarded as the perfection of church government-bishops, metropolitans, archbishops, primates, and patriarchs, with the Roman Pontiff as supreme ruler, issuing without appeal his commands and decrees. (Pseudo-Anaclet. Epist. 1, 2, 4, 5.) ",, Quam dissonue inter se habeantur, qui legit satis intelligit, et quam diverse a sacris canonibus, et quam discrepantes in qfiibusdam ab ecclesiasticis judiciis habeantur, ut hic qubedam de pluribus ponam, evidenter manifestatur" (Op. cit. cap. 24).-According to some MSS. it was Adrian who gave them to Ingilram. In one of Charlemagne's visits to Rome, in 774, 781, or 787, Adrian gave him a collection of canons for the government of the Western churches. This collection is simply the compilation of Denis the Less; containing none of the false decretals. At that time Adrian, therefore, was evidently ignorant of the forgeries, and the principles and pretensions of Ingilram and Isidor were as yet unknown in Rome. TIIE FALSE DECRETALS. 45 their frequent contradictions would seem to prove this and to show that they were manufactured from time to time, to meet the exigencies of the moment or to gratify the feelings of the writers. Had the whole been composed by one person, with a definite individual purpose in view, there would be much more unity perceptible throughout. It is also highly probable that the authors, seeing how little attention had been excited by the canons of Ingilram, devised the plan of embodying the same principles in the form of papal epistles, to which they affixed the names of the early popes, thus hoping to secure for them additional authority. At the same time it must be borne in mind that as yet the spiritual autocracy of the popes had by no means been admitted to the extent claimed for it in these decretals, and subsequently acquired through their influence. When Gelasius in 494 issued the decisions of the council which regulated the canon of Scripture and the authority of the Fathers, he was careful to draw the distinction between the obedience due to the canons of councils and the doctrines of the early Fathers and that claimed for papal epistles. The former were to be " et custodienda et recipienda," the latter merely "'venerabiliter suscipiendas.'l TIincmar enlarges on this difference, which he declares to be well understood by all familiar with ecclesiastical rules;2 and, in 872, writing to Adrian IT. in the name of Charles le Chauve, he begs the pope not to send any more epistles contrary to the ancient canons of the church, as all such are to be rejected and confuted as being devoid of authority.3' This distinction is not found in all the MSS. See the comparison of texts in Migne's Patrologia, T. 59, pp. 170-2. It is contained, however, in the canon as given by Ivo of Chartres (Decret. P. Iv. cap. 64) and Gratian (Deciet. P. 1, Dist. 15, can. 3), and its citation by IHincmar, as mentioned above, shows its high antiquity and probable genuineness. o Opusc. adv. Hinem. Laudun. cap. 25. 3 Goldast. Const. Imp. I. 205-6. —Migne's Patrol. T. 124, p. 894. —Iow completely all this changed in a couple of centuries is well exemplified in a 46 TIlE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. It is true that the success of the forgeries at first was rather negative than positive, and their earliest practical promulgation as rules for daily use would appear to be in the canons compiled for his diocese by Remy, who was Bishop of Coire from 815 to 830. Charlemagne, indeed, as early as 806, had admitted one canon into a capitularyl but in general their influence over his legislation and government is imperceptible. His power was too absolute and his temper rendered opposition too dangerous for any serious attempt to limit his control over ecclesiastical matters. Though he made full use of clerical influence in carrying out his designs of a strong and civilizing government, yet obedience to his will was the condition of its existence; nor, while he labored strenuously to enforce respect for the church, would he permit it to exercise interference in affairs not connected with its special office.2 His influence was too profoundly impressed upon the age to be immediately obliterated, and for some years after his death the empire maintained the dignified force with which he had invested it. With Louis le Debonnaire, however, there came a change. His virtues and weaknesses rendered his power a prize for whoever had the boldness and ambition to clutch at a fragment of it, and the penance of Attigny in 822, while it degraded him in the eyes of the fierce Frankish warriors, proclaimed to the world that priestly influence was all-powerful in the state. It would indeed have been singular if the church had decllration of Alexander II. to Philip of France in 1065: " Ignorant miseri quod hujus sanctoe sedis decreta ita pie fide a filiis matris ecclesim accipienda sint et veneranda ut tanquam regula canonum ab eisdem absque ullo scrupulo admittantur."-Alexandri PP. II. Epist. 95. 1 Capit. Carol. Mag. I. ann. 806, ~ 23.-This, however, may have been derived from Ingilram, catp. 72. This jealousy of sacerdotal encroachment is well expressed in a capitulary directing the clergy and the laity not to interfere with one another. "Hic interrogandum est acutissime quid est quod Apostolus ait NVezo,izzlitans Deo imzplicat se ane eotiis sccltlaribus, vel ad quos sermo iste pertineat."'' -Cnapit. Ciarol. Meg. I. ann. 811, 4. TIHE FALSE DECRETALS. 4.7 not pressed forward in the path thus thrown open, and had not claimed all the supremacy to which it was invited. Accordingly we find that the bishops soon appear as the ruling order in the state, sitting in judgment on the emperor, deposing, absolving, and reinstating him by turns — doing, in the name of heaven, that which the reckless nobles still shrank from assuming as an earthly prerogative. This placed a material power in hands well qualified to use and extend it; and though, during those busy years of anarchy and strife, the church had enough to do in protecting her property from the hands of the spoiler, and was unable to combine her forces seriously and steadily for the attainment of new privileges and exemptions, still, the influence of the prelates, as potential members of the civil government, vastly increased the political weight of the ecclesiastical body, and placed them in a position to make good whatever innovations they might seek to establish. In restoring order after the long and lawless struggle, it was also comparatively easy to assume that the pretensions then first seriously advanced were merely the resuscitation of rights, familiar to past generations, which had been borgotten and trampled on in the fury of civil war.' At the same time the partial quiet which succeeded the Treaty of Verdun soon nmade manifest the pressing need of a strong ecclesiastical government. The empire of Charlemagne was then finally divided, and the nationalities of Europe spontaneously separated themselves into the limits which have virtually been maintained to the present day. Ilad the church remained, as of old, under secular control, it would plrobably have been split into fragments; its unity would have been lost, and the spiritual tyranny whichl alone could maintain the influence Jura sacerciotum penitus eversa ruerunt. Divin-o jam legis amor terrorque recessit, Et scita jam canonum cunctoruLn calce teruntur. Florus Diac. de Divis. Imp. 48 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. of religion amid the turmoil of so barbarous an age would have become impossible. To elevate the sanctity of the sacerdotal character, the power of the bishops over the laity and the inferior clergy, the control of the metropolitans over their suffragans; to emancipate all from subjection to the temporal power, and to bind them more strongly than ever to the foot of the apostolic thronesuch was the only apparent solution to present and prospective difficulties. If it was carried out by fraud and forgery, we should remember the trials and temptations of the time before passing too severe a condemnation on those who planned and executed the scheme. The date, the author, and thebimmediate object of the False Decretals have given rise to keen speculation and fierce dispute, particularly among modern German critics, whose theories, more or less plausible, it would be useless to recapitulate or refute here. The views of the Ballerini, Wasserschleben, Gfrbrer, Walter, Knust, Hefele, Phillips, and others, may be found well summed up and stated by Heinrich Denziger;' but the principal interest of the discussion lies merely in its proving how the over-subtle refinements requisite to support a preconceived theory may mislead intelligent investigators. Those who see in these forgeries an effort merely to increase the power of the pope, or, on the other hand, to enlarge the prerogatives of the imetropolitanis,'or, again, to render the bishops independent, take a view by far too narrow of the motives and the results of the attempt. In fact, the philosophizing tendencies of recent historical criticism have led to the assumption that the influence of the False Decretals had previously been greatly overrated. This I take to be an error, easily comnmitted by those to who'm the novelty of a brilliant sophism is more attractive than the triteness of a commonplace' Ecloge et Epicrisis eorumn quT a recentioribus criticis de Pseudoisidorianis Decretis statute sunt (Migne's Patrolog. T. 130.) TIIHE FALSE DECRETALS. 49 truth; and though the causes above described contributed doubtless to the success of the forgeries, it by no means follows that those causes would have produced the same effects had not the disturbed elements of society thus been artificially moulded. It is certain that about the middle of the century a great and silent revolution in the relations between church and state commenced, and it may fairly be assumed that these new canons were the instrument with which the ecclesiastical party worked upon the general popular readiness to submit to such a change of masters. To estimate the influence of these canons and other cognate forgeries requires an attentive examination into the jurisprudence and legislation of the period, which they interpenetrate to an extent that shows how thoroughly they modified the condition of society in all its ramifications. Interpolated into codes of law, adopted and amplified in the canons of councils and the decretals of popes, they speedily became part and parcel of the civil and ecclesiastical polity of Europe, leaving traces on the institutions which they affected for centuries. The Carlovingian Capitularies, which they distorted from their original tendency, were the recognized laws of the western and northern portions of the empire, until swallowed up by the all-pervading influence of feudalism, and even then they continued to be appealed to as an authority. As late as the close of the eleventh century they were cited in a suit between Centulla IV., of Beamn, and the Bishop of Lescar;1 in 1208, Otho IV., at his election, took an oath with the princes of the enpire, in which they mutually bound themselves to preserve intact all the laws of Charlemagne;2 the Schwabenspiegel, which, from the thirteenth century, was the municipal code of Southern Germany, declares that all law Mazure et EIatoulet, Fors de Bdarn, p. xxxviii. 2 Ibi Rex primo, deinde cateri principes jurant... omnia etiam jura a Karolo magno instituta observanda et tuenda.-Godefrid. S. Pantaleon. Annal. ann. 1208. 5 50 THE RISE OF TIE3 TEMPORAL POWER. is founded on the legislation of Charlemagne and of the popes,l and it is itself, to a considerable extent, based on the Third Book of the Capitularies; while some of the Capitularies, relating more particularly to ecclesiastical matters, being drafted into the collections of canon law, were perpetuated through Burkharclt, Ivo, and Gratian, during the whole mediaeval period. If the False I)ecretals thus indirectly left their impress on secular legislation, their overwhelming force in modifying the organization and position of the church itself may easily be conceived. The pretensions and privileges which they conferred on the hierarchy became the most dearlyprized and frequently-quoted portion of the canon law. In each struggle with the temporal authority it was the arsenal from which were drawn thimost effective weapons, and after each struggle the sacerdotal combatants had higher v'antage-ground for the ensuing conflict. The satire of lRabelais loses its usual extravagance when, dwelling upon the virtues of the " sacrosainctes Decretales'"-the development and alpplication of the forgeries of the eighth and ninth centuries-he exclaims: " Qui faict le sainct siege Apostolicque en Romme de tout temps et auiouiclhuy tant recloutable en luniuers que il fault, ribon ribaine, que tous roys, empereurs, potentatz et seigneurs pendent de luy, tieignent de luy, par luy soyent couronnez, confirmez, authorisez, vieignent la boucquer et se prosterner a 1a mririficque pantofie de laquelle auez veni le pourtraict? Belles Decretales de Dieu 1" and when he undertook to describe "Comment par la vertus des Decretales est l'or subtillement tyrl de France en Iloomme," he only enlarged upon a theme whlich was long and keenly appreciated.2 Nor did the Itaque nullum jus provinciale anut feudale subsistit aliter quamn quatenus.a clero Romano et ex Regis Caroli legibus derivatum est. (Jur. Provin. Alaman. Introit. ~ 31.)' When, in 1583, President d'Espeisses, at that time Advocate General of France, drew up for IHenry III. an argument against the reception of the Council of Trent, he dwelt upon the encroachments of the papal power, TIlE FALSE DECRETALS. 51 hunimbler ballad-singer in his rugged verse fail to seize the " dent s'est ensuivi les appellations en cour de Rome, les reservations, expectatives, preventions, blles, annates, dispense, indulgence, et anutres moyens de tirer les deniers de France, et presque Ia France mrme k Rome" (Le Plat, Monumenta Concil. Trident. VII. 253). In 1372 we find the whole body of the clergy of Mainz binding themselves by a solemn agreement with each other not to pay a tithe levied upon them by the papal court, and complainihg with more bitterness than respect of the exactions to which they were continually exposed —"et propter exactiones papales perplurimas in his terris clerici ad magnam paupertatem redacti.... Quod sedes ipsa, contra morem veterem sanctornm patrum, ad partes exteras nunquam his temporibus mittit predicatores vel viciorum correctores, sed cottidie mittit bene pompizantes, et facta sua proprie dirigentes, pecuniarum peritissimos exactores" (Gudeni Cod. Diplom. T. III. p. 509)-and at the same time Frederie, Archbishop of Cologne, promised his clergy to give them all the assistance he safely could in evading the tithe (Hartzheim, Concil. German. T. IT_. p. 510). More than a century previous, Robert Grosteste, Bishop of Lincoln, the most prominent ecclesiastic of the period in England, when lying on his death-bed did not hesitate to stigmatize the papal court as Antichrist, in consequence of the reckless injury to religion wrought by its insatiable avarice (Matt. Paris IIist. Anglix, ann. 1253). Not long before " Golias Episcopus" dwelt upon the same theme with a pertinacity which manifests the strength of the feeling of the time" Romani capitulum habent in decretis Ut petentes audeant mnanibus repletis; D)abis, a.ut non dabitur, petunt qUando petis: Qua mensurao seminas et eadem metis." (Poems of Walter Napes, p. 37 Ed. Camden Soc.) And, earlier still, in the eleventh century, the implacable virtue of St. Peter Damiani exclaims, with indignant sorrow"Heu Sedes Apostolica Orbis olim gloria, Nune, proh dolor! efficeris Officina Simonis" —(Epist. Ix. Lib. IV.) That the money value of the papal authority was known and acted upon even in the Carlovingian period is well illustrated by the fact that when Lupus, Abbot of Ferri6res, a man of high repute and consideration, was about to visit the Holy See on business, he begs his friends for presents to take with him, assuming as a matter of course that nothing could be effected in the papal court without them —" et quoniam in conficiendis rebus apostolici notitia indigebo, ea vero sine munerum intercessione inire commode non potest" (Lupi Ferrar. Epist. 68). All the incidental prerogatives acquired by the Roman curia were thus 52 TITE RISE OF TLIE TEMPORAL POWER. popular appreciation of the multiform evils arising from the same sourceDepuis que decretz eurent ales, El gens darmes portarent males, Moines allarent a cheval, En ce monde abunda tout mal. For eight centuries the authority of Isidor and Ingilram was unquestioned, save by bold heresiarchs such as Wickturned into coin. Few popes have left a better reputation than Calixtus II., and yet the history, recorded by an eye-witness, of the negotiations for the elevation of Compostella to an archbishopric, reveal a cynicism of venality almost incredible. Diego Gelmirez, who sought this promotion for his see, opened negotiations by sending 200 ounces of gold taken from the tablets of his altars. This was stolen on the road, when he sent 100 more, of which only 50 reached its destination. He then forwarded a casket of gold weighing nine marks and a large amount of coin to Calixtus, who had meanwhile succeeded to Gelasius II. His cautious envoy, finding Calixtus hesitate, only gave him 20 ounces and reserved the rest. Finally Calixtus acceded, on condition of receiving the reserved funds with 260 marks of silver in addition. To obtain this, the church of Compostella was stripped of its ornaments, and to convey it safely it was confided to some ecclesiastics proceeding to the Crusade, each man receiving absolution of a year of penance for every ounce of gold that he should succeed in carrying safely. The money was duly paid, when Calixtus complained that his gold casket was partly silver, and demanded 20 ounces of gold to make it good; his chamberlain, moreover, declared that of 200 ounces of gold received one-fourth had proved to be base metal, so that the exhausted archbishop in expectation was obliged to furnish 70 ounces more. The narrator of this tissue of swindling simony relates it all with the utmost composure, as a matter of course, only interrupting his narrative occasionally to express his admiration of the virtues of the popes who thus sold their spiritual privileges, and of the archbishop who was so liberal in his bribes (Ilist. Compostell. Lib. II. cap. 4, 6, 10, 16, 20). The naive account given by Guibert de Nogent (De Vita Sua, Lib. III. cap. 4), of the confirmation by Paschal II. of Gaudri's election to the see of Laon, in 1107, is an equally instructive illustration of the barefaced plundering and venality with which the papal court exploited the power it had obtained over the episcopal office. Perhaps the most significant illustration of the money value of the papacy, however, is the fact that among the documents connected with the proposed canonization of Henry VI., of England, towards the close of the fifteenth century, is a memorandum of the expenses connected with obtaining a place in the calendar of saints, amounting in all to 783 ducats-the first item being a fee to the pope himself of 100 ducats! (Wilkins, Concil. III. 639.) THE FALSE DECRETALS. 53 liffe, who had come to an open rupture with Rome;' nor, when antiquarian research began to discover the anachronisms with which the forgeries were filled, did the church abandon her champions. The learning of Blondel, it is true, silenced his adversaries, but the Decretum Gratiani could not be mutilated, and the true and the false continued to appear in inextricable juxtaposition. It is not the least of the troubles of an infallible church that it cannot decently abandon any position once assumed. Having received the False Decretals as genuine, and having based upon them its claims to universal temporal supremacy, when it was obligled to abandon the defence of the forgeries it was placed in a shocking'ly false position. To Ihave indorsed a lie, from the ninth to the eighteenth century, was bad enough, but to give up the fruits of that lie, so industriously turned to profitable account, was more than could be reasonably expected of human nature, and accordingly we have been authoritatively informed within the last few years that the church claims still as its undoubted right all the power and prerogative that it ever enjoyed or exercised.2 To maintain a position so extravagant it is requisite to prove that the teachings of the pseudo-Isidor are in accordance with the history and discipline of the primitive Apostolic church, and that they were in no way innovations on the order of things established at the time of their production. Intrepid controversialists have been found ready to defend even this desperate position.3 They Among the Wickliffite errors condemned at the Council of Constance, was —" Decretales epistolm sunt apocryphe, et seducunt a fide Christi; et clerici sunt stulti qui student eos." —Artic. Condam. Jo. Wickliff. No. 38 (Concil. Constant. S. V.). o Among the damnable errors defined in the Syllabus of Dec. 1864, is that which teaches that " Romani pontifices et concilia cecumenica a limitibus sum potestatis recesserunt, jura principum usurparunt"' (Syllab. No. xxiii.). 3 D. Georg. Phillips (Kirchenrecht, 1851) assumes this, and draws from it the conclusion —" Pseudo-Isidoricam collectionem ingenuis juris fontibus indebite annumerari'' (ap. Denziger). 5S* 54 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. do so by attempting to prove that the pseudo-Isidor was not compiled until the year 850 or later, and that it was not known in RIome until long afterwards. The effort is then made to show, from the acts of Gregory IV., Leo II., Nicholas I., and other pontiffs, that the same principles were in force at a time when the popes are assumed to be ignorant of the existence of Isidor, and that, therefore, the latter had no influence in establishing those principles. There are several gaps in this chain of argument, of which it will be sufficient to observe that it takes no cognizance of the fact that the canons of Ingilram existed in the eighth century; that the principles therein enunciated are nearly identical with those of the pseudo-Isidor; and that, as soon as the strong hand of Charlemagne lost its terrors, those principles became gradually prominent, to be fully invoked when the tumults of civil war were over. To show how great was the revolution occurring about the period when the forgeries appeared, and how intimate was the connection between those forgeries and the changes which they were so well designed to create, will require a detailed examination into a few points relating to the mutual dependence of the secular and clerical power before and after the dissemination of the Isidorian doctrines. It will, I think, be found that the coincidence between the appearance of the forgeries and the change in the status of the church is so remarkable that the much-abused argument, post hoC, propter hoe, may fairly be applied to them as respectively cause and effect. The lapse of a thousand years has well-nigh obliterated all traces of this revolution in the relative position of the secular and ecclesiastical powers. In the new order of things, the principles then established became the especial prerogative of the class which controlled all learning and education; and as those principles claimed obedience only as founded in divine law, and as in force fromn the earliest beginnings of Christianity, evidence of their novelty is THE CHIURCH AND THE STATE. 55 not to be looked for on the surface of monkish chronicle or papal decretal. It is only by a somewhat minute investigation of laws and canons, and by a comparison of individually trivial details, that we can roughly trace the outlines of the struggle and see the origin of those theories of ecclesiastical superiority which left so profound an impress on the Middle Ages, and which have in no slight degree moulded our modern civilization. I should perhaps add that two of the questions thus presenting themselves for investigation have required so much space for their consideration, that it has seemed best to detach them from the rest of the g'roup, and present them in the form of separate essays on the immunity claimed by the clergy from secular jurisdiction, and the use made by the church of its power of excommunication. THE CHURCH AND THE STATE. It has been inclicated above that the Carlovingian polity, inheriting the traditions of the elder empire, rendered the church completely subordinate to the state. When, indeed, the monarch regulated the internal affairs of the ecclesiastical establishment, he was only exercising his undoubted prerogative. The kingly office conferred this authority even upon the Arianism of the Wisigothic kings, for the preface to the council of Agde in 506 declares it to be convened by the permission of Alaric II., and its first business was to offer up prayers in gratitude for allowing it to assemble.l The fiesh Christianity of Clovis enjoyed similar power. An address to him by the council of Orleans in 511 shows that he had convoked the prelates, that Concil. Agathens. ann. 506, Pirefat. 56 THE RISE OF THIE TEMPORAL POWER. he presented to them the subjects for discussion, and that its canons required his confirmation to become authoritative.1 One of these canons, moreover, prohibits the entrance into the church of any layman without the permission of the secular government.2 The preface to the canons of another council, held at Orleans in 554, indicates in a similar manner the dependence of the church on the legislative function of the state.3 A century later there was an attempt made to escape from this subjection, but it was promptly repressed by Sigebert II., who laid clown the rule, in express terms, that no council should be held without his permissionl; and he consequently forbade the assembling of one which had been convoked, for the single reason that his assent had not been asked.4 Charlemagne, concentrating in his Own person both the Roman and the Frankish traditions, issued his rescripts on ecclesiastical matters with fully as much authority as when legislating for concerns purely secular. Adelhard of Corbie, one of Louis le Debonnaire's chosen counsellors, has left us a description of the procedure customary at the assemblies of the Franks, by which we learn'that the prelates and the nobles sat separately to debate the affairs appertaining specially to each class; that the capitu!laries or laws were submitted to them by the emperor for debate, but that the emperor finally decided for himself, according to the light thrown upon the subject. INo difference, either in principle or practice, is therefore recognizable in the treatment of ecclesiastical and of secular affairs, and as both the initiative and the decision thus belonged to the sovereign, his power over both was limited only by the relations which chanced to exist at the moment between' Epist. Synod. Aurel. I. ann. 511. Ejuscd. can. 4. 3 Coinil. Aurel. V. ann. 554, Prooem. 4 Baluz. I. 101 (ed. Venet.) —" Ut sine nostra scientia conciliumn in regno nostro not wagtur." TH-IE CHIURCH AND TIIE STATE. 57 his subjects and himself.l Thus, throughout the whole body of the capitularies, political and clerical regulations are so intimately mingled that separation is almost impossible, showing that no thought of distinguishing them existed at the period, and that no doubt was entertained of the competency of the crown with regard to either. We have already seen that the Roman pontiffs were the subjects of Charlemagne, submitting themselves without remonstrance to his jurisdiction. The church thus accepted his sovereignty, and it was exercised impartially over all ranks of the hierarchy. Alcuin exalts his power as superior in every respect to that of the popes and the Constantinopolitan emperors.2 Paulinus, Archbishop of Aquileia, in an epistle to Charlemagne, exhorts him to a clue and vigorous exercise of his authority over the internal affairs of the church as well as of the state, pointing out certain matters in the former as especially requiring his attention.3 Even on questions of faith and doctrine this secular power asserted itself. The decisions of the council of Frankfort in 794 did not acquire legal force until a capitulary, issued in the sole name of the monarch, defined the exact amount of veneration with which images were to be regarded.4 Perhaps, however, the most remarkable instance of his spiritual authority is to be found in the manner in which he forced upon the church the well-known alteration in the Nicene creed, which placed Rome at so much disadvantage in its contests with Constantinople. The Nicene symbol, as modified by the First General IHinemari Instit. Reg. cap. 34, 35. Hincmar alludes to Adelhard as " inter primos consiliarios" of Louis.' Alcuini Epist. 4 (Canisii Thesaur. II. 392) —" cteris proefatis dignitatibus potentia excellentiorem, sapientia clariorem, regni dignitate sublimiorem.1" 3 Baluz. et Mansi Miscell. II. 11. 4 Carol. Mag. Rescript. de non adorandis imaginibus (Goldast. Const. Imp. II. 2). 58 TIIE RISE OF TIIE TEMPORAL P-OWER. Council of Constantinople and confirmed by that of Chalcedon, described the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Father. When the Spanish Wisigoths were converted fromi Arianism, by some accident or oversight the confession of faith which they adopted ascribed the procession of the Htoly Ghost to the Son as well as to the Father.l Thus altered, the symbol gradually spread from Spain into France, and when Charlemagne took exception to the proceedings of the Second General Council of Nicma concerning image worship, he also complained that the faith had been vitiated by not adopting the Frankish creed in this respect.2 Adrian I., in his answer to Charlemagne, contented himself with proving from the fathers that the council was right and the Frankish creed wrong.3 Charlemagne did not yield, and in 809 caused the matter to be taken up by the council of Aix-la-Chapelle, which insisted that the addition of " filioque" to the creed, as chanted in the French churches, was the only Catholic doctrine,4 and Charlemagne dispatched envoys to argue the matter with Leo III., sending also a letter in which he insisted on the correctness of his faith in this respect. Leo was too completely under the imperial domination to contest the point. He admitted that to believe in the procession of the IHoly Concil. Toletan. III. ann. 589; IV. ann. 633 (Harduin. III. 469, 579). 2 Lib. Carolin. Lib. III. cap. i., iii.-At the Nicene council, the Patriarch Tarasius, in defining the faith, had admitted that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father by the Son (Concil. (Ecum. VII. Act. iii.-Harduin. IV. 131). Charlemagne insisted that it should be from the Father and the Son. The council, in fact, only formally repeated the Constantinopolitan symbol, which omits all mention of the Son (Act. vii. Ibid. p. 453-4) —o ix rouv craroc ixqr&Cuovsyovh-but the Latin versions have "q'cui ex Patre Filioqque procedit" (Ibid. pp. 454, 747). Hardouin, while giving this interpolated version, frankly admits that it is not so in the MSS., and that the only authority for it is the assertion of Cardinal Julian at the Council of Florence (where this point was fiercely argued between the Greeks and Latins) that he had seen an old MS. with this reading (Ibid. p. 454). H adriani PP. I. Epist. 52 (Ibid. p. 775). J fartzheim Concil. German. I. 390.1. TIIE CIIHURCII AND. THE STATE. 59 Ghost from both Father and Son was requisite for salvation; but, mindful of the anathema launched by the council of. Chalcedlon against all who should impiously deem the Constantinopolitan symbol insufficient and dare to change it,l he refused to authorize the insertion of the words in the creed, while, after considerable pressure, he agreed that they might be taught and chanted-an unintelligible/ compromise with his conscience, elucidated, perhaps, b~ his action in having the unadulterated creed engraved onl silver, in both Greek and Latin, and hung at the portal of the basilica of St. Peter.2 Charlemagne trimnphed. His form of the creed was publicly recited in the daily service of the church throughout the empire, was finally adopted by Rome itself, and, notwithstanding that it was the leading ostensible cause of the schism between the Eastern and Western churches, has been adllered to with the tenacity inseparable from infallibility.3 Louis le Debonnaire, notwithstanding his veneration for the church, considered himself to be its head and ruler iin no less degree than had Charlemagne. One of his edicts addressed to the bishops assumes their episcopal authority to be derived from him, and that he is personally responsible for their proper exercise of it.4 When his pious zeal assembled the council of Aix-la-Chapelle in 816, to reform the corruptions of the church, the stringent canons drawn up to meet his wishes were promulgated under his authority; his commands enforced obedience to them, and any infraction of them was punishable by him.' In 828, when he ordered four councils of his bishops to be held in various parts of his dominions to consult upon ecclesiastical matters, he instructed them that the results of their' Concil. Chalced. Act v. (1-Harduin. II. 454-5.) Hartzheinm I. 391-6. —IIarduin. IV. 970 sqq. 3 Concil. Trident. Sess. III. Decret. de Symbol. Fidei. Capit. Ludov. Pii, ann. 823, cap. 3, 4. Cf. Capitul. Lib. VI. c. 432. Mirvei Cod. Donat. Piar. c. 13. 60 TIHE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. deliberations should be recorded by sworn notaries, and not be divulged until the proper time, evidently because, as he was unable to be present,- he did not wish them made public until he should sanction them authoritatively; and at the same time he gave his Uissi Dominici stringent orders to examine into the lives of the bishops and clergy, and report to him how they discharged their functions and fulfilled their duties.l An Imperial Diet, indeed, boldly affirmed that the emperor's power over the church was superior to that of the pope himself.2 Even after the civil war, as late as 845, the bishops of the synod of Thionville addressed Lothair, Louis, and Charles, entreating them to remove the corruptions of the church, for the governance of which they were responsible to God.3 The tottering power of young Charles le Chaauve still required that the canons of synods, relating solely to church affairs, should be submitted to him for confirmnation, even as the sanctio of the Roman and Greek Emperors had been requisite to give effect to the dispositio of the earlier councils. This was not an empty show of unmeaning deference, for on one occasion we find him annulling many of them with his simple veto;4 and in 847 the Council of Mainz, in appealing to Louis le Germanique for the confirmation of its canons, employs terms which show that without it they had little prospect of obedience.5 The successor of St. Peter. himself, had not yet thought of escaping from temporal jurisdiction, for in the same year Capit. Ludov. Pii, ann. 828. o Imperialem maljestatem plus posse in administranda ecclesia quam pontificiam.-Goldast. I. 188. 3 Si.... ab hac eadem ecclesia, vobis ad gubernandum commissa, pro qua ex ministerio regali reddituri estis Regi Regum rationem in die judicii, tam multiplices ac perniciosas corruptionis pestilentias vultis amuovere (Capit. Carol. Calvi, Tit. ii. cap. 1). 4 Capit. Carol. Calv. Tit. vII. The previous year the synod of Vernon had suggested various laws respecting ecclesiastical matters to Charles, entreating their enactment (Baluz. II. 13-20). 5 Concil. Mogunt. ann. 847, can. xxxi. (IIartzheim, II. 160). TH1E CHIURCHI AND THE STATE. 61 we find Leo IV. promilising implicit Obedience to the laws of thle Emperor Lothair aind of his piredecessorsl1 Ingilhram and Isidclor, however, taught a doctrine very different from this; and, when the time was ripe, their authority was dutly brought forward to prevent all further interference of royalty with sacerdotal legislation. As early as 833, when Gregory IV. was summoned from Italy by the sons of Louis to render their father's degradation complete, and the pope could scarcely nerve himself to the awNful task, Wala, Abbot of Corbie, the fierce promoter of the rebellion, endeavored to strengthen his waverinog resolution by producing a collection of papal decretals proving that the Vicegerent of Christ was empowered to judge mankind, and was not to be judged of men.2 Gregory was deliolghted at thus findino himself possessed of powers hitherto unknown to the papal canonists, and was reacdy enough to declare that the pontifical power was superior to the imperial;3 but the son of Charlemagne, even in h-is adclersity, was heir to too much traditional veneration for such doctrines to obtain general currency. Gregory, in spite of his new-found prerogatives, returned to Rome amid i unseemly derision,4 and his pretentions remained practii De capitulis... vestris... irreflrsgabiliter custodiendis ac conservindis quantum valuinius et vareulus, Christi propitio, et nunc et in toyurm, nos conservaturos modis omnibus profitenmur (Gratian. Decret. Dist. x. can. 9). 2 Paschasii Radberti de Vit. Walm Lib. II. cap. 16. The terms in which Paschasius recounts this and the comfort which these hitherto unknown decretals gave to the shrinking pope leave little doubt that they were the forgeries of Isidor. After describing Gregory's alarm at the threats of Louis's bishops, he proceeds —' Unde et ei dedimus nonnulla sanctorum patrum auctoritate firmata, prsedecessorunque suorum conscripta, quibus nullus contradicere possit quod.. in eo esset omnis auctoritas beati Petri excellens et potestas viva, a quo oporteret universos judicari, ita ut ipse a nernine judicandus esset." Gregor. PP. IV. Epist. de Compar. Regirn. (Migne's Patrolog. T. 104, p. 299.) Ile cadmitted, however, that lie himself was subject to trial and judgment. 1Bincmari Epist. xxvii. 62 TIlE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. cally ill abeyance -until those who had provoked them were ready to be their victims. In 845 appeared the Capitulaties of Benedict the Levite. This compilation purports to contain the Carlovingian legislation digested in an accessible form, and was for the most part extracted from the collections of Riculfus of Mainz, the sponsor for the Isidorian canons. The work of Benedict contains a large body of genuine laws, thickly interspersed with extracts from the new supposititious clocuments-principally from the canons of Ingilram, thoulgh Isidor likewise furnishes a considerable number. The object of the whole is so evidently to,ive currency to the new doctrines that some critics have been led to the conclusion that Benedict must also have been the real author of the False Decretals.1 These Capitularies were unquestionably received'and used as authoritative, and such customs as they did not simply record they assuredly did much to introduce and strengthen. In them the principle is distinctly and repeatedly declared that the imperial legislation is subordinate to the sacerdotal, and that in any conflict between them the former must give way. Laws contrary to the decretals of the popes or of other prelates are asserted to be null and void;s the anathema is pronounced against any sovereign who sets aside the canons;: and on tile authority of Pius I., an humble Roman bishop of the second century, the broad assertion is made that the imperial law is to be controlled by the divine law-a postulate capable of indefinite extension.4 That these were not merely assertions of a theoKnust is of this opinion, and Denziger labors hard to establish it. Of Benedict's Capitularies, 57, being about five per cent. of the whole, are Isidorian. Capitul. Lib. vii. c. 346 (Ingilram. cap. 39; Gratian. Dist. Ix. can. 4). 3 Capitul. Lib. vi. c. 322 (Ingilram. can. 80; Gratian. cans. 25, q. 1, can. 11). Capitul. Add. III. c. 17 (Gratian, Dist. x. can. 1). The application of these principles can be traced with great clearness in Iceland, which was converted after they had become firmly established. In 1053, within less TILE CHURCH AND THE STATEI. 63 retical prlinciple, but that they were generally enforced and practically admitted, will be manifest fronl various transactions alluded to hereafter, which show how completely tile supremacy of royalty was set aside and the superiority of the spiritual jurisdiction became established. The recognition of the immunity of the ecclesiastical body from all liability to the secular tribunals was one of the principal incidents in this revolution. It forms so curious an episode in the history of legislation, that its proper consideration would carry us too far from our present sulbject, and I therefore design to treat it in a subsequent essay more at lenoth than would be suitable here. Suffice it, therefore, for the present, to say that, in defiance of all precedent, the clergy successfully emancipated themselves -fiom the jurisdiction of the secular power, and established the principle that an ecclesiastic could only be tried by ecclesiastics and be judged by ecclesiastical law. Not content even with this, an attempt was made to establish the superiority of the church in another manner by claiming for it inviolable sanctity, so that the humblest clerk could not even be accused by a layman. This principle was too monstrous to be successful even in that age of ignorance, and the canons which express it in the most unqualified manner are mingle(d with others wvhose careful enumeration of the causes of incompetency in witnesses shows that the more general regulations were rejected by the common sense of mankintd. than half a century after the establishment of Christianity, the sacerdotal power was already strong enough to procure an enactment that whenever the popular laws conflicted with the ecclesiastical, the former must give way (Schlegel, Comment. in Grigels, p. xxiii.). This would seem even to be a superfluous precaution in view of the fact that in the Li6gretto, or central high court, when any difference was found to exist in the copies of the code in the hands of the judges, those in possession of the bishops were held to present the authentic text (Gr.gfls, Sect. II.). C64 THE RISE OF TIlE TEMIPORAL POWER. Bishops were especially the objects of this tender p recantion. As earlly as the fourth century a council of C-arthage bhad forbidden the reception of accusations against bishops on the part of disreputable personls, and the. council of Chalcedon had repeated the prohibition.' At that period such legislation only affected the internal regulations of the church; but when the principle was interpolated in the laws of Charlemagne, it assumed a vastly wider significance, and became applicable to temporal as well as to spiritual matters.2 It is true that the episcopal dignity had been protected from false accusations by a constitution of Valentinian III. in 439, imposing a flue of thirty pounds of gold as a penalty for such transgressions;3 but this severity was not imitated by the barbarians, and the church could onlly defend itself by threatening excolnlmunication in such cases, without appealing for aid to the secular power. Ingilram, Isidorl and their followers, however, took much higher ground. St. Clement was made to assert that Christ had forbidden laymen from accusing their pastors.5 Evaristus, a popie of the fiast century, was authority for the declaration that 1no bishop could be accused lby the comlmolln people." Pius I. was cited to show that tihe sheep slhall not reprove their pastor, nor the people accuse their bishop, for the disciple is not above his master nor the slave above his lorcd.7 Calixtus I. was miade responConell. Carthag. III. c. 7.-Concil. Chalced. can. 21. Ctpit. Carol. Mag. I. ann. 789, ~~ 29, 34; Capit. ann. 794, ~ 34. Const. 23, Cod. I. 3. 4 Concil. Agathens. ann. 506, c. 32. Sed et laicos ab eorum accusatione et vexatione semper repellere debere rogabat, et CUnctos sibi subditos esse prrlcipiebat.... Majores vera a oninoribus nec accusari nec judicari ullatenus posse dicebat.-Pseudo-Clemnent. Epist. 1. 6 Non est a plebe vel a vulgaribus hominibus arguendus vel aceusandus episcopus, licet sit inordinatus. -Pseudo-Evarist. Epist. 1 (Gratian. Caus. Ii. q. 5, can. 1). Oves pastorem snum non reprehendcant, plebs episcopumn non accuset, nec vulgus eumll rgua.t, quoniamz non est disciptlus super mlgistrum, neque servus supra dominum.-Pseudo-Pii Epist. 1 (Gratian. Cans. vi. q. 1, can. 9). THE CHURCH AND THE STATE. 65 sible for the rule that no accusations against prelates were to be entertained, for children are not to reprove their fathers nor are slaves to attack their lords;l and St. Cornelius was quoted to show that such accusations were null, and were therefore harmless to the accused.2 This constant repetition proves the importance attached to the principle, and the persistent efforts made to obtain its recognition, not only as applicable to prelates, but to the whole body of the clergy. Clerical peccadilloes were declared to be objects of toleration and not of punishment,3 and a canon was adopted from Ingilram and Isidor which shielded priests from all accusations brought by those whose virtue and orthodoxy were not known and approved.4 Even this was not enougll, and Ingilramrn produced a canon declaring as a general principle that the evidence of a layman against an ecclesiastic was never to be received;5 while Isidor manufactured the proceedings of a council held in Rome under Sylvester I., in 325, which repeated the canon of Ingilram, with the addition that no layman should bring a charge against a clerk.6 The former of these was formally promulgated as a rule of the church by the council of Mainz in 847;7 while the latter is adopted in a law Criminationes contra doctorem nemo suscipiat, quia non oportet filios patres reprehendere, nec servos dominos lacerare.-Pseudo-C;lixt. Epist. 1 (lyon. Decret. P. v. cap. 234. Cf. Capitul. Lib. vi. c. 357; Lib. v. c. 315). " Quoniamn tales accusationes vim non habent, neque eis nocere possunt.Pseudo-Cornel. Epist. 2. 3 Pastor ecclesim... pro reprobis moribus mnagis est tolerandus quanm distringendus.-Pseudo-Anaclet. Epist. 5 (Remnig. Curiens. Episc. can. 17). Quorum fides, vita, et libertas nescitur non possunt sacerdotes accusare. -Ingilram. c. 16; Pseudo-Calixt. Epist. 2; Pseudo-Fabian. Epist. 2 (Capitul. Lib. vI. cap. 359). Testimonium laici adversus clericum nenro suscipiat.-Ingilram. can. 73. 6 Constitutum est ut nullus laicus crimen clerico audeat inferre... testin onium laici adversus clericumn nemno recipiat.-Pseudo-Sylvester. Cf. Pseudo-Marcellin. Epist. 3. Concil. Mogunt. ann. 847, can. 7.-This was, however, unsuccessful, for another council of Mainz, a few years later, expressly adntsits sgcular accusers, — Concil. Mogunt. ann. 851, can. 8. G66 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. attributed to Louis-le-Ddb)onnaire in the Lombard code, with a chanle which denied to clerks the power of accusing laymen -thus separating the two classes entirely, and placing them upon equal ground.' Impolitic as this might be, it was at all events fair, and it accorded with another passage in the forgeries,2 but though it subsequently became recognized to some extent, owing to the influence of the Isidorian decretals33 yet tile clergy were not prepared to surrender the power which they were rapidly acquiring over the laity by the extension of their jurisdiction. The Carlovingian policy employed them as an efficient instrument of civilization, and to deprive them of the right to accuse would have been to deprive them of much of their influence. The council of Mainz, in 813, made it the duty of every priest, under penalty of degradation, to see that tlhe misdeeds of his parishioners were d(uly punished;4 and that this power was enlarged rather tha-n restricted will be seen presently when we come to consider the jurisdiction of the church. The inviolability thus claimed for the clerical office was not left entirely to theoretical declarations of principle. Charlemagne had been induced to adopt one of the canons of the Isidorialn council of Rome under Sylvester, according to which it was decreed that for the conviction of a bishop the testimony of seventy-two witnesses was.requisite, while forty-four were necessary in'the case of a priest, thirlty-seven in that of'a cardinal-deacon, and seven for a sulb-deacon-all to be heads of families and professing L1. Longob. Ludov. Pii Iv. (Lib. ii. Tit. 51, 1. 12.) 2 Pseudo-Fabian. Epist. 2. Gratian. Cans. 2, q. 7, can. 6.- -In the twelfth century, Alexander IIIoTT. laid this down as a general rule (Jaffe, Regest. p. 813) i and it seems to have been in full vigor in the Scottish law. of the fourteenth century. "Approbatione, acquietatione, et testimonio repelluntur... c leripi contral laicos et e converso." —Roberti I. Scot. Stat. II. cap. 34. Concil. MIogont. ann: 813, can. 7. THE CHURCH AND THE STATE. 6 [ Christians.1 Louis le D)bonnaire issued a capitula'ry by which any one offering insult or injury to a prelate was forced to compound for his life, all his property was confiscated to the church, and in addition he was to pay to the king the heavy fine of a triple "bannum,"? or sixty solidi, with the proviso that if unable to make the payment, he 1becalme a slave of the fise until he could do so-wh-lich was probably for life.2 Benedict the Levite went even further. According to him, the accusation of a bishop was an accusation of the ordinance of God, and the calumniator of his bishop was a homicide, to be dealt with accordin gly.3 These claims were too exaoggcrated to be fully adcmiitted, though they left their impress in some degree upon the institutions of the middle ages.4 It was fortunate, indeed, for the church, that they had not all the success desired by their authors. The immunity acquired friom secular jurisdiction was an efficient cause of the all-pervading corruption which eventually infected the church, and had it been accompanied with immunity firom secular accusation, the sacerdotal body, thus elevated into a supreme and inaccessible caste, would have becorme so pestilential that religion itself might have perished under the infliction, and Capit. Carol. Mag. vi. ann. 806, ~ 23.-Ingilram. can. 72; Pseudo-Syl.. vester-though the numbers of the witnesses are not precisely the same. A variation of this regulation occurs among the fragments attributed to Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, towards the close of the seventh century (Thorpe, Ant. Laws, &c. of England, II. 73)., Capit. Ingelenheim. Lnudov. Pii, cap. 3.-I believe the anuthenticity of this capitulary has never been called in question, and yet the whole of its provisions are so'extravagantly in favor of the church that I am inclined to regard it as supposititious, or at least interpolated. Capitul. Lib. vII. cap. 167, 203. In the tenth century, Atto of Vercelli, on the authority of the False Decretals, asserts for the clergy as a right the immunity from secular accusantion (De Pressuris Eccles. P. I.); and St. Stephen of HI-ungary adopted the principle as an absolute rule in his laws —" Testimonium laici adversus clericum nemlo recipiat."-Legg. S. Steph. IIung,. cap. iii. 68 THE RISE OF TIIHE TEMPORAL POWtER. tile progTress of civilization might have been indefinitely postponed. While thus throwing off all subjection to the judicial authority of the state, the church was making rapid progress in acquiring an important share in the general administration of justice. The functions of the judge are amonog the miost potential sources of influence, and a class that can arrogate to itself; as a class-privilege, the rig'ht to administer the law, has thereby secured to itself no small portion of the government of the body politic. To comnbine this source of power with the ministrations of religion, was to control the life, here and hereafter, of every mana prize worth striving for, and for which the ecclesiastics possessed a favorable base of operations. In the early days of Christianity, the church was a society of voluntary cohesion, purified to a considerable extent of worldly and nnruly elements by the fires of occasional persecution. Even without the exhortations of St. Paul and the reproof administered by him to those whose litigious propensities brought them before heathen judges (1 Corinth. vi.), the law of Christian love would naturally lead all members to refer questions arising among themselves to the friendly arbitration of the elders or bishops, and the prevalence of this custom is shown by its continuance into the fifth century.' How perfectly natural was this rule at its origin, in a society holding itself aloof from the institutions almong which it was placed, is shown by the adoption of a sitmilar regulation by the French Hug'uenots in the sixteenth century;2 and as long' as the church was thus isolated and kept pure, there was little risk that any one would incur the infamy of rejecting the decision of such an arbiter. 1 Constit. Apostol. Lib. II. cap. 49, 50. —Concil. Carthag. III. ann. 397, can. 9.-Concil. Chalced. can. 9. 2 Synod of Saumur, ann. 1596, chap. iv. Art 35 (Quick, Synodicon in Gallia Reformanta,). TIHE CHUIRC H AND THE STATE. 69 WVlhen, however, the despised and oppressed sect grew ricll and powerl'fid, and when, at length, dominant in the ejnpilre it became the channel through which atvarice and ambition might gratifyr their desires, the necessity arose of either abandoninT the custom or of giving legal validitv to thle episcopal judgments. Accordingly, a law of Arcadini s and -onorius, in 398, declares that those who desire to refer civil suits to the arbitration of bishops shall not be prevented from doing so; and another, in 408, renders final the decisions in such cases, and directs the civil officials to execute them.1 It will be observed that these regulatiollns refer exclusively to powers of alrbitration conferred by the consent of both parties; and where a prelate enjoyeed a reputation for sagacity and piety. this arbitrative function was extensively called into action. The complaints of St. Augustine are well k]nown, that pleaclers ca-ne before him in such numbers as sadly to interfere with his legitimate spiritual dluties, and yet he had done his share in brinoging a~bout this state of things, for he taught that litigation between Christians was a sin, pardonable only on condition of being urged before an ecclesiastical judg e.2 His contemporary, Synesius, was no less harassed with the worldly character of the occupations in which he thus found himself involved. Forced unwillingly to accept the bishopric of Ptolemais, he inveighed particularly against the judicial functions fastened upon him, which he regarded as altogether incompatible with the religious duties of his position, and he requested permission either to resign or to have a coadjutor mlore fitted for the management of civil affairs, a magistrate, apparently, being more wanted than a priest.3 St. Martin of Tours, not long h efore, had found an expedient for escaping, partially at least, these interruptions of his pious meditations, for, until he had 1 Const. 7, 8. Cod. I. 4. 2 Augustin. Serm. cccLI. ~ 5.' Synesii Epist. 57. 70 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. celebrated mass each day, he kept himself secluded, and delegated to his attendant priests the office of deciding such af-tirs.l Silvanus, Bishop of the Troad, a contemporary of Synesius and St. Augurstine, adopted the same system; but he soon found that his priests were gaining filthy lucre from the judicial powers thus delegated to them, and he won mluch credit by substitutinog for them a layman of approved character and experience, whose decisions gave general satisfaction.2 It is evident that the custom was widely prevalent. All prelates, however, were not so disinterested as Silvanlus, and it is evident from his case that money was to be made by abusing the public confidence thus reposed in the episcopal character. That power and influence were likewise to be acquired is self-evident, and it is scarcely to be supposed that the temptation was always resisted. Efforts, indeed, were constantly macle to convert this friendly jurisdiction into a legal attribute, for Valentinian III., in 452, found it necessary to put a stop to the discussion of the sulbject by a constitution which expressly declared that bishops could only exercise judicial functions with consent of both parties;3 and Honorius had already felt called upon to prevent the prelates from trespassing on the functions of the courts by a law declaring that they had cognizance of religious matters only, all secular actions belongiing to the civil tribunals.4 Special cases, it is true, were occasionally referred to them by command of the monarch;5 antd Justinian conferred on them a certain amount of supervisory power. They were instructed to visit the prisons weekly to see that the prisoners were not harshly treated, and when interference was necessary they were instructed 1 Sulpie. Sever. Dial. mi. 2 Socrat. Hist. Eceles. Lib. vII. cap. 36. N3 ovell. Valentin. llI. Tit. 35. Lib. xvi. Cod. Theocl, Tit. 11, 1. 1. Cf. Tit. 2, 1. 23.' Theodorici Const. 67 (Goldtst. III. 49). Novell. 123, c. 21. TIHE CIIHURCH AND THE STATE. ] to report the matter to the Emperor.l Whien unreasonable delay occurred, the plaintiff in a suit could appeal to his bishop who might summon the judge to render speedy justice; if the pleader feared partiality he could demand that the bishop should have a seat on the bench; if dissatisfied with a judgment he could appeal to the bishop, who thein heard the case as between judge and plaintiff, and could condemn the former to make good any damage unjustly inflicted on the latter, subject to an appeal to the Emperor.2 This power, thouogh not inconsiderable, was exceedingly limited in its range, but the Western Barbarians were much more ready to foster the judicial flunctions of the church; and the alacrity with which this disposition was welcomed is shown in the commands of St. Patrick to his new converts to bring all their disputes for settlement to the church, under penalty of expulsion.3 It is easy to understand the causes which favored this extension of power. The rude and imperfect ancestral codes of the Barbarians of course became rapidly unsuited to the wants of the possessors of the fairest provinces of Rome, creating the desire for a more complex system of law; and as every manl was entitled to be judged by the customs of his race, there must have arisen a confusion of jurisprudence elmbarrassing in the highest degree to the honest, but untutored rachinborg. The impatient Frank, when engaged in litigation with a Roman, might disdain to submit to the jurisdiction of a judge of the conquered race, and might well prefer to lay his case before a bishop whom he regarded with deserved respect; while, on the other hand, the Roman, in a quarrel with a Barbarian, would likewise desire the sentence of a judge whose decrees miglht command obedielce when those of a compatriot might be received with undisguised contempt. We can thus readily understand the creation of an important voluntary juris1 Const. 22, Cod. I. 4. " Novrell. 86, cap. 1, 2, 4. 3 S. Patric. Synod. I. ann. 456, can. 21. 72 TIIE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. diction, of which the extent can be gathered from the canons of the council of Tarragona as early as 51.6, forbidding the clergy friom hearing causes on Sundays, or fr'om entertaining criminal actions, though permitting them at other times to dispense justice in civil cases with the consent of parties;' while the eleventh council of Toledo, in 675, found it necessary to threaten deposition and perpetual excolimmunication against all ecclesiastics concerned in rendering sentences of death or mutilationl —a caution found also in the English canons. of the eighth century.3 The WTisigoths, indeed, were disposed to clothe their bishops with very extended jurisdiction, copied with additions friom the legislation of Justinian and freed from the check of the supervision of the sovereign. The laws of Ricaswind, for instance, empower a plaintiff; who suspects his judge of partiality, to demand the association of a bishop with him on the benchl; when bishops were selected as arbitrators their verdicts were rendered binding', and the court that refused to execute them was visited witlh a heavy fine; and, finally, they were authorized to reverse all unjust (lecisions, either with or without the consent of the judge.4 There is little evidence, however, that these Concil. Tarracon. ann. 510, can. 4. " Concil. Toletan. XI. can. G. Ecgberti Excerpt. cap. 156. 4 LI. Wisigoth. Lib. II. Tit. 1, 11. 23, 29, 30. The first and third of these laws, by far the most important in the power conferred by them, are retained in the Fuero Juzgo (Lib. II. Tit. 1, 11. 22, 28), showing how thoroughly the power of the bishops survived the overthrow of the Gothic monarchy. Yet unnder the influence of the revival of the Roman law, the judicial power of the clergy declined there as elsewhere. The code framed in the thirteenth century by Alphonso the Wise gives the bishops only an admonitory power over the judges, and orders them to report to the king all unjust decisions (Las Siete Particldas, P. I. Tit. 6, 1. 48). The same law forbids ecclesiastics to preside in the adjudication of secular cases, " porque serie vergiienza de se entremleter del fuero de los legos los que seflialadiemente son dados para servicio de Dios" —except in certain matters, the careful enumeration of which reveals consi(eralble jealousy of clerical encroachments. This perhaips was essential when even mlonks assumed judicial functions, and it TIHE CHtURCIH AND THE STATE. 73 vast lrerogatives, which trenched so closely on tile royal polwer had muchl practical effect in an age of turbulent anarchy, though the reverence of legislators might leave them a place on the statute-book. That they were an innovation on the ancestral customs of the race is shown by the canons of the fourth council of Toledo in 6o3, not long previous, in which the supervisory power of the bishops is limited to the right of reporting to the kingo all arbitrary perversions of justice; though another canon of the same council attributes to the yearly provincial councils the duty of hearing complaints against magistrates and men in power, both ecclesiastical and secular.1 In France the same tendency to rely upoin the church to correct the abuses of the secular courts is seen in an edict of Clotair I. in 560, which directs that in the absence of the king the bishops shall reprove the judges for any unjust sentences, in orlder that on further investigoation the wrong Y may be made right?.2 This, if generally enforced, must have given to the church a very extensive appellate jurisdiction, which could readily be made the instrument of immense influence; but that the stricter churchmeln regarded the exercise of judicial functions as incompatible with thle ecclesiastical character is shown by Gregory of Tours, who reproaches Badegesilus, the unclerical bishop of Le Mans, with sitting -as associate judgoe in secular tribunals-evidently considering such proceedings to be as iregular as the military exploits of that rapacious prelate.3 became necessary to prohibit such violation of their vows (Ibid. P. III. Tit. 4, 1. 4). That this was not uncalled for is shown by its retention in the Ordenamiento dle Alcal[a, a subsequent body of law remaining in force until the latter half of the fifteenth century. C1 oncil. Toletan. IV. can 31, 3. " Const. Chlot. ann. 560, ~ 6. 3 Greg. Turon. Hist. Lib. vIII. cap. 39. The Welsh law also pronounced ecclesiastics incapable of acting as judges (Dimetian Code, Bk. II. Chap. viii. 12S). HIow thoroughly the views of the church in regard to this became altered in the course of time, and how completely the opposite prilcilleo became engrafted on the institutions of ChristendoLm, are well illustrated by 74 TIIE RTISE OF TIIE TEMPORAL POWER. About this time we also find the church laying hold of an extensive sphere of jurisdiction, which could not but prove greatly conducive to the enlargement of its power and influence. Its duties of charity and benevolence rendered it naturally the protector of the unprotected. The widow, the orphan, the freedman, who had no other friend, would look to the minister of Christ for the assistance to be vainly expected elsewhere in a busy and turbulent world, and the church would be false to its teachings if it neglected the cry of the oppressed and friendless. Accordingly, we find Gregory the Great instructing his legates and bishops to see that justice was done to these classes of society, in a manner which shows that he must have been frequently appealed to, and that throulghout Italy and the Islands an extensive ecclesiastical jurisdiction was springing up in civil suits of this nature.1 The same process was developing itself even more rapidly in France, for, in, 585, the second council of IMacon was able to express as a received principle of jurisprudence that, in suits involving the right of freedmen, secular judges had no jurisdiction, and that where orphans and widows were concerned the judge must give notice to the bishop, who should himself sit, or send a deputy to preside along with the civil mlagistrate.2 the long line of ecclesiastical Chancellors of England, extending from the Saxon period beyond the Reformation, and even into the seventeenth century in the person of Bishop Williams. A relic of it, indeed, is still seen in the strangely incongruous functions of the Anglican bishops as members of the House of Lords —the High Court of Justice of the realm. I may add that the earliest Icelandic code extant, the GrtigS.s, compiled about 1118, nearly a century after the conversion of the island, shows the bishops as a portion, e: oficio, of the Liigretto, or chief central court (Grigds, Sect. II.), besides which they had a limited jurisdiction in their respective districts (Ibid. Sect. v. Tit. 31). In France this extension of ecclesiastical functions was checked by Philippe le Bel, who declared clerks to be incapable of acting as judges for the very good and sufficient reason that the immunity enjoyed by them rendered them irresponsible for abuse of power (Les Olihm, T. II. p. 269). Gregor. PP. I. Lib. I Epist. 13, 61, 62, 63; Lib. II. Epist. 5. 2 Concil. Mlatiscon IT. ann. 585, can. 7, 12. TIE CHTURTCII AND TI-E STATE. 75 All this passed away ill the anarchy,which accompanlied the downftall of the AMerovingians, andT was sedulously avoided in the Carlovingian reconstruction. Any traces, indeed, that mig(hIt have remained mnust soon have beenc destroyed by the system of Missi Dominici, which formed so prominent a feature of' the civilizing and centralizing institutions of Charlelagne. Any secular jurisdiction remaining to the bishops nmust have been limited solely to fiiendly arbitration; and even this the intelligent jealousy of the emperors was desirous of abolishing, for there is a capittlary forbidding any one to select ecclesiastical judges whlen there was a secular tribunal accessible, even if both parties consented.l It is true that Charlemagne in 813 directed the bishops to inquire, in their diocesan visitations, into all crimes committed within their boundaries, but he was careful not to accompany this with any authority for trial or punishment.2 The only judicial power, therefore, remaining was that whiclh frequently attached to territorial possessions, by which the vassal, whether laynman or ecclesiastic, had the privilege of administering justice within his own domains.3 This was a very ancient privilege, being alluded to in an edict of Childebert I. in 595, and in one of Clotair II. in 615, while a charter of Clhilperic II. in 717 declares that all donations from the royal fise carry with them this imm unity fiom public jurisdiction, thus ygiving rise to the seignorial "' droits de justice" of the feudal system.> This privilege, though it conferred the Capitul. Lib. v. c. 387.-It is evident from this that the claause "ut episcopi justitias faciant in suas parochias" (Capit. Carol. Mag. ann. 794, ~ 4) refers only to ecclesiastical questions, which, indleedl, may be gathered fromn the context itself. " Calpit. Clarol. Mag. Il. ann. 813, cap. 1. 3 See Marculf. Formul. Lib. I. No. 3, 4, 14, 16, 17, etc.' These grants not unfrequently took a wider range, and in process of time contributed powerfully to render the hierarchy a class of feudal lords. Thus, in 848, a grant froIm the Emperor Lothair investecd John, Bishop of Trieste, with all the imperiali rights in that city and in its territory for a. circuit of 76 THE RISE OF TIIE TEMPORAL PO'WER. power of life and death,l was exclusively a private right, and, however extensive the possessions of the church mi-lht be, it was far inferior to the public supremacy ainmlei at by the authors of the forgeries. [oreover, Charlemlagne, finding that it interfered with his civilizing efforts, and that the ecclesiastical benefices were converted thronugh it into asylums for malefactors, restricted it, in his additions to the Salic law in 803, by giving to the imperial officials the right to pursue criminals taking refuge in such territories, with heavy penalties -for all attempts at opposition.2 To obtain for the church, as a recognized right, the power to administer justice, might well appear to the fabricators of Ingilramn and Isidor an. advantage worthy of serious effort. It might seem conferred by the broad plerogatives contained in the forged donation of the Western Empire by Constantine to Sylvester; but that document claimed too much, and had thus far been treated with silent contempt. lRecourse was therefore had to a source of undisputed authority, wherein the presumable ignorance of laymen might allow falsification to escape detection. The Theodosian code was held in great irespect throughout the West, where the legislation of Justinian was comparatively little known. The Wisigoths had even abandoned nmuch of their ancestral jurisprudence in its favor, and, as the basis of all law for the populations not strictly Barbarian, it was the " Lex Ptomana qum est omniumr humanarum mater legumni.'3 In this august and authoritative code three miles, conveying not only the revenues from toll and tribute, but also the sole jurisdiction in all suits (Liinig, Cod. Ital. Diplom. I. 2489). It was thus that the central power was parcelled out and the feudal system established. In some places the clergy were carefully excluded from these privileges. Thus, the Welsh laws provided that when an ecclesiastic was entitled to a place on the bench in consequence of territorial possessions, he must leave it before the rendering of the sentence.-Dimetian Code, Book II. chap. viii. ~ 132 (Owen's Ancient Laws, &c. of Wales, I. 479). Capit. Carol. Mag. IV. ann. 80), ~ 1. o Ejusd. Capit. II. ann. 803, ~ 2. 3 Capitul. Addit. iv. cap. 100. -TIIE CHURCHII AND THIE STATE. 77 a bold interpolation was effected by insertingo amid laws directly opposite in their tenor, one which authorized either party in a suit, at any stage of the proceedings, fiom the first plea to the time of rendering the verdict9 to take the affair out of court and place it in the hands of a bishop, even against the protest of his adversary; and the decision of the holy prelate was to be without appeal, and to be held inviolate through all time. This monstrous perversion of justice was then transferred to the capitularies, where it was prefaced in the nmost solemn manner as having been adopted by the emperor, with the consent of his subjects, as part and parcel of the law of the land, binding on all the nations which owed obedience to the Carlovingian sceptre.' The False Decretals enforced its application by Capitul. Lib. vI. cap. 366.-Historians have generally admitted the genuineness of Charleimagne's promulgation of this regulation. No original capitulary, however, has been found containing it, nor is it embodied in the authoritative collection of Ansegise; while its direct opposition to the leading principles of the Carlovingian policy is, I think, evidence sufficient to condemn the imperial sanction, as well as the forgery which it indorses. The latter still occupies its place in the Theodosian Code, and the demonstration of its falsity was reserved for the learned Godefroy, in the seventeenth century (Lib. xvI. Cod. Theod. Tit. 12). It thus passed current throughout the middle ages, and was mainly relied on in 1329 by the bishops when they resisted the efforts of Philip of Va.lois to curtail the extensive and profitable jurisdiction of the spiritual courts. They boldly affirmed, indeed, that it was irrepealable-'" imo est privilegiuml honorabile, toti ecelesive concessum, quod imperator tollere nonl potest, ut nec alias ecclesis libertates" (Bertra.ndi contra P. de Cngneriis Lib.). The wide extent of this jurisdiction may be conceived from the limitations imposed on it in 1464 by Matthias I. of Hiungary-'" Praiter factum testamenti, matrimonii, dotull et rerum pa.raphernaliarulm, perjurii, verberationis et spoliationis clericorulm et mulieruml, ac priater illas ali as causes qumo prophanwm non essent, in foro spirituali nulla, causa tractetur" (lBatthyani Legg. Eccles. Hung. I. 503). This was repeated in 1492 by Vladislas II. (Legg. Uladis. II. c. 14). Until the revival of the civil law, there can be no question that this extension of ecclesiastical jurisdiction was in the main a benefit to humanity; but one great source of evil inherent in it was that the papal court constituted a, tribunal of last resort, to which cases could alwnys be carrliecd by appeal. In process of time this came to be done even froml the secular 7* 78 TIlE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. directing that all questions should be submitted to the church for adjudication, and that every one feeling himself wronged should have full liberty of invoking the ecclesiastical tribunals, which would see that he was righted.1 When such doctrines were successfully advanced, it is no wonder that the text " Spiritualis autem judicat omnia; et ipse a nerine judicatur"7 (1 Co7'inlth. ii. 15) could be advanced as a maxim of law, showing that the ecclesiastic was empowered to judge all men and all things, and was himself to be judged by none2-and that this pretension was lmeasurably successful is abundantly manifest. As the royal power declined, it leaned more and more upon the church for support. and endeavored to supplement its waning judicial authority by intrusting it to the hands of those who might have a better chance of obtaining obedience by combining the respect due to prelates with that due to judges. Tlus, in the extradition treaties made by the sons of Louis le Debonnaire in 857 and 860, providing for the capture and delivery of all criminals escaping from one kingdomn to another, it is curious to note that reference courts, for the authority of the pope was supreme over all human legislation. The complaints of the council of Constance in 1414 (Concil. Constant. Art. Reform. cur. Roem. No. vi., vii.) show that vast numbers of cases were thus carried up by suitors dissatisfied with the decisions of local judges, forming an abuse of no little magnitude. Yielding to the urgent solicitations of the council, Martin V. in 1418 issued a decree promising that cases from the secular courts should no longer be revised at RoIme, but he stoutly maintained his right to review the proceedings of all ecclesiastical tribunals (Hartzheim. V. 137, 146). The extensive secular jurisdiction enjoyed by them rendered this an evil keenly felt by the community, as the power of' thus carrying suits to so distant:a point enabled wealthy pleaders to dictate terms of settlement to poorer antagonists. Quscunque ergo contentiones inter Christianos orta fuerint ad ecclesiam deferantur, et ab ecclesiasticis viris terminentur.-Pseudo-Marcellin. Epist. II. Omnis enim oppressus libere sacerdotum, si voluerit, appellet judicium, et a nullo prohibeatur, sed ab his fulciatur et liberetur.-Pseudo-Anaclet. Epist. I.` Capitul. Add. tII. c. 20. TIHE CHI-IURCH AND THE STATE. 79 is made only to fugitives from episcopal sentencesl —as though the functions of the royal courts had been virtually suspended. This, indeed, almost seems to have been the case. In 857 we find Charles le Chauve commanding that all m alefactors throughout the kingdom —m urderers, burglars, robbers, thieves. oppressors, &c.-should be tried by the bishops, and then handed over to the counts for punishment; while, to render this more efficacious, all priests were directed to make out lists of the offenders in their parishes, who were to be brought before the bishops if recalcitrant under the efforts of their pastors.2 To make this jurisdiction, if possible, more complete, at the synod of Pontyon in 876 he invested the bishops with the authority of royal 1fiissi in their respective parishes.3 Armed with this power, and under cover of a forged decretal attributed to Pope Euatychianus, a system of the most minute inquisition became established. In his visitations, the bishop summoned before him in every parish seven good men and true, who were sworn under the most solemn adjurations to answer all questions without fear or favor. A series of eighty-nine interrog'atories was then put to them as to the commlission in the parish of all the offences against human or divine law that the most perverse ingenuity could suggest. A more searching grand inquest could scarcely have been invented, as it must have elicited all the rumors, scandals, and surmises that floated around in each little co mmlunity.4 The church thus absorbed, in theory at least, the whole administration of criminal justice, with its overwhelming influence; and, as if this was not sufficient, the power of sitting in judgment on the king himself, and of deposing C apit. Carol. Cal. Tit. x. c. 5; Tit. xxxI. c. 5 (Baluz. II. 65, 139).. Capit. Carol. Cal. Tit. xxIv. c. 3, 8. 3 Capit. Carol. Cal. Tit. XLVII. C. 12. 4 Reinon. de Discip. Eccles. Lib. ii. cap. 2, 3, 4, 5.-Burchard. Decret. Lib. I: c. 90-94. 80 TIHE RISE OF THII TEMPORAL POWER. him, was not only arlroatedi, but admitted. The sons of Louis le lelonnaire had thus made use of the episcopal authority as a stalking-horse in their parricidal chase, and, with the increase of episcopal prerogative, the invention returned to plague its inventors. Charles, guiltless in this respect at least, is seen addressing his prelates in 859, even in his hour of triumiph after the recovery of his kingdom: 6'I should not be dethroned, at least without being heard and judged by the bishops, whose ministry consecrated me as kilng, who are styled the thrones of' God, in whom God resides, and througtl wrhonm He makes manifest His decrees. To their paternal admonitions and punishment I amn ready to submit, and now do submit myself."' This was the acknowledgcment and legitimate application of the doctrine attrlibuted by Isidor to the humble Clement, disciple of St. Peter, commanding princes and peoples to render to priest and bishop the same obedience as that rendered to God, under the severest penalties in this world and the next.' The legitimate result of these principles was seen, when, in the thirteenth century, the secular lawgivers of Germany, friaming a code for the people, declared that the pope is the fountain of justice, temporal as well as spiritual, and that from him is derived the jurisdiction of emperors and princes, who are bound to execute his decrees.3 Capit. Carol. Cal. Tit. xxx. c. 3. a Pseudo-Clement. Epist. III.-Also Ejusd. pist. II. —; Quonialm qui eis resistit, Deo resistit."-Nearly ts extravagant was the principle that the laity should do nothing without the consent of their bishops. Strangers were not to settle in a diocese, nor were the inhabitants to leave it, without episcopal permission-"Animns vero eorum ei creditrt sunt; ideo onlnia ejus concilio agere debent. et eo inconsulto nihil.' —Pseudo-Clement. Epist. III. -Remnigii Curiens. Episc. can. 4, 5. 3 Specul. Suevic. Introit. ~~ 22, 23, 24. That this was extracted by the compiler of the code froml the sermons of Berthold of Ratisbon (Alex. a Daniels de Saxon Specul. Orig. p. 19), does not render it less an authorized expression of the recognized doctrine of the period that the pope wss the source of all human authority. It is somewhat singular, however, to observe it in a code wherein the revivedc imperial juristprudence is quoted. In 135 we THE CHURC0 AND THE STATE. 81.Alongside of the secular judicial power thus obtained, there had gradually sprung' up a spiritual jurisdiction which was even more potential and more lastiiie in its influence, and which gave added terrors to the exercise of secular justice by its command of the next world through the instrumlentality of the dreaded anathemlna. To give to this important element in ecclesiastical authority the full consideration which it deserves would, however, lead us too far from our prPesent subject, and it will therefore be treated in a subsequent essay. In the comprehensive struggle for independence and supremacy, of which we have thus traced out some of the details, but one point was wanting to release the church from all subjection to the secular authority. As long as the crown exercised the power of appointing to the high places in the hierarchy, its control could not be entirely shaken off, aFnd the inferiority of the ecclesiastic was inmplied as well as expressed. That an effort should be made to get rid of the royal prerogative of investiture was therefore to be expected. In the early period of the church the choice of its bishops was made by popular election, the community as well as the clergy enjoying the right of suffrage;l and in somne places the people were held responsible for the misdeeds of their prelates, because they not only chose them but had the power to eject the unworthy.2 A certain amount of concurrent supervision over the fitness of the aspirant was also exercised by the neighboring bishops, owing to the necessity of their ministry in the consecration.3 As these find Bishop Alvarez Pelayo proving the same doctrine from the decretals — that the emperor is merely the vicar of the pope, and derives from him all his jurisdiction (De Planctu Eccles. Lib. I. Art. lxviii. No. I.).' Qui prlfuturus est omnibus ab omnibus eligatur. —Leon. PP. I. Epist. 10, cap. 6. o Cyprian. Epist. 67 (Ed. Oxon). 3 Cyprian. loc. cit.-Concil. Lnodicens. can. 12, 13-Concil. Sardicens. can. 6-Cf. Chlr. Lupi Scholion in Can. Nicmcn. 4 (Opp. 1. 239). 82 THE RISE OF THE TEMIPORAL POWER. ven eral principles were everywhere establishedl it is hardcly worth while to trace the vicissitudes to which they were exposecl by time or accident, and while the Chlristians cOIntinued a poor and insignificant sect, unrecog'nized by the law, or recognized only in persecution, no interference with their choice of ecclesiastical superiors was to be expected friom the secular magistrates. As the church became wealthy and powerful, however, common prudence would dictate to the sovereign the necessity of some colitrol over the selection of those who were in reality high officers in the state as well as spiritual dignitaries. While the minor bishoprics thus might continue to be filled as of old by the choice of the community, the powerful primatial sees would naturally fall under the influence of the throne, and we have seen that eventually the right of confirmation virtually amounted to the right of appointment in the case of lim who was highest of all.' The church thus paid the penalty of its worldly aspirations; and the temporalities to which it clung with such tenacity weighed it to the earth and rendered it the subject of those whom it desired to. master. As its territorial acquisitions increased, so grew the necessity of royal supervision and control over those who administered them.2 The tribute of military service owed by the lands was in itself a sufficient reason for the king' to have some part in the nomination of those who were to render it in person or' Odoacer stretched his prerogative somewhat when he demanded to be consulted in advance-a presumption which was condemned after his overthrow (Synod. Roman. zv. c. 2), but which was apparently submitted to without remonstrance during his life. " I have not space to enter upon the history of the territorial aggranndizemnent which rendered the ecclesiastical body so formidable a portion of the feudal republic. The general facts are well known, and a detailed investigation would require a treatise in itself. A single instance will sufficiently illustrate the result-that in the eleventh century the Abbey of Fulda held fiefs which were bound to furnish to the imperial service no less than six thousand well-app(,inted fighting men. Engelhus. Chron. ed. 1671, p. 199. THE CHURCII AND THE STATE. 83 by proxy, and though Charlemagne forbade ecclesiastics firom bearingo arms themselves he took care not to exempt them from the duty of furlnishing their quota of troops. The theory therefore was election by the diocese in general, confirmation by the king, and consecration by the metropolittan and his suffragans; but the right of confirmation implies the right of rejection, and tile latter, in the hands of energetic or unscrupulous sovereigns, practically amounts to the appointing power. Scarcely had the Franks secured to themselves their rapid conquest of Gaul when even the zealous piety of recent conversion could not restlain them from assuming this right of appointment in its most absolute form as a portion of the royal prerogative; aind the repeated allusions of Gregoory of Tours show that it was the rule and not tile exception. Thus, in the important diocese of Tours we find, in 520, the singular spectacle of two bisho*ps conjoined, Theodorus and Proculus, by command of Queen. Clotilda. In a little more than a year they are succeeded by Dinisius, chosen by the king; and two years later the see is occupied by Onmantius, by order of King Clodomir.l The bishoprics were -wealthy; the sovereigns were greedy, and it was not long before thle royal prerogative was made a source of revenue. As early as 517, when St. Quintianus was elected by the people to the see of Auvergne, a certain Apollinaris hastened to King Thierry, and by heavy bribes secured the appointment in defiance of. the popular wish.2 It is true that half a century later Gontran showed his independclence of such considerations when he indignantly rejected the presents offered to induce him to abandon his intention of bestowing the see of Bourges on Sulpitius,s but an incidental remark of Gregory of Tours in his life of St. Gall of Clermont, indicates that simony was already Greg. Turon. Iist. Franc. Lib. x. cap. 31; Lib. II. cap. 17. Ibid. Lib. i.l. cap. 2, Ibid. Lib. vi. c. 39. 84 TIIE RISE OF TIIE TEMPORAL POWER. becoming a recognized custom,l and the condemnation of such practices by the Council of Orleans, in 549, shows that they amounted to an evil of magnitude.? Even when the nomination to bishoprics was not a matter of bargain and sale, and when the forms of an election were preserved, it was often nothing more than an acknowledged farce. On the death of St. Gall of Clermont, about 550, a priest named Cato was elected his successor. Theodebald the king was a mere boy, and Cato ventured to assume the episcopal functions without awaiting the royal confirmation. He quarrelled with and imprisoned his archdeacon, Cautinns, who managed to escape and fled to the court, where le found himself the first to announce the death of St. Gall. Taking advantage of the opportunity lie procured the grant of the bishopric, and when Cato's messengers arrived to ask for confirmation, they found himl already consecrated. TCautinus took possession of the see, but his enjoyment of it was troubled by the partisans of Cato, and to rid himself of the annoyance he procured for his rival an election to the see of Tours on the death of Gunther in 555. Cato meanwhile had curried favor with Prince Chramnes and had received a promise that on the death of Clotair he should be reinstated in Clermont; so, when the Tourangeois came to invite him, he hesitated to accept, and they curtly told him to decide at once, as they had not clhosen him of their own fiee will, but by order of the king. Hie let them depart, when they elected Euphronius, and on presenting his name for appointment to Clotair they were sternly asked wliy they had disregarded his commands with respect to Cato. The latter then applied again for reinstatement in Clermont, but the king only laughed at him.3 Greg. Turon. de. Sanct. Patr. cap. 3. e Concil. Aurelianens. V. ann. 549, can. 10. This canon recognizes the concurrent authority of the sovereign. Greg. Turon. llist. Franc. Lib. Iv. cap. 5, 6, 7, 11, 15. THE CHURCH AND THE STATE. 85 Such habitual invasions of the primitive liberties of the church were not submitted to without a struggle. A council of Paris, in 557, protested against the abuse of the royal power, in a canon which directs that any appointee not duly elected shall be refused ordination by the metropolitan and his suffragans, and that any episcopal traitor not keeping the engagement shall be cut off from communion with the rest.l How impossible it was to maintain this resolution in opposition to the brute force of the Merovingian kings is exemplified by a transaction occurring a few years later. A certain Emerius was installed as Bishop of Saintes by order of Clotair I., under circumstances of peculiar irregularity, the king having dispensed with the services of the metropolitan in the consecration. At the death of Clotair, the offended Archbishop Leontius, relying on the presumable weakness of a new king, vindicated the canon of Paris by assembling a synods deposing the intruder, and sending a new bishop-elect to Charibert for confirmation. Royalty asserted its rights after its own fashion. The unhappy expectant, Heraclius, was banished after undergoing a savage punishment, Emerius was reinstated, and the Archbishop and his prelates were visited with fines graduated to the utmost possibility of payiment -and thus, says the historian, the king revenged the insult offered to his father.l Yet the endless struggle continued. In 615 a council of Paris made another effort to achieve independence by pronouncing null and void the consecration of any candidate not duly elected by the people and clergy, with the approbation of the provincial bishops;3 but the attempt was vain, for when Clotair II. gave legal validity to the canons by publishing them in a royal edict, he introduced a clause excepting the royal courtiers from the effects of s Concil. Paris. III. ann. 557, can. 8. Greg. Turon. Hist. Franc. Lib. iv. cap. 26. Concil. Paris. V. ann. 615, can. 1. 8 86 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. the prohibition.' The clergy some ten years later gathered courage to return to the attack, and at the council of Rheims, in 625, reaffirmed the canon of Paris, with the addition that only inhabitants of a diocese were eligible to its episcopate-apparently with the view of precluding the nomination of courtiers-and moreover suspension for three years was threatened against all who should assist in the consecration of any one not regularly elected under these conditions.2 Of how little avail was this we learn firom a precept of Dagobert I., in 630, conferring the see of Cahors on Didier his treasurer, who was not even in orders at the time. It speaks, indeed, of the consent of the people having been given, but not of their having elected the canclidate; and the terms of the act itself, as also of the order to the archbishop to consecrate the nominee, are those of a master exercising his pleasure without a doubt as to its legality.3 Still the clergy did not abandon the field, ancl the canon of Paris was re-enacted by the council of Chaions, in 649;4 but the tendencies of the age were against them, and even Marculfus, in g'iving the formulas for such occasions, couches them in terms of absolute royal command, with no allusion to any elective franchise having been exercised in favor of the recipient, thoupglh a forlnula of petition from the people asking the approbation of the king shows that the right of election was occasionally admlitted in strict subordination to the will of the sovereign.5 A passage in the Bavarian code, revised under I)agobert, would also indicate that the practice was similar in the Christianized portions of Germany.6 In Spain, 1 Edict. Chloth. II. ~ 1. " Concil. Remens. ann. 625, can. 25. 3 Dagoberti Pracceptum (Bnalz). Didier evidently considered himself indebted to the king and not to the people for his bishopric, when he addresses DDagobert-" Cadurche ecelesive cui (Deo auctore) ex jussu vestro prm-sideo"' -Epist. Francor. 41 (Freher. Corp. I-list. Franc.). " Comcil. Cabillon. ann. 649, can. 10. a Marculf. Lib. I. No. 5, 6, 7. G L. Baioatr. Tit. I. cap. 11, 1~ 1 TI-E OEtIIROI-I AND TI-E STATE. 87 not long afterl a canon of the twelfth council of Toledo, held in 681, allowing no right of suffrage whatever to either clergy or people, shows that the royal power of nomination was even recognized and admitted by the church.l The resistance of the Gallican clergy to the prerogative of the crown also ceased when the anarchy under the Mayors of the Palace secularized the church and well nigh obliterated all Christian observances. Charles Martel bestowed without scruple the richest episcopates as prizes on his ruggecld warriors;2 and when Boniface, as papal legate, undertook with Carlomnan and Pepin to restore the religion of France, not only was the royal power of appointment fully recognized by the synods of Leptines and Soissons, but the mayors were empowered to bestow for a time a portion of the temporalities of the church to reward their soldiers.' Boni-face hinmself, the most uncompromisi ng advocate of ecclesiastical privilege, received the archiepiscopal see of Mainz from Ihis royal patrons.4 As Charlemagne thus by tradition and prescription had the right of investiture with respect to all ecclesiastical dignities, the much-disputed grant of this prerogative by Adrian in 774 could only serve as a confirmation and not as a source of the power.5 At all events, he was not disConcil. Toletan. XII. can. 6. P Religio Christianitatis prone fuit abolita: ita ut episcopis in paucis locis relictis, episcopia laicis donata, et per eos rebus divisa, exstiterint-llincnsar. Vit. S. Remino. Praef. 3 Lupi Ferrar. Epist. 81. 4 S. Ludgeri Vit. S. Bonif. 5 According to Gratian, Adrian not only gave, as mentioned above (p. 33), the right of choosing the popes, but also that of confirming and investing all bishops-" Insuper archiepiscopos et episcopos per singulas provincitas ab eo investituranm accipere definivit: et ut nisi a rege laudetur et investiatur episcopus a neriine consecretur" (Gratian. Dist. 63, can. 22). This expression so exactly suited the pretensions of the emperors in their quarrel with the popes over the question of the investitures that it has a somewhat suspicious appearance of fabrication at a time when neither party hacl much scruple in manufacturing documents to serve their purposes. It is no wonder, therefore, that Baronius (Ann. 774, No. 10-13) rejects it with 88 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. posed to allow his prerogative to become obsolete, and the terms in which he is addressed by Leidrad, Archbishop of indignation, pronouncing it a moral impossibility, and asserting that as Sigebert of Gemblours (Chronog. ann. 773) is the earliest authority for the story, it must be an invention of his to assist the imperialist party, which he favored. At first sight this argument is specious, but the cardinal forgot its presence in the Panormia of St. Ivo of Chartres (Lib. vIII. cap. 135) anterior to Sigebert-and neither Ivo nor Gratian was likely to gratuitously depress the sacerdotal authority. Albericus Trium Fontium, whose assertions are of weight, on account of his careful selection of authorities, many of whom have not come down to us, gives the same statement from a certain Elimandus, and refers to Gratian for confirmation (Alberic. Chron. ann. 775). Martin of Fulda, a writer of the fourteenth century, alludes to it as an undisputed fact, but assumes that the grant was merely special and temporary, and subsequently withdrawn (Martin. Fuldens. Chron. sub. Gregor. VII.). Jordan, an Italian chronicler of the same date, likewise assumes its truth (Chron. Jordani, cap. 218, Partic. 2). During the quarrels between the popes and the emperors on the subject of the investitures, it was freely invoked as authority by the imperialists (Walthram. Episc. Neuenburgens. de Invest. Episc. ann. 1106). In modern times, Baluze, whose orthodoxy is I'believe admitted, alludes to it as incontestable (Vit. Mauric. Burdin. cap. 16-ap. Miscellan.); but Peter de Marca pronounces it supposititious, and supports his opinion with reasons much sounder than those of Baronius (De Concord. Sacerd. et Imp. Lib. viII. cap. 12). In 806 we find Leo III. treating Charlemagne's prerogative in these appointments as a matter of course (Leon. PP. III. Epist. I. ap. Cod. Carolin.), and a century later the authenticity and binding force of the grant itself were admitted by John X. when intervening in the quarrel between Hilduin aInd Richarius, contestants for the see of Tongres, in 921, for he expressly states that Charles the Simple had the right of appointing bishops " sicut priores suOS antecessores, nostrorum antecessorum auctoritate" (Hartzheim. Concil. German. II. 597). The very points which seem incredible to Baronius are included in a similar grant made to Otho the Great by Leo VIII. in 963 (Gratian. Dist. 63, can. 23.-Iron. Panormt. Lib. vIII. cap. 136); and though Leo is commonly reckoned as an antipope, notwithstanding that he is counted in the pontifical series, still his bull is incontestably genuine, and as it contains a reference to the previous grant by Adrian-" ad exemplum beati Adriani sedis apostolici episcopi"-it carries the affirmation of Adrian's act nearly to the end of the second century from its date. Even before the condemnation of John XII. and elevation of Leo VIII., the Romans had taken an oath to Otho patterned on those exacted by the earlier Carlovingi:ans"nunquam se papam electuros aut ordinaturos printer consensume et electionem domini imperatoris Ottonis C'esaris Augusti, filiique ipsius regis THE CHURCH AND THE STATE. 89 Lyons, show that he was reygarded as the unquestionablle dispenser of episcopal preferment.' Whein, therefore, in 803, he granted to the people and clergy of the dioceses the right of electing their bishops, he did it in terms which imply that it was a favor of the imperial grace, and not a simple acknowledgment of a pre-existing privilege. That it was so regarded is shown by its repetition being procured from Louis le De'bonnaire in 816, shortly after his accession.2 As there is no allusion in these capitularies to the imperial assent being required, it has been assumed Ottonis" (Liudprandi Hist. Otton. cap. 8). }Iow complete was the supremacy exercised by the Saxon emperors is shown in a charter of Otho III. to Silvester IL, in 999, wherein he remarks: "Dominunm Silvestrum magistrum nostrum papam eligimus, et Deo volente, ipsumn serenissimum ordinavinns et creavimus" (Migne's Patrolog. T. 148, p. 840). At the most, the privileges granted by Adrian were little if any more than the traditional right possessed by the sovereign of Italy, and the grant itself was rather a recognition of Charlemagne as king of Italy th'an the specific donation of power. We have seen how Odoacer and Theodoric and Theodatus exercised it without scruple, Arians as they were, and how the Catholic emperors of Constantinople followed their example when they fell heir to the Gothic kingdom —at least with respect to the right of confirmation and rejection. To minds familiar with a custom of such long duration, it might readily seem that the protection so earnestly craved at the moment-for the siege of Pavia was not yet ended —could not be efficient without some corresponding control, and the exact nature of the right bestowed is merely a question of terms. When the temporal authority was present and active, confirmation would imply selection; when distant or abased, the privilege might be merely nominal. This question affords an instructive illustration of the unconscientiousness which renders the mediaeval papal historians such insecure guides. The Archbishop Martinus Polonus, in his Chronol. Pontificum, written in the thirteenth century, when relating the transaction, by an ingenious transposition of nominative and dative terminations, makes Charles the giver and Adrian the recipient of control over the Western hierarchy (Chronol. BIartin. sub Adrian.). Vigilant criticism expunged from his pages the obnoxious account of Pope Joan, but found nothing to object to in this falsification. Olim me exiguissimum famulorum vestrorum ad regimen ecclesim Lugdunensis destinare voluistis..... Denique postlualm secundulu jussionem vestram supedictam ecclesiam suscepi, etc. (Mag. Bib. Pat. T, IX. P. I. p. 626.) Cf. Monach. S. Gallens. de Vita Carol. Mag. Lib. I. cap. 4, 5, 6. o Capit. Carol. Miag. I. ann. 80n, cap. 2. —Capit. Ludov. Pii, ann. 816, cap. 2. 8* 90 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. that the right of confirmation was then formally abancloned. This is utterly without foundation. Louis bestowed bishoprics as freely as any other dignities in his realm.' The sixth council of Paris, in 829, recognizes his right in the matter, and the corresponding duty incumbent upon him to exercise the power judiciously.2 When elections were permitted, they took place under the supervision of an imperial commissioner appointed for that purpose. If an unworthy choice was made, or if improper arts were employed to obtain the popular suffrage, not only was the successful candidate rejected without hesitation, but the emperor forthwith filled the vacant see without reference to clergy or people, on the ground that they had forfeited the franchise by its illjudicious exercise.3 That these powers were rigidly enforced we may readily believe; for even after the civil wars had reduced the royal power to comparative insignificance, the privilege of popular election hardly amounted to more than the conyed'elire-that ingenious fiction by which the Anglican church reconciles apostolic tradition with the supremacy of the Defender of the Faith. Thus, in 845, the synod of Thionville requests the sons of Louis to nominate incumbents for the sees then vacant;4 tand soon afterwards the synod of Vernon petitions Charles le Chauve not to allow the see of Rheimns to remain longer without a bishop, and also not to withhold his assent to the installation of Agius, who a year before had been elected to the diocese of Orleans, and had been consecrated by Wenilo, his archlbishop.5 So, when some irregularity prevented the induction of Wolfadus, bishop-elect of Langres, the synod of Chiersy applied 1 See, for instance, Thegan. Vit. Ludov. Pii, cap. 24, adcl the supplication of the citizens of Mainz in 835 (Bonif. Epist. 117). 2 Concil. Paris. VI. can. 22. —Capitul. Add. II. cap. 26.' Formul. Proniot. Episcopor. vI. (Baluz. II. 603-4.) 4 Capit. Carol. Cal. Tit. II. cap. 2. 5 Capit. Car(ol. Cal. Tit. ii. cI p. c 9, 10. THE CHIURCH AND TIIE STATE. 91 to Charles to appoint another; and though the king graciously permitted the synod to make the election, yet they considered it necessary to obtain the royal approbation of their choice, aind they appealed to the arch-chaplain Hilduin for his influence in securing it, in terms which mark how absolute was the prerogative of the sovereign, and how little his assent was to be expected as a matter of course.' The change in tone wrought by a few years is therefore striking, in the bold epistle addressed by the Neustrian bishops, in 858, to Louis le Germanique, then in almost undisputed possession of his brother's kingdom, where we find a declaration of independence to the effect that the churches which they held were not benefices to be bestowed by the king at his pleasure, or resumed; and when in 880 the unquestionable right of the sovereign to put forward a candidate for election was stigmatized by lincmnar, in a letter to the king, as a doctrine belched forth by hell.2 So Florus Diaconus, shortly after the middle of the century, stoutly denies the right of the sovereign to dispose of bishoprics, assuming that if his assent is asked, it is only to promote good-feeling —" ad cumnulumn fraternitatis;" while the imperial authority to supervise papal elections is utterly repudiated.3 A similar contrast is afforded between Leo IV. ill 853 humbly asking the Emperors Lothair and Louis IT. to permit the consecration of Colonus as Bishop of Itieti, or, if they preferred, to bestow on him the see of Tuscullum, and Nicholas I. in 863 sternly reproving Kiing Lothair for using his influence to sway the elections of bishops in Lotharingia, and forbidding him to allow certain sees to be filled, until the papal pleasure should be cons ultecl.4 In Italy, indeed, the papal power eagerly grasped at the Flodoard. Hist. Remens. Lib. III. cap. 24. C:pit. Carol. Cal. Tit. xxvII. cap. 15. —IIincmari Epist. xix. cap. 3. Flori Diac. Lib. de Elect. Episc. cap. 4, 6. Gratian. Dist. 63, can. 16. —Nichol. PP. I. Epist. 58. 92 THE RITSE OF THIE TEMPORAL POWER. prerog'ative which was escaping firom the sovereignY and the people were further than ever friomn regaining their rights. Thus, in 8~9, we find John VIII. threatening Romanus, Archbishop of iRavenna, with condign punishment for disregarding his orders in filling the see of Sarcina;1 and again in 881 he ordered iRomanus to consecrate a certain Dominic as Bishop of Faenza, with the significant hint that in case of disobedience lie would himself perform the ceremony. Romanus thereupon grew restive, and installed a rival, Constantine, whom John promptly excommunicated, and, treating the transaction as invalid, placed the bishopric, as a vacancy, under the visitatorial charge of the Bishop of Cervia.2 As both of these sees belonged to the province of ItRaenna, and as there is no allusion to any popular election in favor of the papal nominees, the terms of absolute command employed by John show how completely the popes had fallen heir to the imperial prerogatives to which his predecessors had yielded so submissively.3 Had the popes confiied their pretensions in this respect to Italy, there would have been no great harm done, but eventually the.y claimed the control of every episcopate in Christendom with an energy which filled Europe with confusion for centuries. The time had not yet come for this, however, and Nicholas I. was disinterestedly anxious to free the church from subjection to the temporal power. To secure this, he laid down, in 865, the rule that bishops were to be elected by the clergy alone, thus depriving the laity of their immelmnorial right of suffrage.5 The bishops, Johann. PP. VIII. Epist. 199. 2 Ejusd. Epist. 325, 322, 326. When it suited his politics, however, John freely admitted the rights of the secular authority. Thus, in 879, when he was anxious to follow up his excommunicat ion of Anspert of Milan, he attributed to Carloman, King of Italy, the unrestricted poower of bestowing the bishopric of Verecelli, anld lie treated as null and void the consecration bestowed on another candidate by the Archbishop. —Joha.,nn PP. VIII. Epist. 267. " Nicholai PP. I. Epist. S2, cap. 4. THE CHURCHI AND THE STATE. 93 too, were eagerly striving to render the necessity of their ministration a controlling element in the selection of their fellow-suffragans, and in this they were supported by various ancient canons which show that it was admitted to a greater or less extent in the early church,l and by the more recent authority of the second general council of Nicea, which in 787 placed the choice exclusively in the hands of the provincial bishops, and declared null and void all nominations by the temporal authority.2 Although this council was received by the Christian world as cecumenic, still its canons in this respect had received as little attention from Charlemagne as those relating to image worship, and even in Rome they were soon disregarded, for a synod held in 826 by Eugenius II. forbade the consecration of any bishop unless he was regularly demanded by both clergy and people.3 The eighth general council, however, held at Constantinople in 869, repeated the commands of that of Nicea, and endeavored to enforce it by fulminating the anathema against all temporal princes who should endeavor to interfere in the selection of bishops.4 These efforts were strictly in accordance with the practice of the East, where, notwithstanding the undisputed authority in ecclesiastical matters assumed by the Byzantine Emperors, they were accustomed, nominally at last, to exercise much less control over episcopal elections than the sovereigns of the West. Except in the case of the patriarchs, they generally allowed the church to regu1 Concil. Nicrn. I. can. 4, 6.-Laodicens. can. 12.-Antioch. can. 16. — Carthag. II. can. 12.-Arelatens. II. can. 5, 54. —In the Spanish collection of Martin of Braga, by an interpolation in the Laodicean canon, the people were specially excluded from all participation in episcopal elections (Ma'rtin. Bracar. can. 1). We have already seen, however, that among the Wisigoths the kings had succeeded in having the appointing power transferred to themselves. 2 Concil. Nicoen. II. can. 3. 3 Pertz, Legum T. II. P. iI. pp. 11-15. Concil. General. VIII. can. 22. 94 THIE RISE OF TI-IHE TEMPORAL POwER late for herself the personality of her prelates. Theodosius the younger had placed in the hands of the Patriarch of Constantinople the power of confirming all elections to bishoprics;1 and though in the next century Justin II. had given rise to great complaint by openly trafficking in episcopal nominations,2 still the rules expressed by the councils of Nic, a and Constantinople were generally respected. It was reserved for Nicephorus Phocas, about 965, to assume definitely the disposal of bishoprics, which the historian assures us he sold to those who could pay his price from exactions on their flocks.3.When, of all the tyrannical acts of the abhorred Nicephorus, this was considered to be the worst, we may readily conclude that it was an innovation, although the indignation of the historian is doubtless to be divided between the despotisml and the avarice of the emperor. It was not long endured, however, for when, ill 969, John Zimiskes by midnight assassination sought the crown of his uncle and benefactor, the pardclon for his crime, which lacked nothing to fill the measure of its atrocity, was purchased by the repeal of the obnoxious laws of Nicephorus, such being the condition on which the murderous usurper was crowvlned by thle Patriarch Polyeuctes.4 In the West the bishops were not so fortunate, thoughl various allusions in the epistles of Lupus of Ferrieres show that they strenuously struggled to obtain control over the choice of their associates.5 The necessities of the times were peculiarly opposed to such pretensions, for the poorer and more powerless were the kings, the more pressing became their wants. Services which they could not command had to be bought; and, as the royal fise was for the most part exhausted, they could be liberal only with tlle Soerat. I-ist. Eccles. Lib. v~II. cap. 28. " Evngii. lliist. Eccles. Lib. v. cap, 1. 3 Cedrenus sub. Niceph. 4 Cedrenus sub Johann. Zimisk. 5 Epist. 79, 81, 98, etc. TIIE CIHURCH AND TIIE STATE. 95 property of others. In those dismal times of anarchy, the arbitrary acts which plurchasecl the temporary fidelity of the powerful by spoiling the weak grew more and more fiequent, and rich bishoprics and fat abbeys were often the readiest means at hand to silence the hungry horde of rebellious chieftains. Ill abuses such as these the crown and the nobles supported each other, and the church could only submit. The regulations laid down by the Council of Valence, in 855, show that no episcopal election could be held without the express permission of the sovereign; and that, if in place of allowing this the king chose to make ani arbitrary appointment, the only resource was an humble remlonstrance in cases of manifest unfitness of the nominee.1 I-low recklessly this power was often exercised is shown by the appointment, in 856, by Charles le Chauve, of a successor to St. Folcuin, Bishop of Terouane, before that aoed prelate was dead —an indiscretion rendered the more conspicuous by the frightful effects of the malediction pronounced by the incensed saint on the unlucky interloper — and scarcely less arbitrary was his action when, in 866, he cut short the deliberations of a synod on a knotty point of canon law by appointing on his sole authority Wulfadlus to the important archiepiscopal see of Blourges.3 When, indeed, about the same time he bestowed the wealthy abbacy of Tours on Rtobert-le-Fort, the head of the House of Capet, lie little tliouoght that he was foundino g a line of royal hereditary abbots who for eight centuries would wear the mitre under the crown.4 Yet the pretensions of the church continued to gain ground notwithstandillng the arbiConcil. Valentin. III. ann. 855, can. 7. 2 Vit. S. Folcuin. cap. 13. - 3 Annal. Bertin. ann. 866. Abbeys were regularly in the gift of the crown. Though Louis le I)dbonnaire, in 816, conceded the right of election to the monks (Capit. Aquisgranens. ann. 816, ca:p. 5), yet, in 823, we find him issuing his orders-1" Abbatibus quoque et laicis specialiter jubemus ut in monasteriis quan ex zostrc largitate habent," etc. (Capit. Ludov. Pii, ann. 823, cap. 8.) 96 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. trary exercise of power manifested whenever the incessant turmoil afforded the sovereign an opportunity of exerting his ancient prerogative. The acts of the examination of WVillibert, applying in 868 to be consecrated to the see of Chalons, show how rigorously a high churchman like lincmar could assert his supervisory functions, even after the performance of a canonical election followed by the confirmation of the sovereign. In this case, Charles, in place of commanding the installation of the bishop-elect, simply prayed that the office might be bestowed on him if he should be deemed worthy, thus formally recognizing the power of rejection assumed by the bishops of the province.l In the general scramble for the fragments,of kingly authority, the Metropolitans, too, endeavored to grasp a share, and they readily yielded to the temptation of abusing their supervisory power by acts as arbitrary as those of the sovereigns. Thus, on the death of a Bishop of Vence, the Archbishop of Embrun refused consecration to a candidate duly elected by the diocese and confirmed by the king, and proceeded to install a favorite of his own, whom he endeavored to force upon the reluctant flock. John VIII. readily listened to the complaints of the ejected aspirant, stigmatized the conduct of the archbishop as uncanonical, and took advantage of the quarrel to make good the claims of papal supremacy by summoning both parties before him for examination.2 Still the sovereign struggled to maintain his prerogative, and was supported by his nobles, for when Charles and his people provided for the conduct of the state during his absence in Italy, the celebrated Capitulary of Chiersy records the agreement that if any bishopric should become vacant while he was beyond the kingdom, it should remain unfilled until he could be notified of the fact.3 Yet not1 Baluz. II. 612-6. 2 Johann. PP. VIII. Epist. 101. 3 Capit. Carol. Cal. Tit. LIII. Cap. 8. THE CHURCH AND THE STATE. 97 withstanding this, the bishops continued to press their advantage and assumed that they had succeeded to all the powers once possessed by the crown. Thus, about 880, the people of Beauvais successively elected three bishops who were one by one rejected by iincmrar and his suffragans. With the assent of the Beauvoisins, Louis le Begue then urged the nomination of a fourth, but Hinemar, speaking for the synod of St. Macra, laid down the law that the functions of the consecrating bishops in reality constituted the election, that the confirmation by the sovereign was a mere formality, and that the people of Beauvais had forfeited the right to have anything "to say in the matter.1 So, in 895, the interference of Pope Formosus was invoked to aid a certain Berthair, regularly elected to the see of Chalons and confirmed by King Eudes, whom Fulk, Archbishop of Rheims, refused to admit. King and pope were alike powerless in the matter, for Fulk instigated one of his vassals to drive out and imprison Berthair, and then he placed the diocese of Chalons under the charge of the Bishop of Terouane, who was at that time a fugitive from the ravages of the Northmen.2 No general principles can be deduced from the acts of a period of anarchv, when the law of the strongest thus affords the only right; and even when the institutions of Europe organized themselves under the feudal system the quarrel over the spoils of the church continued, until the happy thought of a concordat enabled king and pope to share the plunder which belonged to neither. How little the rights of those most concerned were regarded by the contending parties during the struggle may be learned from the quarrel over the succession to the see of Bangor under Thomas'a Becket. Meurig, Bishop of Bangor, died in 1161, when Owen Prince of Gwynnedd exacted an oath' Hincmar. Epist. xIx. cap. 4, 6. 2 Flodoard. I- ist. HRemens. Lib. III. cap. 3. 9 98 THE IRISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. of the cathedral chapter to elect no one without his approval. St. Thomas denounced this as a flagrant invasion of the liberties of the church; he procured from the pope, for the archdeacon and canons, an absolution from their oath, andl, in announcing this to them as a special favor in their behalf, he added that if they did not promptly elect his nominee to the bishopric, he would at once excommunicate them, and subject thee whole diocese to an interdict.l Placed thus between t0o fires, the chapter naturally did nothing, and for nine years Bangor was deprived of a bishop. The true remedy mwas that suggested by the Emperor Henry V. when he offered' to surrender all the ecclesiastical righlts demanded by Rome, if the church would abandon the teniporalities which gave him a claim to the investitures.2 So thought-Arnold of Brescia, who expiated at the stake his zealous efforts to purify the temple by clearing it of the worldly treasures which encumbered it. So, too, thought Dante when he prophesied that the 1 Veltro" would reform the abuses which had so utterly perverted the ldesign andc the principles of Chrisfianity — "Non fu la sposa di Christo allevata Del sangue mlio, cli Lin, cdi quel di Cleto, Per essere ad acquisto dl'oro usata.. In vesta di pastor, lupi rapaci Si veggion cli quassi per tutti i paselli,.. Ma l'alta providcnza... Soccorra tosto, si coml' io concipio." (Paradiso, xxVII.) And not long after the death of the great Florentine, an honest Swiss churchman, in deploring the quarrel between S. Thomm (antuar. Epist. 112-115. e The church of Liege, in defending itself from the thunders of Paschal IT., incurred through its fidelity to Henry V., quotes a passage from St. Ambrose singularly to the purpose-'- Si Christus non habuit imaginem Cmsaris, cur dedit censum? Non dle suo dedit; secl redcldidit munclo qua erant mundi. Et tu si non vis esse obnoxius Coesari, noli hahbere quxe mundi sunt. Sed si habes divitias, obnoxius es Cwesari. Si vis nihil debere regi terreno, climitte omnia et sequere Christum."-Udalr. Babenb. Cod. Lib. II. cap. 234. THE CITURCH AND TIE STATE. 99 Louis of Bavaria andC the papacy, attributes all the disorders and misfortunes of the church to the lust of temporal dominion and wealth excited by the donations of Constantine and CharlemagneRex Constantinus cum successoribus suis Si Pape regna tam pinguia non tribuisset, Tune hlumilis staret, simnplicitate pia... Sed quia dotavit Ctesar nimis atque ditavit, Fcrtilibus terris Papas, ideo tumnuerunt, Et cupide certant carpere plura bona MeIIe pestis snva causata avaritia. Ecclesiam numnlnus vilem fecit meretricem, amll pro ruercede scortuln dat se cupienti.' Closely connected with the question of investitures was that of episcopal oaths of fidelity. The same reasons which enabled the sovereign to claim the right of confirmation warranted him also in demanding from the new incumbent the customary oaths that the power thus intrusted to him should not be used to the detriment of the state, as )ersonifiecl in the monarch. We have seen that Charlemagne and Louis exacted this even from the successor of St. Peter; that prelates of inferior grade were not exempted becomes, therefore, a matter of course. When, in 802, the 1 Vit.odurani Chron. ann. 1344, p. 69 (Thes. I-list. Helvet.). Vitoduranus was a good Catholic, and a pions hater of heretics and Jews. The opinions thus expressed were not singular. Nicholas de Claminges, in treating of the Great Schism, attributes the evils which afflicted the church to the absorption of the nominating power by Rome. "Si ecclesia illa collationem onmniumm gradumt ecclesivc universalis nunquam sibi arroga.sset, cuterasque suis jnribus universas ingurgitando ecclesias nequaquam exspoliasset, vel hoc schisma nunquam in illa exorturum fuisse vel non tanto saltem tempore perdurasse" (Nic. de Clamingiis Disput. super Materiem Concil. General. p. 45). So thoroughly did the Holy See eventually monopolize this important source of wealth and influence that when at the council of Trent the Bishop of Cadiz ventured to assert that bishops properly elected did not reqcuire papal nomination or confirmation, and supported his proposition by citing the Nicene canons and the cases of St. John Chrysostom. St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine, the f.athers of the council promptly exclaimed that he was a heretic, only fit for the stakle. 100 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. emperor caused to be renewed the oath which his subjects had already taken to him as king, he directed that it shouldcl be administered to all, laymen and ecclesiastics, without exception;1 and, though bishops are not specifically mentioned, the fact that they were necessarily included is shown by an allusion to them in a similar precept by Pepin, King of Italy, some years previously.2 The form was in no way less stringent than that of the oath taken by laymen, being a comprehensive homage to the person of the monarch, secured by the customary oaths on the gospels, or on relics of approved sanctity.3 That its binding force was admitted on all hands is shown in the rebellion of 833, when even Gregory IV. felt obliged to exculpate himself from the charge of perjury for the part which he took against Louis after the oath of fidelity sworn at his installation, and he attempted to j ustify himself only by retorting on the Frankish bishops the charge of being really guilty of the same crime.4 The church itself even recognized the episcopal dignity as held only in virtue of this homage, for we find the council of Aix-la-Chapelle, in 836, declaring that the violation of the oath shall entail the degradation of the offender and the forfeiture of his preferment.5 In this the fathers of the council were merely recording the established usage, for in 1 Capit. Carol. Mag. I. ann. 802, cap. 2. " Capit. Pippini ann. 793, cap. 36. "Sic me Deus adjuvet et ista sancta patrocinia." Seethe oath extorted from HIincmar of Rheims-I-Hincmlari Opp. I. 1125 (Migne's Patrol. T. 125). 4 " Subjungitis, memorem me esse debere jurisjurandi causa fidei factum. imperatori. Quod si feci in hoc volo vitare perjurium... Vos tamen quia proculdubio jurastis et rejurastis, prqmittentes ei erga illum omnia fideliter vos agere, perjuri estis"-Gregor. PP. IV. de Comparat. Utriusq. Regim. (ap. Agobardi Opp.) The imperial party enunciated the rule in the clearest mannner —'" Episcopos in causa fidei jusjurandum prasstare solitos imperatori" (Goldast. I. 188)-which perhaps indicates that the rebel princes were endeavoring to gain ecclesiastical support by favoring the pretensions of the church to independence. 5 Concil. Aquisgr. II. ann. 836, cap. ii. can. 12. This declaration was probably called forth by the political reaction of 835. TIHE CHURCOH AND TIIE STATE. 101 794 a certain Bishop Peter, accused of treasoD, purged himself by the ordeal, and on thus proving his innocence it is related that he was restored by Charlemagne to the position of which he had been cleprived.c Such being the recognized subjection of the prelates as vassals of the crown, doinllg homage for their sees, and liable to deprivation for infidelity to the sovereig1n, we see the completeness of the revolution when we find the 1Neustrian bishops, in their address to Louis le Germanique in 858, boldly declaring that, unlike laymen, they were not obliged to perform any act of homage or to take any oaths.2 The effort was temporarily successful, for though, some fifteen years later, Chlarlesfo reed the reluctant Hincemar of Rhleims to corroborate his suspected loyalty by the oath which had not been exacted at his installation, yet the humiliated prelate had his revenge. IIe takes especial care to chronicle howv, at the coronation of Louis le BMggue, in 877, the bishops merely performed commendation for the churches and promised fidelity, while the abbots and nobles commended themselves, and took the oaths prescribed by ancestral custom.3 This pretension, however, was too directly opposed to the tendencies of the age, which was rapidly resolving all institutions into the nascent feudal system, to be permanently successful, though it was long and hotly contested. Yet the declaration of the bishops, in 858, was a correct index of their position at the time, and an example or two may serve to mnark the practical advantages resulting to them within a few years. In 817, when Bernard of Italy made his fruitless revolt against his 1 Capit. Carol. Mag. ann. 794, cap. 7. O Capit. Carol. Cal. Tit. xxvII. cap. 15. This claim was founded on the immunity from judicial and purgatorial oaths, which, on the authority of the False Decretals, ecclesiastics about this time endeavored to obtain (Gratian. Cans. II. q. 5, can. 1, 2, 3 —Pseudo-Cornel. Epist. 2). Promissory oa.ths, which the bishops thus refused, were, however, allowed (Gratian. Caus. xxxii., q. 1. can. 1). Annal. Bertin. ann. 877. 9* 102 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. uncle, there was little ceremony shown in dealing with the prelates who were his confederates. Anselm of Milan, Wolwod of Cremona, and Theodulf of Orleans, were deposed by a synod, though their dignity saved them from the personal punishment adjudged to the secular participants in the rebellion.l So, in 835, when Louis le D6bonnaire was reinstated after the second revolt of his sons, the bishops of the defeated party were put on trial. The primatial dignity of Lyons could not preserve St. Agobard from degradation; the traditional veneration for St. Remni did not save his unworthy successor, Ebbo, while less distinguished prelates sought safety in flight.2 On the other hand, when, in 859, Charles le Chauve demanded judgment against Wenilo, Archbishop of Sens, who, under circumstances of peculiar treachery, had been a leading instrument in the usurpation which for a moment placed Louis' Thegan. de Gest. Ludov. c. 22. —Eginh. Anna.l. ann. 818. Theodulf languished in prison for many years, and was only released when Louis, in passing his place of confinement, was touched by hearing him sing a hymn of his own composition —" Gloria, laus, et honor tibi." In a poetical epistle addressed from his prison to Modoin, Theodulf emphatically asserts the irregularity of his confinement — Servus habet propriam et mendax ancillula legem, Opilio, pistor, nauta, subulcus, arans. Proh dolor! amisit hanc solas episcopus, ordo Qui labefactatur nunc sine lege sua; Debuit et qui aliis legalia promere jura Officii perdit jus, sine jure, sui. Culpa facit seavum confessa perire latronem, Non est confessus prasul, et ecce perit... Non ibi testis inest, judex nec idonets ullus, Non aliquod crimen ipse ego fassus eram. Esto: forem fassus cUjus censura valeret Dedere judicii congrua fr'ena mihi? Solius illud Romani prxlsulis exstat Cuj us ego accepi pallia sancta manu. Theodulph. ad Modoin. It is observable that Theodulf does not disclaim responsibility, but merely that he had a right to trial by the pope on account of having received the pallium, of which more hereafter. 2 Astron. Vit. Ludov. Pii, ann. 835. THE CHURCH AND' THE STATE. 103 le Germanique in possession of his brother's kingdom, the royal prosecutor could obtain no satisfactory action'-and the only punishment incurred by the traitor was the tradition which embalmed hIis name, in the Ganelon of the chansons de geste, as the embodiment of falsity. While thus striking at all the principles which subordinated the church to the state, it must not be supposed that the sagacious originators of the movement had endeavored to create a body of irresponsible ecclesiastical despots, each supreme in his own diocese or province, to become eventually the priest-king of an insignificant territory. Even as the churchman was elevated above the layman, so was the power of the hierarchy developed in the comprehensive scheme of Ingilram. and Isidor. Transmitting step by step the new powers thus acquired to the supreme head at Rome, the whole body of the church was rendered compact and manageable, either for assault or defence; and it acquired the organization which enabled it not only to preserve most of the advantages thus gained, but to extend in all directions its influence and authority. Had the bishops maintained their individual independence they could have accomplished nothing beyond the ends of personal ambition, as did the nobles who were then carving out their hereditary fiefs; and even this success would have been temporary, for, in their isolation, they would have succumbed one by one under the attacks of the rapacious barons who wielded the military power of their provinces. What the temporal sovereign lost. however, was transmitted through the hierarchy to the pope, and the church acquired the unity which was requisite to carry it through the stormy centuries to come.' Annal. Bertin. ann. 859. 104 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. THE PAPACY AND THE CHURCH. The rise of the Papacy, from the persecuted head of aninsignificant local church to the supreme domination over. both the spiritual and the temporal hierarchy of Europe, is. one of the most curious problems in history. One element. in its solution I have already endeavored to elucidate by, showing how the church acquired control over the state,. and it remains to see how the Pope became supreme over. the church.,;rThen the primitive Christians found that the increase. of the faithful beganl to render some form of internal. organization requisite, they naturally divided themselves. into sections, corresponding with the great prefectures of. the empire, and these were arranged into provinces accord-. ing to the civil demarcations, the seat of local government. being the head of the local church.l As the complexity oA the system increased with the number of converts, there thus arose throughout the East a complete hierarchy of bishops, metropolitans, and exarchs or patriarchs, which varied as tile political divisions of their territories were altered; and so complete was the dependence of ecclesiastical arrangements upon the order of civil government, that, as late as 451, the council of Chalcedon directed that chawnges in the civil hierarchy should be conformed to by corresponding alterations in the constitution of the church.2 With all this, however, a certain undefined primacy of honor was assigned to the three apostolic sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Rome was thus most favorably situated for vindicating whatever pretensions she might advance of control over her sisters. Until the erection of a new imperial city at Byzantium, she combined the claims of the seat of governConcil. Antioch. ann. 341, can. 9. Concil. Chalced. can. 17. THE PAPACY AND THE CHURCH. 105 inent with the traditional episcopate of St. Peter, and from a very early period her bishopric was the most important and influential in the Christian world. The number and character of her church members would generally lead to the selection of the ablest of the Western Christians to her episcopal chair, and these successive bishops, from the weight of their personal character, would transmit a gradually increasing influence. The centralization of wealth in the Eternal City would also render the Roman see by far the richest in Christendom, and its gold was liberally poured forth, during the whole of the first three centuries, in assisting poorer communities' —a munificence which could not be solicited or enjoyed without an appreciable sacrifice of independence on the part of the recipients. Yet the account given us by iHippolytus, Bishop of Portus, of his long controversy with Pope Calixtus I. shows that the Bishop of Rome, in the commencement of the third century, had no recognized supremacy even over the suburbicarian sees;2 and though, not long before, Ireneus had declared the ]Roman see to possess a "potiorem principalitatem" in the church, owing to the directness of its apostolical tradition from Peter and Paul,3 yet his account of the debates between Polycarp and Pope Anicetus respecting the observance of Easter shows that this was merely a primacy of honor, and not of authority.4 In the early period of the ecclesiastical commonwealth it was customary for men eminent in station or piety to address epistles, hortatory or advisory, to other churches, either on general subjects of faith or discipline, or on special questions which presented themselves; and in time 1 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. iv. c. 23; Lib. vII. cap. 6.-To the liberality recorded in the latter reference may perhaps be attributed the submission of the Eastern churches to the wishes of Rome in the vexed question of the rebaptism of heretics. IIippolytus, Refutation of Heresies, Bk. IX. chap. vii. 3 Ireniei adv. Hacres. Lib. III. cap. iii. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. v. c. xxiv. 106 TIIE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. of difficulty, prominent bishops were fiequently appealed to for advice or assistance in the settlement of doubts. In the second century we find Dionysius of Corinth thus volunteering without hesitation his counsel to distant communities, and even addressing Soter of Roime in terms which manifest the perfect equality existing between them.l A century later, when Marcion of Arles became infected with the Novatian heresy, Faustinus of Lyons writes repeatedly to St. Cyprian of Carthage anid to Stephen I. of iRomle, imploring their interposition, and Cyprian, in an epistle to Stephen, urges him to join in counselling the flock of Marcion to unite in electing another bishop in his place.2 In these transactions we see the gradual crystallization of the hierarchical elements. The influence which the more important churches thus exercised over those in no way subjected to them is clearly manifested, and we cannot wonder that the civil predominance of the imperial city should at an early period have caused its bishops to be selected as arbitrators or advisers in difficult conjunctures. The talents and energy of Cyprian give a momentary prominence to his province, personal, however, in its nature, and dying with him. Rome, on the other hand, has certain tundefined and impalpable claiml~s to superiority, not clearly understood at home or ftully recognized abroad — disregarded by a man like Cyprian, secure in his own force and that of the powerful African church —but yet imposing a certain claim to respect on weaker prelates and communities. Yet such assumptions of superiority were watched with jealousy, and were frequently repudiated. When Victor I., towards the close of the second century, endeavored to excommunicate the Asian bishops for their irregular solemnizing of Easter, his threats were set at nauglht aLnd the other churches interfered in the quarrel in a Euseb. Ilist. Eccles. Lib. Iv. c. 23. 2 Cypriani Epist. 66 (Ed. Oxon.). THEI' PAPACY AND THE CHURCH, 107 manner showing that entire equality existed between them. Iren.Tus, whose reputation was commanding throughout Gaul, wrote to Victor a letter of reproof and exhortation, which evidently assumed that there was no pre-eminence in the see of Rome.l In 269, when the council of Antioch deposed Paul of Samosata, the epistle in which the result was announced to the Christian world shows that Dionysius, the existing pope, while named first, as in courtesy to his position in the capital, had no special influence or authority.2 The superscriptions of Cyprian's epistles" Cyprianus Cornelio fratri salutem" — manifest perfect equality, and contrast strangely with the L debitain obedientiain et subjectioneill of the medinval period; and asl late as 380 we find Sulpicius Severus speaking of Pope Damasus and St. Ambrose of Milan as the two bishops who were then of greatest weight in the church —apparently not recognizing that one could have any definite authority over the other.3 Yet, even under the pagan emperors, the position of the PRoman bishops near the imperial court gave them constant opportunities of acquiring influence, as was m anifested when Patl of Samosata refused obedience to the decree of the council of Antioch, and persisted in maintaining his position despite tile appointment of a successor. Finding it impossible to dislodge him, the church finally appealed to Aui'elian, whose triumph over Zenobia had deprived Paul of his protectress. Aurelian contented himself with ordering that the position should be given to that one of the contestants who was approved by the bishops of Rome and of Italy —through whom the appeal had doubtless Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. v. cap. 24. " The epistle is addressed'l Dionysio, Maximo, et omnibus ubique in orbe terrarum collegis, episcopis, presbyteris, diaconis et universs et catholicse sub celo ecclesie" (Ejusd. Lib. vII. cap. 30). Maximus was Bishop of Alexandria, which, with Romle and Paul's own city of Antioch, constitutedl the three apostolic sees. " Hist. Sacrti Lib. II. cap. 48. E Euseb. IIist. Eccles. Lib. viI. cap. 30. 108 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. been made. The pagan Cmesar could scarcely comprehend subtle disputations on the nature of Christ, but he could readily appreciate the importance of extending Italian influence throughout the recently disturbed East. From this it is fair to presume that if protection was to be sought from local persecution, exemption to be solicited from unjust or oppressive burdens, or other favor to be procured from the imperial court, the Bishop of Rome would be the natural channel through which the suppliants would address their master. Indeed, this was laid down as the rule of the church under the Christian emperors, for the council of Sardica, in 347, adopted a canon directing that any prelate visiting Rome to obtain a favor from the civil government should present his request through the hands of the Roman bishop;l and when Constantinople rose into power, the rule was established that no bishop could obtain an audience of the emperor without the intervention of the patriarch of the New Rome.2 As the Roman church thus was the official mediator between her sisters and their master, the relations thence arising tended inevitably to render her the protector of her nominal equals. When, therefore, she proffered advice, it was not lightly to be rejected, for the next hour might render her intervention necessary or her benevolence invaluable; and if her tone gradually grew authoritative, and counsel imperceptibly assumed the form of command, she was but yielding to temptations irresistible to human nature. A passage in Tertullian shows that this took place at an early period, and also that it was regarded as an usurpation founded on no acknowledged right;3 but such assertions of independence only prove the progress making by the silent encroachments of centralization.' Concil. Sardicens. can. 9. 2 Hormisdeo PP. Epist. 2. 3 Audio etiam edictunm esse propositum, et quidem peremptorium: Pontifex scilicet maximus, episcopus episcoporum dicit, ego et moechine et fornicationis delicta poenitentia functis dimitto.-Tertull. de Pudicit. c. 1. THE PAPACY AND THE CHURCIH. 109 Yet still the theory of church government continued to be that of perfect and independent autonomy in each circumscription. By the Apostolic Canons, framed towards the end of the third century, each province is directed to determine for itself which of its churches shall be deemed to hold the primacy; the bishops are ordered to supervise the local concerns of their sees, while the primate is instructed to consult his suffragans in all important matters, no reference being made to any power outside of his patriarchate.l This continued, nominally at least, for some time after Christianity became the religion of the state. In 341 the council of Antioch substantially repeats these regulations, as the ancient rule of the fathers;' the second general council, held at Constantinople in 381, expressly forbids any prelate from interfering with the concerns of his brethren;3 and in an ancient Arabic version of the Nicene canons there is one which, though not attributable to that council, still doubtless represents the ecclesiastical organization of an early period. It makes each patriarch supreme in his own province, and strictly forbids any one from intervening in the concerns of other provinces, unless specially invited to arbitrate in cases of difficulty; and when complaints arise against the patriarchs themselves, on account of either their conduct or faith, it directs the question to be settled in a council of the provincial bishops and abbots.4 No sooner, however, did the church emerge from persecution into power, than the necessity was felt of some central authority if its unity was to be preserved. The dissensions of the Arian comltroversy showed this, and Constantine endeavored to supply the want by assembling the council of Nicea. General councils, however, were only suited for great occasions, and not for the continually 1 Canon. Apost. No. 35. " Concil. Antioch. ann. 341, can. 9. 3 Concil. Constantinop. ann. 381, can. 2. 4 Sanct. Patrum CCCXVIII. Const. xv. (Harduin. I. 503.) 10 110 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POW:ER. arising emergencies which called for authoritative settlement; and Rome, in the stormy epoch of the Arian heresy, made good use of her vantage-ground to assume the position of an arbiter for the whole church. Steadfast in her orthodoxy she represented Latin Christianity, which found little attraction in the subtle theological speculations so dangerously enticing to the Eastern churches, and she thus was the haven of refuge for the persecuted trinitarians of Greece and Asia, whom she boldly stood forward to protect. Yet the clearer heads among the Greeks foresaw the result of this and strove to check it, as whlen St. Basil dissuaded Gregory of Nazianzumn from appealing for support to Rome in one of the phases of the contest; and the contemptuous way in which the saint speaks of the Latin church shows how little respect it had won, even amnong the orthodox, by its vigorous upholding of St. Athanasius.1 Notwithstanding this warning, the bold stand macde by Rome under the Arian persecution gave her unquestioned prominence, and the churches which sought her assistance in the hour of trial could not do so without a sacrifice of independence. Thus when the Latin half of the council of Sardica, in 347, endeavored to protect themselves froml the assaults of their Eastern brethren, they constituted Julius I. an arbiter to grant appeals in cases of condemnation, feeling secure that so orthodox a pontiff would not allow the wicked to triumph. The language of the'canon shows this to have been a novel privilege, conferred temporarily of their own free will;2 and it doubtless consoled the pope for the denunciations launched against him by the Eastern portion of the synod, though neither he nor the Sardican fathers 1 Quale nobis auxilium ab Occidentalium supercilio et fastu aderit? Qui veritatem neque norunt neque discere sentiunt, verum falsis opinionibus prmpediti, illa nune faciunt que prius in Marcello patrarunt.-S. Basil. Epist. 10 (ap. Chr. Lupi Dissert. de Synod. Sardicens. cap. 6. Opp. I. 325). Si vestrce dilectioni videtur, Petri Apostoli mnemoriam honoremus ut ab iis quijudicaverunt scribatur Julio Iomnanorumn episcopo. —Synod. Sardicens. can. 3, 4, 5. TIHE PAPACY AND THE CHIURCIF. 11 could anticipate the immense jurisdiction which in the course of ages would be erected on so narrow a foundation. The perverse ingenuity of Greek theologians continued to discover fresh points of debate in Christian doctrine, and gave to Rome the opportunity, always improved to the utmost, of again and aoain intervening, on each occasion with a more decisive air of authority, as the combatants eagerly sought her alliance in their internecine strife. M[eanwhile a new element was introduced into the org'anization of the church, which, paradoxical as it may seem, served to give her an additional chance of humbling her sisters-the erection of the rival patriarchate of Constantinople. The council of Nicema, in recording the ancient custom. of the church, assigned the highest rank to the apostolic sees of Rome, Alexandria,~ and Antioch, but reserved to every province the due privileges of its own church.l There 1 Antiqua consuetudo servetur per A-igyptum. Libyam et Pentapolim, ita ut Alexandrinus episcopus harum omniumn habeat potestatem; quia et urbis Romai episcopo parilis mlos est. Similiter antem et apud Antiochiam, ceterasque provincias, suis privilegia serventur ecclesiis."'-Concil. Nico n. can. 6. I give the version of Dionysius Exiguus, as the one authorized by Rome in the sixth century. The earlier one of Rufinus (Hist. Eccles. Lib. I. cap. 6) is even less favorable to Rome —" Et ut apud Alexandriamn et in urbe Roma vetusta consuetudo conservetur, ut vel ille A4gypti vel hic suburbicariarumn ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat." We shall see hereafter that Leo I. endeavored at the council of Chalcedon to substitute a supposititious canon, but the attempt was abandoned. It is rather curious that the forged donation of Constantine, fabricated in the eighth century, should contain a special grant to Rome of supremacy over the churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. That supremacy was thus attributed to an earthly power, and not to primitive tradition or to the primacy of St. Peter, and it was admitted, even at that day, that forgery was necessary to substantiate a claim for which at the same time an antiquity coeval with the Christian religion was assumed. Wickliffe was shrewd enough to see the incompatibility of this with the power asserted to be derived from Christ through St. Peter-" Certum videtur ex chronicis quod non a Christo sed a Cwsare Constantino Romanus episcopus accepit vel usurpavit potestatem."-Univ. Oxon. Litt. de Error. Wicklif. art. 114 (Wilkins. Coneil. III. 344). 112 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. is here no mention of Constantinople, but the imperial city, so rapidly growing on the shores of the Bosphorus, was not long content to remain in subjection to the province of Thrace, and it speedily aspired to the primacy of the East. Accordingly at the second (Ecunmenic Council, held at Constantinople in 381, a new declaration was made, in which, after reciting the names of the great provinces of the church-Alexandria, the East, Antioch, Asia, Pontus, and Thrace-it adds that the Bishop of Constantinople has the primacy of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because his city is the New Rome;' but still no interference is to be allowed with the autonomy of the several provinces. As the bishop of the imperial city was the pastor and spiritual director of the emperor, and as the emperor was the suzerain who was all-powerful in deciding religious quarrels and civil and criminal cases, it will readily be perceived what ample opportunities the bishops of Constantinople enjoyed, when they chanced to be on good terms with their masters, of extending their influence over their older rivals.2 Of this they made good use. and the upstart church became the common centre of attack by all the venerable prelates of the East. In this Alexandria, the most powerful and wealthy, was the leader, and Theophilus, Cyril, and Dioscorns filled the first half of the fifth century with their ceaseless assaults on St. John Chrysostom, Nestorius. and Flavianus, whose principal fault was that their see was rapidly overshadowing the influence of the traditional apostolic churches. This rivalry furnishes the key of the disgraceful contests which constitute the ecclesiastical history of the time, and we shall see presently how frequent and how useful were the opportunities which it offered to RIome, as each rival sought her alliance in the effort to crush its antagonist. Verumtamen Constantinopolitnlnus episcopus habeat honoris primnatun post nomanum episcopum; propterea quod urbs ipsa sit junior Roma. —Concil. Constantinop. I. can. 2. 2 Chr. Lupi Append. ad Ephesin. Latrocin. cnp. 3 (Opp. II. 255). THE PAPACY AND THIE CHTURCEI 113 It was a timne of confusion when ambitious men were striving' on every halnd to extend their power, and a minor quarrel which was in progress between Jerusalemn and Antioch well illustrates the reckless temper of the period and the eagerness to attribute to Rome any prerogative which might seem to serve the interest of the moment. Juvenal of Jerusalem was anxious to emancipate his see from the supremacy of Antioch, and even entertained a wild hope of subjecting the latter to his power when the Patriarch John of Antioch embraced the cause of Nestorius at the council of Ephesus in 431. IHe accordingly insisted that John should purge himself before the Bishop of Rome of the crimes imputed to him, and alleged ancient custom in behalf of this demand.l The falsity of this was shown by the absence of any effort on the part of the offending patriarch to propitiate Pope Celestin, and by the final patching up of a reconciliation between him and Cyril and the withdrawal of mutual excomlmnunication, without any reference of the matter to Rome. Yet Juvenal further endeavored to associate his own see with that of Rome as possessing jurisdiction over Antioch, and, accordincl to Leo the Great, sought to substantiate his claims by producing forged doculments in the coulncil.2 For a time Alexandria triumphed. Theophilus enjoyed,the satisfaction of seeing Chrysostom banished, and the high-handed. proceeclings of Cyril at the council of Ephesus procured the condemnation of Nestorius. His successor Dioscorus, even more reckless, contrived, with the aid of intrigues in the imperial court, so to engineer the Robher Synod of Ephesus in 449, as to proclaim the orthodoxy of the heretic Eutyches and to inflame the bishops to the murder of the Patriarch Flavianus. Flushed with these successes, Alexandria threatened soon to contest supremlacy 1 Coneil. Ephesin. Act. Iv. (Harduin. I. 1490.) 2 Leon. PP. I. Epist. cxIx. cap. 4. 10* 114 TH-E RISE OF THE TEMIPORnAL POWER. with iRome. At the Robber Synod Dioscorus presided, under imperial command, though the legates of Leo were present,' and soon after the rivals exchanged excommunications; but Dioscorus had been too violent. The rising influence of Alexandria forced Rome and Constantinople into alliance. A change of emperors deprived Dioscorus of support in the palace, and when the council of Chalcedon assembled in 451, all united eagerly in his downfall, after which we hear little of the powerful Alexandrian church. Constantinople at last was in the ascendant, and was little disposed to gratitude towards Romne for her assistance in the hour of trouble. Against the protests of the Roman legates a canon was adopted which gave to her the supremacy of the Eastern churches and placed her on an equality with:Rome, alleging as a reason that both were imperial cities.' This struck at the root of the papal claims, as it not only created a co-equal, but declared that the prerogatives of IRome were based on civil and not on divine attributes, and it was to the last degree distasteful. Something of the kind apparently had been anticipated, for Paschasinus, the rppresentative of Leo, was provided with a version of the _Nicene canon which conceded to Rome undisputed primacy, but when he produced it, he was met by the Eastern bishops whose copies of the canons contained nothing of the kind,' and the forgery was tacitly conceded by Rome, for Leo's version never has since been embodied in the authorized collections of canons.4 The council, however, incidentally bestowed upon Leo the title of (Ecumnenic Patriarch, but such consolation as he might derive firom this was neutralized by its being given indifferently, for a century and a half, to the bishops both of Rome and Constantinople, without attracting special attenConcil. Chalced. Act. I. (Harduin. II. 79.) Concil. Chalced. can. 28. 3 Concil. Chalced. Act. xvI. 4 Chr. Lupi Schol. ad Can. Nicmn. vI. (Opp. I. 244.) THE PAPACY AND TIHE ICHURC H. 115 tion, and Justinian habitually uses it when addressing the Patriarch of Constantinople, thus showing it to be his official title.l At length the jealousy of Rome was excited, when, in addition to other movements looking to universal domination befitting the namae, John the Faster formally,assumed it at the council of Constantinople in 587, and Pelagius II. and Gregory the Great protested vigorously against it. The Constantinopolitans were obdurate, however, and persisted in using a title which gratified their -vanity, notwithstanding the arguments of Gregory, who did not assume that it was the prerogative of Rome, but remonstrated that it could properly be bestowed on Christ alone; and his proud humility bequeathed to his successors the well-known formula of " the servant of the servants of God." Yet in his earnest entreaties to his patriarchal brother not to usurp so proud and so foolish an appellation, and in his arguments to prove the equality of all bishops, it is not easy to recognize the representative of a see which for centuries had lost no opportunity of arrogantly asserting its domination over sister churches.2 WThile the Papacy had thus virtually failed in its efforts as respects one-half of Christendom, it had been more successful with the other half. Western Europe had no Apostolic sees and no imperial city to rival and to counterbalance the influence of the mistress of the world. In Spain, Gaul, and Britain there seem to have been no recognized primacies, and various sees arrogated to them.selves and contested with one another a transient Novell. vI. vII. Gregor. PP. I. Regest. Lib. v. Epist. 18, 20, 21, 43; Lib. vII. Epist. 4, 27, 31, 33, 34; Lib. Ix. Epist. 68. It was shortly after this, in 607, that Boniface III., taking advantage of a favorable political conjuncture, obtained from the usurper Phocas a recognition of the supremacy of Rome over Constantinople (Anastas. Biblioth. No. 68). This, however, was not long submitted to, and in 692 the Qvi7 bisext in Trtllo repeated the canon of Chalcedon, declaring that Constantinople was equal in privileges though next in rank to Rome (Can. 36). 116 THIIE RISE OF THIE TEM PORAL POWER. superiority, as the vicissitudes of personal influence or political fortune affordedt them the opportunity. The proininence of Rome as the seat of governmelnt, however, insensibly led them to recognize anll uncertain degree of authority as inherent in the Eternal City. Africa, Inder the lead of Carthage, by turns yielded a qualified obedience to, or asserted independence of, Rome, as the policy of the mlomnent was dictated b)y internal or external pressure. Italy was divided into two vicariates, of which Milan ruled the northern, and Rome the southern; and so precairious was the general supremacy of the latter, that in the sixth century the archbishops of Ravenna affected airs of equality, in consequence of the residence of the imperial exarchs in that city, while as late as the eleventh century the Mailanese clergy, appealing to the old traditions of their church, disclaimed the aLthority of the popes, set them at defiance, and were forced to abate their pretensions only after a desperate war of nearly thirty years. As the Arian controversy and the deplorable dissensions of the Eastern churches gradually enabled Rome to assume the tone of a mistress, she naturally sought to make lier poxver felt throughout the West as well as the East. Towards the end of the fourth century the decretals of Siricius show the rapid strides of centralization. A local synod of Rome, such as that of 384, assumes to lay down rules for the governance of the church at large. Prelates in Gaul and Spain apply to Rome for the solution of their doubts, and receive the reply as final. The popes, as the mouthpiece of the synods, announce the decisions to the Christian world, and undertake to see to the execution of the canons promulgated. The high and overbearing spirit of Innocent I. lent a powerful impulse to this tendency. In 416 he sharply reproves Aurelius of Carthage for the admission of unworthy men to bishoprics in the African church, peremptorily orders its discontinuance, and commlands that the missive be read in all the churches. Its THE PAPACY AND THE CHURCH. 117 whole tenor is that of a superior discharging his duty in enforcing the law upon his inferiors.' Not long after this we find the historian Socrates complaining that the Bishop of Rome was imitating his brother of Alexandria in efforts to supplant the temporal authorities.2 The Alexandrian church, indeed, under the lead of the fiery Cyril, was making rapid strides to independence and supremacy throughout Egypt and the neighboring provinces. With his body-guard of turbulent clerks, and with the savage hordes of Nitrian anchorites at his command, Cyril lorded it over the city, and reduced the Imperial Prefect, Orestes, to a subordinate position.3 The revolution which he thus organized was attempted by his successor Dioscorus; his lawless acts were unrepressed, and he ventured openly to assert that the imperial authority in Egypt was subordinate to his own,4 while the spiritual tyranny that had been erected throughout the province is manifested when, after his fall in the council of Chalcedon, the Egyptian bishops piteously entreated to be allowed not tb subscribe to the orthodox profession of faith, since if it should prove unacceptable to the future patriarch of Alexandria, they would all spend the rest of their days in exile.5 They evidently felt that neither the empire nor the church at large could afford them protection. Warned, perhaps, by the fate of Dioscorus, the successors of St. Peter prudently abstained from trespassing further upon the temporal power, but they continued to imitate the Alexandrian prelates in extending and confilming their spiritual domination, until, in 495, Gelasius I. was emboldened to assert it in the most unqualified terms, as The genuineness of this epistle has been questioned, but Jaff6 considers it authentic.-Regesta, p. 26. 2 Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. VII. cap. 11. 3 Ibid. cap. 13, 14, 15. 4 Libell. Sophronii ap. Concil. Chalced. Act. IIr. 5 ConCil. Chalced. Act. ix. (Harduin. III. 418-9.) 118 TtHE RISE OF THIE TEMPORAL POWER. the direct prerogative of St. Peter and his successors;T afnd when, in the following year, Anastasius IT. announced his election to the Emperor Anastasius, he couplecld a request for the imperial assistance with a declaration of the same nature?2 This was not, however, in all cases tamely submitted to, and occasionally the old spirit of independence would burst forth, as when, in 550, the African church launched the thunder of excommunlication against Pope Vigoilius for his uniworthv conduct in reference to the Three Chapters. The quarrel between Rome and Constantinople over the churches of Illyricum, includcing those of Macedonia and Greece proper, affords another instance of a rebuff administered to the aspiring' spirit of the Universal Bishop. Though they were undoubtedly at one time in-. eluded within the jurisdiction of the Popes, yet as tile influence of the Western EImpire declined, the Roman prelate gradually lost his hold, and as early as 421,a rescript of Theodosius the Younger transferred them to Constantinople in terms which mark the pretensiols of the upstart patriarchate to succeed to the walling power of the rival city.4 Yet Rome did not willingly surrender her rights, until at length a firuitless strugogle of three centuries ended in transferring to the Eastern muetropolis the prerogatives once enjoyed by the West, and Leo the Isaurian was, in this at least, able to wreak his vengeance on the intrepid Gregory II. In the vicissitudcles of this long contest for supremacy, the mail reliance of the popes was the universal jurisdiction which they arrogated to themselves over the Christian church. If it could once be fairly established that all sente~nces on ecclesiastical offenders were liable to revision and reversal at the hands of the successor of St. Peter, le beGelasii PP. I. Epist. 13. 2 Anastasii PP. II. ad Annstas. Imp. 3 Victor. Tunenens, Chron. ann. 550, 4 Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. ii. 1. 45. TTIE PAPA.CY AND THE CIHURtCH. 19 came at once the custodian of the canons and the sole and irresponsible arbiter of all questions, with a corresponding right to interfere in every transacti6n affecting the internal governmlent of the church-a power which in skilful hallds was limited only by the mloderation of the possessor.' In the earlier ages of the church this appellate power had no existence. The ecclesiastical sentence of excommnunication could be removed by himn only who had pronounced it, until the council of Nicaa established courts of appeal by orderinog the assembling of semi-annual synods in each province to examine into the cases of those who might consider themselves unjustly treated.3 That Rome originally made no attempt to assert a superior jurisdiction is shown by the story of AIarcion the heresiarch, about the year 150. While leading an ascetic life as a hermit, he fell from grace, andl committed the heinous offence of seducing a virgin, for which he was promptly excommunicated by his father, a bishop of high repute. It is evident that already the influence of the Roman church was widely extended, when IMarcion sought the imperial city and asked to be admitted to communion; but it also shows that Rome claimed no supervisory power when the request was refused-" We may not do this without the permission of your venerable father. We are one in faith and goodwill, and cannot place ourselves in opposition to our good brother."'3 A hundred years later we find the papal court considerably advanced in its assumptions of appellate jurisdiction, It is upon this appellate power that the pretensions of the Roman see to supremacy a.re fonnded. In a report of an interview held May 16, 1869, between the Patriarch-elect of Alexandria and the Roman Catholic Bishop of the same see, commissioned by the pope to invite him to the approaching oecumenic council, the papal representative asserted the sovereignty of Rome by alleging its supreme jurisdiction-" Ma che il Papa e il capo delle chiese e reso chiaro dal fatto ehe, in ctaso d'appello, si ricorre a lui come giudice; il diritto di guidicare gli appelli comprende naturalmente la supremazia. " —L'Emancipatore Cattolico, 5 Giugno, 1869.' Concil. Nicaen. can. 5. 3 Epiphan. Panar. 1Hres. 42. 120 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. though the rest of the church was as yet by no means prepared to submit to them. In 253 two Spanish bishops, Basilides and Martial, were deposed and excommunicated for idolatrous practices and other offences, and their places wrere regularly filled. Basilides, in fact, had confessed his errors, had voluntarily resigned his see, and had expressed his gratitude for admission to lay communion. Yet he proceeded to Rome, where he prevailed upon Stephen I. to receive him into full communion, and both he and his part ner in guilt claimedrestoration to their episcopal positions. This shows the influence which Rome was rapidly attaining, but the resistance offered proves that its supremacy was not recognized. The African church, moreover, took alarm, and urged its Spanish sister not to yield to the usurpation. In the name of the African bishops, St. Cyprian addressed a letter to the Spanish churches in which he not'only assumed that the action of Stephen was null and void, but that Basilides had greatly increased his crime by deceiving the ignorant Roman bishop, who was less to blame for his negligence than was Basilides for his cunning. I-Ie declared that they are worthy of death who thus offer an,illegal communion to unrepentant sinners, and he wound up by exhorting the Spaniards to stand firm and not to join in the sacrilegious communion of their profane and disgraced bishops.l It would be difficult to conceive of a more complete denial of all power on the part of Rome to revise the proceedings of her sister churches. This was not the first time that Cyprian had been called upon to rebuke the encroachments of Rome, which he did with a fearless spirit, though he acknowledged a primacy of honor in the see of St. Peter and deemed it the source of catholic unity. In 251 a Carthaginian deacon named Felicissimus lapsed from the faith under persecution, and when his restoration was sternly refused by Cyprian he' Cypriani Epist. 67. (Ed. Oxon.) THE PAPACY AND TIIE CHURCH. 121 appealed to Pope Cornelius, whom he endeavored to overawe with a crowd of graceless wretches carried to Rome for the purpose by his friend Fortunatus. Cyprian with little ceremony reproached Cornelius with having been intimidated by these worthless characters, and protested against any revision of a sentence legally rendered by local bishops, who had the advantage of ample evidence on the spot, and thus he formally condemned any attempt by a criminal to seek a foreign jurisdiction.l It is true that the dignity of Rome might occasionally cause its bishop to be chosen as judge in special cases, as when Constantine nominated Pope Melchiades to preside over a tribunal for the trial of Cmcilianus, Bishop of Carthage;' but the rescript of the emperor shows that this was a position conferred by him in a particular instance and not a prerogative inherent in the Holy See. The Nicene canon, already alluded to, proves that in ordinary cases the only appeal lay to a provincial synod. WThen bishops were concerned, the regulations of the council of Antioch declare that the unanimous condemnation of a bishop in his local synod cannot be revised elsewhere, while the careful provision for the different cases that nmight arise shows that the customary appeal was to the emperor, and that no ecclesiastical power existed superior to the synod.3 It p'robably was not found easy in practice to assemble the semi-annual synods established by the iNicene canon, and some other device was requisite to neutralize the constantly increasing abuse of the sacerdotal power. The council of Sardica, in S47, therefore, provided that if a bishop, through anger, should unjustly deprive any of his clerks of communion, the latter might appeal to the inetropolitan of the province, or, in his absence, to the metropolitan of the acljoining province.4 There is evidently, thus Cypriani Epist. 59. 2 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. x. cap. 5. 3 Concil. Antioch. ann. 341. can. 4, 12, 14, 15. Concil. SIardicens. can. 17. 11 122 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. far, no thought of erecting a court of first or last appeal in Rome; and yet this same council of Sardica, in its eagerness to find some mode of escape from the persecution of the Arians, invoked the assistance of Pope Julius in a manner which, cautious and restricted though it was, has served as the foundation for the overshadowing supremacy of the Roman see. That the Sardican canons were adopted temporarily and for a special purpose is evident both from their provisions and from the manner in which they long continued to be treated. The appeal which they create is to Pope Julius personally, and not to the Bishop of IRome, as though the Latin churches wished to secure aid in an immediate danger, without instituting a permanent custom; and, moreover,. the only intervention which they prescribe is that, if a bishop considers himself unjustly condemned, the case may be submitted to Julius, who can either confirm the judgment or send legates to the spot where a new trial may be had.l The council seems to have foreseen the evil of allowing appeals to a distant point, and to have guarded carefully against the danger of such abuse of the power which it was granting. The establishment of such authority, to be wielded by an irresponsible court in far-off 1 Concil. Sardicens. can. 3, 4, 7. What are called the canons of the Sardican council seem rather to be minutes of its proceedings; and of the three canons quoted here, the first is the only one of which the adoption is recorded. The matter apparently led to some debate, and after the adoption of canon 3, offered by Osius, Gaudentius added a proposition looking to the new trial being held in Rome, and designed to protect the interest of the condemned bishop during his absence. This apparently was not passed, a-nd then Osius suggested the seventh canon, which prescribes that the second trial shall be held on the spot, permitting the pope, if he thinks fit, to send deputies to assist as assessors. The whole is evidently an attempt to frame some new device by which to meet a new danger, and not a record of a pre-existing custom. At the most, the whole only represents the action of the Latin half of the council after it had quarrelled and divided, and but for the use subsequently made of the canons by Rome they would be unworthy of consideration. THE PAPACY AND TIIE CHURCIH. 123 Rome, vwas a later assumption, which practically gave to the prerogative its immense power for evil. That these canons passed completely from memory with the exigency which caused their adoption is evident from an epistle addressed to the Emperor Gratian by the council of Rome in 378, entreating him to put in force a rescript by which he had granted appellate power to the Roman church in the existing troubles-a rescript which had met with scant observance.1 Similar proof is afforded by the provisions of the second oecumenic council, held in Constantinople in 381, which recognizes no appeal from the synod of the province, and expressly orders that none should be made.2 How little the popes themselves believed that they were invested with any general appellate power, even when specially called upon, is shown in the case of Bonosus. Accused of an error of faith respecting the perpetual virginity of the Mother of Christ, his trial was referred by the council of Capua, in 389, to Anysius, Archbishop of Thessalonica, and the Macedonian bishops. These applied to Pope Siricius for his judgment. Siricius was usually not backward in extending the prerogatives of his see, and yet he declined, on the ground of incompetency, to entertain the question, and told the applicants that they alone could decide it.3 So a lawv of Arcadius and HonoriLs, iii 400, providing penalties for bishops who refused to submit to sentences of deposition regularly pronounced by Concil. Roman. ann. 378 (Harduin. I. 840-1.) 2 Concil. Constantinop. I. can. 6. From the tenor of this canon it is evident that appeals were customarily made to the secular power. 3 " Advertimus quod nobis judicandi forma competere non possit.... vestrum est igitur qui hoe accepistis judicium, sententiam ferre de omnibus, nec refugiendi vel elabendi accusatoribus vel accusato copiam dare." In the text of this epistle as given by Batthyani (Legg. Eccles. Hung. T. I p. 21.0) the " non" is omitted from the first clause of this sentence, but the context shows that this reading is an error, and the authorized editions give it as quoted. Cf. I-Iarduin. I. 859; Jaffd Regesta, p. 21. 124 THE RISE OF THIE TEMPORAL POWVER the neighboring prelates, makes no allusion to any appeal or reference to Rome.l It is true that Baronius produces, from the inexhaustible storehouse of the Vatican, a rescript of Gratian and VTalentinian, dated in 381, directing that the decisions of the PIoman bishop, acting with seven others, shall be final; that metropolitans shall of necessity be judged by the pope, and that, when the provincial judges are liable to suspicion, the accused may demand to be tried by the pope, or by fifteen neighboring bishops; but that this change of velnue hadl to be made before the trial, as no appeal from or revision of a sentence is allowed.' This was probably issued in response to the request of the synod of 378; it cautiously withholds all appellate power, and the restricted jurisdiction which it bestows is merely a temporary one, granted as a relief to themselves by princes wearied with the internecine strife between Damasus and his unsuccessful competitor Ursinus, and bewildered with the ceaseless wrangling of the Arian controversy, for the canons of the council of Constantinople in the same year show how anxious were the secular authorities to escape from these perplexities. That it could only have possessed temporary validity, is shown by its omission fiom the Theodosian code, and the conflicting tendency of subsequent legislation. If genuine, moreover, it proves that the Sardican canons had not succeeded in conferring any permanent appellate jurisdiction on the Roman court. It is almost a work of surplusage to pursue further the proof of the worthlessness of those canons as the basis of the supervisory power of Rome; and yet another instance, fully as conclusive, may be cited. St. John Chrysostom, when the illegal synod ad Querctzum deprived him of the see of Constantinople, never thought of appealing to the Lib. xvi. Cod. Theod. Tit. ii. 1. 35. Baron. Annal. ann. 381, No. 247. THE PAPACY AND THE CHURCH. 125 friendly Innocent I., as he would have been entitled to do had the validity of the Sardican canons been recognized; but, as he himself states when writing to Innocent, he only demanded to be tried by a fuller synodcl.l When, moreover, Innocent interfered, he claimed no special power; though, curiously enough, his action has been adduced by zealous Catholics as an evidence that the Sardican Canons were then in force. So far was he from assuming this that he told the followers of Chrysostom that the canons of Nicsea were the only ones entitled to implicit obedience; and though he alluded to the council of Sardica, it was only to substantiate his condemnation of the council of Antiocli, which had been quoted by the persecutors of Chrysostonm. He based on it no claim to appellate jurisdiction, and could only advise that an cecumlenic council be held, as the sole tribunal which could decide on the justice of the condemnation of Chrysostom.2 Yet the earliest claim of a general prerogative to revise the judgment of provincial synods appears to have been asserted by Innocent I. An epistle of his to Victricius of Rouen orders all important cases to be referred to Rome for revision, after decisions had been rendered on the spot, and he bases this demand on custom and the synodal decrees-probably alluding to those of Sardica.3 That this, indeed, was becoming not uncommon is manifested by his correspondence in 414 with the bishops of Macedonia. S. Joann. Chrysost. ad Innocent. Epist. I. cap. 2. Innocent. PP. I. Epist. vII. cap. 2, 3, 4. The absence of legitimate and recognized authority on the part of the popes to interfere in such matters is confessed by the fabrication of an epistle in which Innocent is made to excommunicate Arcadius the emperor, and Eudoxia his wife, for the part thev had taken in the persecution of the saint; and also of an humble appeal from them for restoration to communion. As late as the end of the seventeenth century these documents were still cited as genuine (Chr. Lupi Schol. in Canon. Sardicens. Iv.-Opp. T. I. p. 294)-but they are now universally admitted to be spurious. Innocent. PP. I. Epist. II. cap. 3. 11* 126 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. Bubalius and Taurianus, after condemnation at home, hadl exhibited letters purporting to come friom Innocent. Tlhe Macedonian prelates thereupon complained to him of this interference, to which he replied that the letters in question were forgeries —an evidence that the evils of the new system were already beginning to make themselves felt, and that the church was not as yet prepared to submit. These pretensions at length aroused resistance, and, as soon as their basis was investigated, IRome herself was obliged to confess that they could not be justified. A priest of Sicca, ill Nullidia, named Apiarius, was deprived of holy orders after clue investigation and trial by the provincial bishops. He carried his case to Pope Zozimus, who restored him to coummunion, and sent him back to Africa with legates to sustain him. At the sixth council of Carthage the matter was solemnly taken up and debated. The epistle of Zozimus grounded his right of interference on the Sardican canons, to which he attributed the name of the venerable council of NiTctea.2 The authority of the first aecumenic council was irrefragable, and the African fathers bowed submissively to it; but as the principles advanced were in such total conflict with the decrees usually attributed to that august body, they only yielded provisionally, and demanded a fuller investigation. Professing implicit Innocent. PP. I. Epist. XVIII. 2 The manner in which Zozimus insisted on the authority of these canons as emanating from the council of Nicea, and the discussions concerning them in the council of Carthage, show that the importance of the substitution was keenly appreciated at the time, and that it scarcely could have been accidental. The labored arguments of Baronius (Ann. 419, No. 65-71) to prove that it was of little moment are their own best refutation. It was the fashion in Rome to confound the two councils together. Their canons were all included under the head of Nicea in an ancient collection (Migne's Patrolog. T. 56, p. 412) which Quesnel thinks was authoritatively used in Rome dluring this period, but which the Ballerini attribute to Gaul. The fact is that, in 525, Dionysius Exiguus, in his preface, explains that he himself had added them, with the African canons, to the authoritative Greek code, in the collection nimade by him for the Roman court. THE PAPACY AND THIE CHURCHI-. 127 obedience to the Nicene code of discipline, they forthwith dispatched messengers to Alexandria and Constantinople for authentic copies, thinking that their own might possibly be imperfect. Great was their joy on being able to prove that the obnoxious claim was an unauthorized interpolation, and greater still when Apiarius confessed the irregularities for which he had been condemned. During these lengthenedc proceedings, Zozimus had died, and his successor, Boniface, had likewise passed away, after a pontificate of nearly four years. To Celestin I., therefore, did the African church communicate the result, in an epistle remarkable for its spirit of independence. The pope was requested, with slender show of respect, no more to entertain appeals from those who had been condemned at home, for no authority could be alleged in support of such pretensions. Ample provisions, moreover, existed to secure impartial justice on the spot- where offences were committed, and no principle could justify conclusions formed fiom ex parte statements in distant regions, inaccessible to witnesses and testimony.l Not content with this, to secure their church from further aggression, the council revived a canon which threatened excommunication. against all who should appeal to Rome after undergoing due trial at home, in terms which show that this was by no means the first struggle which had taken place on this question." To appreciate this transaction in its full significance, we must remember that at this period the church of Africa was the stronghold of orthodoxy, under the leadership of the brilliant St. Augustine, who took part in all these proceedings —and further, that when the Sardicanm canons were traced to their true source, they were treated by unanimous consent as void of all authority. Cod. Eccles. African. can. 137 (Concil. Carthag. VI. can. 14). 2 Non provocent ad transmarina judicia, sed ad primates suarum provinciarlum, sicnt et dle eliscopis sqpe constitutumnC7 est. Ad transmarina anutem qui putaverit appellandulni a nullo inter Aflicarn ad comnlunionem suscipiatur. — Cod. Eccles. African. can. 28 (Concil. Milevit. ann. 402, can. 22). 128 TIE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. Even while the African church was thus sturdily and successfully vindicating its independence,:Rome was managing to extend over Gaul the jurisdiction which St. Augustine denied it to possess. In 419 the clergy of Valence appealed to Boniface I., complaining of their bishop, Maxirnus, whom they accused of Manicheisml and other crimes, and who had refused submission to the synods assembled for his trial. Boniface had no scruple in seizing the opportunity thus offered. He ordered another synod to be convened, in which sentence should be pronounced, whether Maximus appeared to defend himself or not; but the result was to be transmitted to Rome, for papal approval.' So in 428 Celestin I. consoled himself for his vanishing sway over Africa by writing to the bishops of Vienne and Narbonne, blaming them for the consecration as bishop of a certain Daniel, whose misdeeds in the East were at that time undergoing investigation in Rome, and whom he had been vainly summoning and searching for. He also inveighed against the conduct of a priest of Marseilles, implicated in the murder of a brother, whom he ordered to be tried by the ecclesiastical authorities.2 The gradual advances thus made culminated under the energetic management of Leo I. The Barbarian invasions were daily rendering the transalpine churches more in need of aid and sympathy, and as the temporal sway of Rome declined, her spiritual authority grew stronger. The splendid talents of Leo, his unimpeachable character and vigorous temper, fitted him to take full advantage of this conjuncture, and to him the Holy See owes the establishment of its prerogative. The quarrel of St. Hilary, Mietropolitan of Arles, with the Archbishop of Vienne afforded a fair opportunity, which was improved to the utmost. Hilary, confident in his own integrity of purpose, the justice of his cause, and his blameless life, was not disBonifac. PP. I. Epist. 2. 2 Ccelest. PP. 1. Epist. ad Episc. Gall. cap. 3, 6. THE PAPACY AND THE CHIURCH. 129 posed to submit himself to a domination which he did not recognize. He was broken in the struggle, and though the Gallican church did not pay heed to the deprivation of communlion pronounced against him, iio resistance was made to his degradation from the primatial see of Gaul. The trinmph of the apostolic see was completed, and its supremacy was established, not only by this example of its power, but by an imperial edict which, in 445, during the progress of the affair, Leo procured from the feeble Valentinian III. In this extraordinary document the most extravagant pretensions of the iRoman church receive the full sanction of law; its authority is declared competent to any stretch of power; any attempt at resistance is made a violation of the obedience due to the emperor himself; the secular magistrates are (lirected to compel the presence at Rome of any prelate whose case may be evoked there for judgment by the pope; and Aetius, the military governor of Gaul, is directed to levy a fine of ten pounds of gold on any judge who may infringe the privileges thus bestowed.1 These enormous prerogatives are declared to be in pursuance of the decrees of a synod; but as no special council is mentioned, we may presume that the Sardican canons were those used to give color to the usurpation, Valentinian being more easily imposed upon than St. Augustine. Arnied. with such a weapon, it is no wonder that Leo could declare to the prelates of Gaul that his church was competent to entertain appeals fiom any source, that Hilary was guilty in denying the obedience which he owed to St. Peter, and that whoever refused to admit the authority of the see of Rome condemned himself to hell.2 Encouraoed by success, he carried his prerogative still further, and assumned that no sentence could be rendered until the case should be submitted to him and his pleasure be expressed, thus erecting the Roman church into a court of first and Novell. Valentin. III. Tit. xvII. ~~ 2, 3. 2 Leon. PP. I. Epist. x, cap. 2. 130 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. last resort.' The papal decretals, moreover, he declared to be binding on the whole church, any infringement or neglect of their commands being an offence for which there was no pardon.2 How entirely this supreme jurisdiction was the creation of imperial power was seen when the final death-struggle between Alexandria and Constantinople seemed to give Leo the opportunity of coercing both antagonists into submission, and the East, notwithstanding its distracted condition, utterly repudiated the pretensions of the West. When Eutyches was first condemned in the synod of Constantinople in 448, Leo assumed that he appealed to Rome; but when the matter was investigated in the synod of the succeeding year, it was proved that, after sentence had been passed upon him, he had said to the imperial commissioner that he appealed to a council embracing Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Thessalonica-that is to say, to an cecumenic council, which was strictly in accordance with established precedent.' It is true that when Eutyches had his revenge in the Robber Synod of Ephesus in 449, where the deposition of one of his opponents, Theodoret of Cyrus, was confirmed, the latter sought refuge in Rome, and appealed to Leo in terms of fulsome supplication,' but this is not to be admitted as a precedent of any authority. Supported by the imperial court, Eutychianism for the moment controlled the East. Leo's legates at Ephesus had been treated with the scantiest respect, and one of them, iHilary the Deacon, had been forced to fly for his life. Rome of course became the haven of refuge for the orthodox Greeks, who were ready to say or do anything to insure protection for themselves. Leo himself was utterly Leon. PP. I. Epist. xIv. cap. 1. Ejusd. Epist. Iv. cap. 5. 3 Concil. Chalced- Act. I. (Harduin. II. 198, 207.) Eutyches omitted Antioch purposely, because he considered Domnus, its metropolitan, as tainted with Nestorianism. 4 Leon. PP. I. Epist. 52. TIlE PAPACY AND THE CIHURCHI-. 131 without jurisdiction in the premises, and all that he could do was to join in the council of Chalcedon, when the death of the Emperor Theodosius rendered it possible to cancel the proceedings at Ephesus by another synod. Meanwhile, as Dioscorus of Alexandria, the Eutychian leader, and Leo had mutually excommunicated each other, the latter had no hesitation in admitting Theodoret to episcopal communion; and on the strength of this, and the special comniand of the Emperor Marcian, Theodoret, after a sharp struggle, was admitted to a seat in the council of Chalcedon.' When, however, his case came up in the council, the action of Leo was treated as null and void. IH-e was ordered to prove his orthodoxy by anathematizing Nestorius, and on his tergiversating, the holy fathers shouted " He is a heretic! He is a Nestorian! Turn out the heretic!" It was not until he had thus been forced formally to curse Nestorius and Eutyches that the council acknowledged him to be orthodox, and then proceeded to decree his restoration to his see.2 The previous action of Leo on his appeal went for nothing, and the council, as we have seen, took care to rebuke the papal aspirations by asserting the equality of Constantinople with Rome. The failure -was the more disgraceful, as Leo had imitated Zozimus in twice attempting during the course of the quairlel to foist upon tlle Emperor Theodosius the Sardican canons as those of _Nicea.3 W~hile the East thus vindicated its independence, the pretensions of Rome were submitted to in the West for some time with more or less regularity. The epistles of Leo, and of his successor Hilary, bear ample testimony to their activity, and to the numerous cases in which the authority of the Holy See was invoked by the ecclesiastics of distant provinces. The appeal of the Tarragonensian bishops, at the synod of Rome, in 465, is couched in terms' Concil. Chalced. Act. I. (Ha rduin. II. 71-4.) 2 Ejusd. Act. viii. (Ibid. pp. 498-9.) 3 Leon. PP. I. Epist. 43, 56. 132 TIIE RISE OF TIIE TEMPORAL POWER. which abundantly testify to the submission of the Spanish church to the most imperious assumptions of St. Peter's superiority.l When in 495 the struggle over the excommunication of Acacius had given a fresh impetus to the pretensions of PRome over her hated rival of Constantinople, Gelasius I. felt himself warranted in declaring that the Apostolic see had the power of judging the whole church, and was to be judged of none; that it would receive appeals from the whole Christian world, and that from its decisions there was no appeal;2 and when Euphemius, the successor of Acacius, urged that the excommunication of the latter by Felix IIl. was irregular, as the act of a single bishop, without a formal trial, Gelasius indignantly retorted that such an assertion proved his contempt for the canons which constituted the see of Peter as the universal judge of the Christian church.3 Yet this supremacy, so confidently proclaimed, rested on the most unstable foundation, and was crumbling even while Gelasius sent his swelling words over Christendom. The gift of the imperial power, it vanished with that power, and when the Christianized Franks and Goths erected new kingdoms in France and Spain, independence of the temporal authority of Rome brought with it independence likewise of its spiritual domination. The 3Merovingian and Gothic princes were well nigh absolute rulers over church as well as state, and felt little reverence for the antagonistic claims of St. Peter. It is true that when in 534 Contumeliosus, Bishop of IRiez, was tried for incontinence, the bishops, to relieve some doubts, applied to John II. for advice, and punished the criminal in accordance with the papal recommendation, and that Contumeliosus appealed to the next pope, Agapet Concil. Roman. ann. 465. —Hilar. PP. Epist. ad Ascanium. Gelasii PP. I. Epist. ad Episc. Dardan. (Harduin. II. 909.) E3 jusd. Commonit. ad Faust. Magist. (Ibid. 885.) THE PAPACY AND THE CHURCH. 133 I., who ordered a new trial. The whole case, however,,affords a strikiing contrast to the condition of affairs under Leo and Hilary. John merely transmits canons and points out what ought to be done in the premises, and Agapet's epistle is absolutely apologetic in its tone, as though he felt that he was assuming a novel power which might be disputed, and which required to be explained.' Even more significant is the history of the bishops Salonius of Embrun, and Sagittarius of Gap. Their dissolute and riotous conduct becoming unbearable, they were deposed by the synod of Lyons in 567, and made no pretension to any direct right of appeal. Knowiing, however, that they were in favor with King Gontran, they invoked the royal power for permission to carry the matter to Rome. This was granted, and Gontran moreover furnished them with special letters to the pope. John III. heard their story, andi sent to the king —not to the bishops —an order for their restoration, which was duly accomplished. As they became more reckless than ever, Gontran sent for them, when, irritated by an audacious speech, he stripped them of all their possessions, and threw them into a monastery. This was arbitrary and illegal, but they dared to take no appeal to PRome, and at length Gontran relented and restored them. Then, in 579, the synod of Chalons took up the case.. The accusations of homicide and adultery brought agcainst them were thought sufficient to j ustify penalnce only, so a charge of treason was framed, upon which they were condemned and imprisoned in the church of St. Marcel; and although they succeeded in escaping, other bishops were installed in their sees, and they never ventured to appeal to Rome.2 This whole story shows how completely the papal authority had been superseded by the royal prerogative, and the same is evident in the cases of Joann. PP. II. Epist. 5, 6. Agapeti PP. I. Epist. 7. 2 Greg. Turon. IFist. Franc. Lib. v. cap. 21, 28. 12 134 THE RISE OF TIE TEMPOPRAL POWER. Pretextatus of Rouen,l and Giles of Rheims,2 neither of whom would have failed to appeal to Rolme had he imaginedl that he had any chance of being saved by papal intervention. In the numerous councils, moreover, held in France and Spain during the sixth and seventh centuries, there are constant enactments of provisions for the settlenment of ecclesiastical difficulties, while no allusion occurs to any reference to Rome being customary. Thus, in the second council of Lyons, held in 567, all questions between bishops are directed to be finally settled by their provincial brethren, and any one endeavoring to elude this judgment is threatened with three months' withdrawal of friendly intercourse.3 It is true that it was from the decision of this very council that Contumeliosus appealed to Rome, but for this action lie found it necessary to invoke the royal power, and the undeviating action of the frequent synods shows that the Gallican and Spanish churches were successfully vindicating their independence of papal jurisdiction as far as concerned their internal affairs.4 This severance from Rome grew wider and wider, in the wild disorders of the later AMerovingians, until, as France passed into the hands of the Mayors of the Palace, it was separated from Rome almost as effectually as was Spain by the Saracen conquest. It is by no means improbable that the custom of bestowing the paclliumn was illtroducecl by the popes in the hope of arresting this movement of disiltegration. As early as the fourth century, the Eastern emperors were in the habit of giving a cope to their prelates as a mark of dig1 Greg. Turon. Lib. v. cap. 19; Lib. YII. cap. 16. 2 Flodoard. H-list. Remens. Lib. II. cap. 2. 3 Concil. Lungdun. II. can. 1. 4 Concil. Aurelianens. III, can. 4.- Concil. Aurelianens. V. can. 3.Concil. Turon. II. can. 2. —Concil. Matiscon. II. can.19.-Concil. Parisiens. V. can. l1. —Martin. Bracarens. can. 13, etc. THE PAPACY AND THE CHURCI-I. 135 nity. The popes at length adopted the plan of granting its use to primates and apostolic vicars, as a token of their possessessing certain privileges, in return for which they were expected to render peculiar obedience to the Holy See. This was in some sort a delegation of imperial power, for in one of the earliest recorded instances of its use, when Auxanius of Arles applied, in 543, to Vigilius for the pallium, which had been conceded to his predecessor by Pope S3ymmachus, Vigilius replies that he cannot do so without the permission of the emperor. Nearly two years passed away in obtaining Justinian's consent, and in 545 Vigilius formally authorized Auxanius to wear it, and at the same time constituted him papal vicar throughout Gaul, with full exercise of papal prerogatives over the Gallic hierarchy, excepting that cases of peculiar magnitude andc intricacy were to be referred to Rome for consultation.' It was evidently an attempt to retain through a deputy the nominal possession at least of authority over a region which was rapidly becoming virtually independent. So in 595, when Gregory the Great transmitted the pallium with the same dignity to Virgil of Arles, he instructed the latter that all important cases were to be reserved for settlement by the Holy See.2 It is instructive to observe that these special efforts were necessary to secure attention for claims so exceedingly moderate in comparison with the prerogatives exercised in the preceding century by Leo and Hilary. France in the eighth century had become almost a heathen country, and when, about the year 700, Willibrodc was deputed as missionary to the Frisians by Pope Sergius, and in 719 Gregory II. encouraged St. Boniface who was bound to northern Germany on the same pious errand, a new opportunity was offered to to the papacy to regain its I Vigilii PP. Epist. 6, 7, 8, 9. o Gregor. PP. I. Regest. Lib. v. Epist. 53, 54, 55. 136 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. lost ground. The churches founded by these missions were more dependent than their elder sisters upon the HIoly See, and the missionaries themselves more full of zeal for the prerogatives of St. Peter, from whom they derived alike their inspiration and their authority. The golden opportunity was skilfully improved. When Boniface was recalled to Rome in 723 to receive the reward of his holy labors in Thuringia anc Saxony, Gregory consecrated him as bishop, and administered to him an oath till then unknown in the observances of the transalpine churches.' On the blessed relics of the apostle, and under terrible imprecations, Boniface swore faith and obedience to St. Peter and to the pope as his vicar; and he specially promised that whenever he was cognizant of irregularities among prelates he would correct them if possible, and if he were powerless to effect this, that he would report thlem to Rome.2 Thus bound by every tie of fealty, he was the missionary equally of St. Peter and of Christ. -W6hen Carloman and Pepin undertook to rechristianize France, Boniface was the instrument providentially at hand, and he labored not only to restore religion but to revive the almost forgotten reverence for RPome.' In a letter to his friend Cuthbert of Canterbury, he dwells at much lenglth on the proceedings of a synod in which he made the assembled prelates subscribe a promise of obedience to St. Peter and to his vicar, and that all metropolitans should seek the pallium from the pope-and when this obligation was received at PRome it caused much rejoicing. Ile further procured the adoption of a canon by which all' Compare the oath of Boniface with that p1reviously taken by the suburbicarian bishops, as given in the Lib. Diurn. Roman. Pontif. cap. III. Tit. 8. A clause in the latter swearing fidelity to the temporal sovereign is replaced in the former by the pledge to report to Rome all recalcitrant prelates. 2 Bonifacii Epist. inter 117 et 118. 3 Ejusd. Epist. 132. Et quantoscunque audientes vel discipulos in ista legatione mihi Deus donaverit, ad obedientiam apostolisem sedis invitare et inclinare non cesso. TIHE PAPACY AND THE CHIURCH. 137 irrepressible disorders were to be reported by the bishops to their metropolitans andl by them to the pope-a regulaition which Boniface evidently felt to be novel, and which he endeavored to justify by the example of his own oath.1 It might well seem to Boniface that the fearful laxity of discipline in the Gallican church could be cured only by the intervention of a power highler than that of the local authorities of the kingdom, whether spiritual or temporal, and he inculcated the invocation of that power with a directness of appeal unknown in earlier times. Thus we see him calling in the interference of Stephen II., in his quarrel with the Archbishop of Cologne, respecting the ruined see of Maestricht, and his successor St. Lull appealing at once to RIome to repress the insubordination of a troublesome priest.2 His see of Mrainz thus became peculiarly connected with the papacy, and we can readily understand that it was but faithful to its traditions when it produced the forgeries of Riculfus and Benedict the Levite. In the effort to resuscitate the influence of the papacy over western and northern Europe the pallium again makes its appearance as a potential instrument. In the synod above alluded to, the reference to it is significant, showing how Boniface urged upon his metropolitans the duty of seeking it at the hands of the supreme pontiff. They showed themselves, however, fearful of the honor and chary of the (lignity, evidently dreading to incur the obligations connected with it more than they coveted its attendant advantages. In 743 or 744, Boniface writes to Pope Zachary that the Frankish prelates objected to sending for it on account of the expenses assessed upon the applicant by the papal court-an abuse which they did not hesitate to stigmatize as simony. Zachary denied this empihatically, and to remove all diffiuenlty promised to abolish the 1 Bonifiacii Epist. 32. EIjusd. Epist. 97, 100. 12* 138 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. fees exacted by his officials.i This concession to the complaints put forward did not seem to remove the deep-seated mistrust entertained of the dangerous gift, for in 749 we find Bonifac.e again declaring to the pope that he had made every effort in his power and that he had not yet been able to induce the archbishops to apply for it.2 HEow difficult it was to overcome the repugnance of the Teutonic prelates is manifest in the fact that St. Lull, the especial disciple of Boniface, in whose favor the latter exercised the exceptional privilege accorded him of nominating a successor to his primatial see of MAainz, though appointed in 754 had not yet sought the pallimn in 772, 9wvhen Adrian I. wrote to Tilpin of Itheims (the Archbishop Turpin of the Chansons de Geste), ordering him to investigate the doctrine and virtues of Lull, and, if the result was satisfactory, to give him a certificate, on the strength of which the pallium would be sent to himn.3 It was evident that some additional inducements were necessary to overcome this aversion and to bind the hierarchy to the throne of St. Peter. Charlemagne, in reconstructing the civil and ecclesiastical institutions of the empire, was careful not to allow encroachments on any portion of. his prerogative, and we have seen above how absolutely he retained in his hands the jurisdiction over the church as well as over the state. The appellate power, and the right to interfere in the in1 Bonifacii Epist. 143. The complaints of exaction were probably by no means unfounded. Nearly two centuries later, Cnut the Great, of England, in writing from Rome and detailing his efforts to obtain privileges for his people, states-" Conquestus sum iterum coram domino papa, et mihi valde displicere dixi, quod mei archiepiscopi in tantum angariebantur imniensitate pecuniarum qum ab eis expetebantur dum pro pallio accipiendo secundum morem apostolicam sedem expeterent; decretumque est ne id deinceps fiat"-(Florent. Wigorn. ann. 1031). How great a source of revenue it finally became may be judged from the G'avcnzioza Gerianzicce Vcttionzis in 1510 (Freher. et Struv. II. 702), and the complaints of the Germain archbishops at the Congress of Ems in 1786 (Dalham, Concil. Salisburg. p. 664). " Bonifac. Epist. 141. 3 Flodoard. Hist. Remens. Lib. II. calp. 17. THE PAPACY AND THE CHURCH. 139 ternal concerns of the western church, once arrogated by the popes, slumberec during his reign and that of his son as completely as they had during the anarchic period of Pepin d'Herestal and C harles Martel. Whatever hopes had been excited by the zealous labors of Boniface had proved vain, and further efforts were necessary. The first endeavor seems to have been made through the instrumentality of the pallium. It is a noteworthy evidence of the desuetude into which the appellate jurisdiction of Rome had fallen that among the special privileges now conceded, to ]ender the pallium attractive, was one which entitled its wearer to appeal to the pope fiom the judgment of a local synod. The earliest instance of this that I have noticed occurs in 772, when the pallium was conferred on Archbishop Tilpin, of Rheims, and the terms of the grant show that this right of appeal was a novel privilege and a special indulgence.1 Allusion has already been made to the case of Theodulf of Orleans, which shows not only the privileges claimedcl in virtue of the pallium, but also how little respect they received even from so religious a monarch as Louis-le-iDeboinnaire. Even after the principle of appellate jurisdiction in all cases had been established, as will presently be seen by the vigorous efforts of Nicholas I., when, about 870, Adrian II. sent the'" Non solum vetera... sed et nova, tibi pro tuo bono studio concedimUS... confermasmus atque solidamus... Et te ant futuris temporibus Remensem episcopum et primatum illius dioecesis non prmsumat neque valeat unquam aliquis de episcopatu dejicere sine canonico judicio neque in ullo judicio sine consensou Romani pontificis, si ad hanc sanctam sedem Romanam.. appellaverit de ipso judicio"-Flodoard. IIist. Remens. Lib. II. cap. 17. The privilege thus connected with the pallium will explain some tiansactions of the ninth century, which have been quoted to prove the appellate jurisdiction of the papacy-see Thomnassin, Discip. de ]'Eglise, P. III., Liv. 1, chap. 1. Thus, Charles-le-Chauve, in 803, admitted the right of Adventius, Bishop of Metz, to appeal to Rome (Goldast. III. 284), for the bishops of Metz at that time enjoyed the pallium and were styled archbishops, though they were not metropolitans. 140 THE RISE OF THIE TEMPORAL POWER. pallium to Actarcdus, Bishop of Nantes, as a personal reward for his constancy under thile Norman devastations, the gift was accompanied with the special privilege of appealing to the pope in last resort.1 From the use made of the pallium ill after ages, and the difficulty which was long experienced in forcing the gift upon anl unwilling hierarclly, we may not unreasonably suppose that there was a double object aimed at in this policy-to extend the prerogative and influence of the Holy See, and to overcome the repugnance manifested by the prelates to seek the pallium.2 Even this, however, was not sufficient to bring its 1 Adriani PP. II. Epist. 9. 2 The questions connected with the pallium are deserving of fuller treatment than space will here allow. Even before the question of investitures had definitely arisen between the empire and the papacy, the pallium gave to the latter control over the nominations to the loftier sees. This was accomplished by means of a forged decretal, attributed to Damasus, by which all metropolitans, under pain of degradation, were obliged to seek the pallium within three months after consecration. (Burchard. Decret. Lib. i. cap. 25). Thus when in 1060 the Empress-Regent Agnes appointed Sigfrid to the see of Maminz and applied for his pallium, she was informed that he must go to Romne and be examined as to his fitness, so that, if approved, he should receive it (P. Damliani Lib. vII. Epist. 4). A more effective expedient could hardly be devised, especially when it came to be conceded that the possession of the palliuml was a prerequisite to the enjoyment of the archiepiscopal functions. This appears from a petition of the Archbishop of Calnterbury in 1293,'' Postulat devota vestra filia ecclesia. Christi Cantuarensis concedi pallium de corpore sancti Petri sumptum, electo suo consecrato, ut habeat plenitudinem officii, et pro hac instanter et fortiter supplicat sanctitati vestra."' (Wilkins, Concil. II. 199.) As though this were not enough, the applicant was obliged to take a full and regular oath of fidelity to St. Peter, the Roman church, the pope and his successors, with only the exception "salvo ordine meo,' no exception being made in favor of any allegioance clue to the king or other temporal authority. (Wilkins, unbi sup.) See also the oath exacted of Philip, Archbishop of Cologne, on granting him the pallium, at the third council of Lateran in 1170 (Hartzheimll, Concil. German. III. 470). The progress to this point was gradual, and for a long time considerable opposition and hesitation were manifested with regard to it. Thus, in 1023, Fulbert of Chartres, one of the best canonists of his timle, writes to Arnoul, Bishop of Tours, in a strain which manifests how little respect was THE PAPACY AND THE CHtURCH. 141 use into favor, and in 877 John VIII. endeavored at the synod of Ravenna to compel its adoption by ordering that all metropolitans should be ejected who did not apply for the pallium within three months after consecration'-a regulation which met with little more respect than previous attempts in the same direction. The power to be obtained through this dangerous gift was however only limited and indirect, and the prerogative of universal appellate jurisdiction, so long and so unavailingly sought, was finally obtained through the instrumentality of the False Decretals. The clear perceptions which planned and executed the forgeries laid especial stress upon the appellate power, and lost no opportunity to inpaid to the fabricated decretal of Damasiis at that period —" Si pallium requisistis a Romano pontifice et vobis illud sine causa legitima denegavit, propter hoc non est opus dimittere mninisteriunm tuum; et si vestra ta,rditate nondum est requisitunm, cautela est expectare donec requiratur"' (Fulbert. Carnot. Epist. 59). The aggressive energy of Gregory VII. vindicated this assumed prerogative of Rome with the same vigor that he showed in other cases. When Guillaume Bonne-Ame, the successor of Lanfranc in the abbacy of Caen, received the Archiepiscopate of Rouen in 1079, and neglected to apply for the pallium, Gregory, in 1081, addressed him with bitter reproaches for his tardiness, and forbade him to ordain priests or to consecrate bishops or churches until he should have obtained it. (Gregor. PP. VII. Regist. Lib. ix. Epist. 1.) The nice questions which arose during the process of enforcing this unfamiliar custom are well illustrated by the case of Peter, Archbishop of Braga, who, in 1047, was deposed by the Archbishop of Toledo for receiving the pallium and its attendant privileges from Clement II.; and Braga for fifty years remained without a bishop.-Bernald. Vit. B. Geraldi Archiep. Bracarens. cap. 6 (Baluz. et Mansi I. 132). Even as late as 1786 the Archbishops of Germany, assembled in Congress at Ems, complained bitterly of the changes in the discipline of the church introduced on the strength of the False Decretals, and instanced particularly the immense sums exacted by the Roman curia for annates and the pallium, the payment of which frequently reduced the prelates to insolvency; and they threatened, if the pallium could not be given to them gratis, that they would execute their functions without it. (Dalham, Concil. Salisburg. pp. 659, 664.)' Synod. Ravenn. ann. 877, can. 1, 2. These canons are given in Gratian (P. I. Dist. C. can. 1), where they are attributed to Pelagius I. 142 TIHE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. culcate its necessity and to remove all obstacles to its exercise in the widest sense. The authority of the primitive church was invoked for new rules by which bishops under accusation could elect to appear at once before the papal tribunal, and indeed were directed to do so if they thought their fellow prelates prejudiced against them — the warmth of tile invitation justiflying them in the assumption that such a manifestation of filial confidence in the Holy See might cover a multitude of sins.' Other canons were promulgated by which the trial of a bishop could be undertaken only by a synod called for that special purpose by command of the pope himself;2 and a still further extension of power was assumed by the production of a regulation under which no verdict could be rendered until it had been submitted to the papal court and there approvecl.3 Indeed a decretal was fabricated under the namle of Elentherius, a pope of the second century, by which the most exaggerated pretensions of Leo and Hilary were attributed to the primitive church and were extended to the whole body of ecclesiastics. Bishops were, it is true, to be allowed to take testimony and pronounce judglment in accusations of their subordinate clergy, because it was physically impossible that all such cases should be attended to in Rome in the first instance, but no judgment was final until it should be submitted to the pope for approval or reversal, and if a sentence of deposition had been rendered no appointment to the vacant church could be made until the final decree of the Holy Father was received.4 The 1 Libere apostolicami appellent seclem, atque ad eam quasi ad matrem confugiant, ut ab ea (sicut semper fui[) pie ffilciantur, defendantur et liberentur (Pseudo-Julii Epist. 3. —Ivon. Decret. P. Iv. can. 257). Cf. Ingilram. c. 23 (Capitul. Lib. vii. cap. 315).-Ingilram. cap. 20 (Capitul. Lib. vII. cap. 314.) 2 Ingilram. c. 3-Pseudo-Julii Epist. 2; Pseudo-MIarcelli Epist. 1-Capitul. Add. IV. cap. 24. 3 Pseudo-Victor. Epist. I (Remig. Curiens. Episc. carn. 39)-Pseudo-Zephyrini Epist. 1-Pseudo-Fabiani Epist. 3, cap. 5-Pseudo-Sixti Epist. 1, &c. 4 Pseudo-Eleuther. Epist. cap. 2-Cf. Pseudo-Fabian. Epist. 3, cap 3. TIHE PAPACY AND THE CHURCH. 143 pope was thus pronounced to be the sole judge, in first and last resort, for every member of the clergy; and as the one source of justice he simply delegated, for the sake of convenience, to the local prelates, such portion of his power as would enable them to take testimony and forward it to him, with their opinion expressed in the form of a verdict. In fact, the constant iteration of these principles throughout the False Decretals, in every possible variation of language, shows the importance attached to them and the magnitude of the change in existing customs which they involved. When innovations so bold could be confidently asserted and arrogantly enforced, it is easy to account for the immense increase of papal prerogative, which brought under its influence every portion of the ecclesiastical body, even to its ultimate fibres. The first attempt to give them practical effect is found in the epistle attributed to Gregory IV. in 833, evoking to Rome the case of Aldric, Bishop of Le tMans..Jaff6' expresses himself unable to decide as to its authenticity, but it is so thoroughly in the style of the forgeries that whether genuine or not it evidently proceeded from the mlen who were concerned in them. It purports to be written when Gregory was returnilig from the Field of Falsehood, while he was in the hands of Wala and the ambitious churchmen who had shortly before nerved him to the performance of their will by proving to him the illimitable prerogatives attributed to the successor of St. Peter in the False Decretals. Its bold assertions of the authority of Rome, its lengthened arguments to vindicate that authority, and its threats against the (lisobedience which was evidently anticipated, all show that it was written to obtain power, and not merely to exercise it.2 Regest. p. 227. G2 regor. PP. IV. Epist. 1. A second epistle attributed to Gregory, ordering the restitution of Ebbo of Rheims, is, I believe, admitted on all hands to be an undoubted forgery. 144 THE RISE OF THI-E TEMPORAL POWER. Another attempt was made to assert the appellate jurisdiction of Rome by Sergius II., when, il 844, he conferred the vicariate on Drogo, Archbishop of Metz, and directed all bishops conceiving themselves unjustlv condemned by local synods to appeal to Drogo, and through himl to Rome.' Though Drogo was the son of Charlemagne, this attempt would appear to have been treated with silent contempt, and no effort seems to have been made to enforce it. A glance at two or three transactions of the period, moreover, will show how little respect was paid to these pretensions until after the middle of the century, and how they were finally realized through the vigoorous action of Nicholas I. Thus, in the reaction of 835, Ebbo, Archbishop of Rheims, was condemned and deposed by a synod for his active complicity with Gregory IV. in the rebellion against Louis-le-Debonlnaire. The insulted majesty of Rome did not interfere, but five years later, when his patron, the Emperor Lothair, regained power, Ebbo was forcibly reinstated, and on the defeat of Lothair he was obliged to fly, after enjoying his recovered dignity for about a year. After some time he went to Rome and appealed to Sergius II., who only restored him to communion. }Iincmar, who was installed in the see of Rheims in 845, made application for the palliulmn, and this gavezi Lothair, then sutpreme in Italy, the opportunity of forcing Sergius to inquire into the previous proceedings. The investigationl however, was a lnere farce. Sergius did not venture to evoke the case before himself, and did not even attempt to send a legate to France, nor did Ebbo dare to appear before the synod which assembled for the purpose of verifying Hincmltar's position. The bishops, when convoked, contented themselves with forbidding Ebbo to assume the rank from which lie had been degraded, and Sergius withdrew from the affair by sending the pallium to Itincmar.' 1 Sergii PP. II. Epist. alp. THartzheim, Concil. German. II. 145. 2 Flodoard. Hist. Remens. Lib. Ii. carp. 20. THE PAPACY AND THE CI-IURCH. 145 Twenty years later Nicholas I. heard that Hincmar had degraded certain priests who owed their ordination to Ebbo -probably during his term of forcible reinstatement. This pontiff's vigorous action contrasts strangely with his predecessor's hesitation, for he wrote at once to ilinemar, asking him to restore them. If he could not conscientiously do so, he was commanded to summon a council on the subject, of which the decision, with the testimony on which it was based, was to be submitted to Nicholas for his final action-and all this under threats of instant penalties for disobedience.l In 858, Wenilo, Archbishop of Sens, was desirous of deposing Herman of Nevers on the ground of insanity. The favor of Charles-le-Chauve supported the threatened prelate, and the suffragan bishops hesitated to assist their metropolitan. To accomplish his purpose, WTenilo therefore, on the authority of the False Decretals, referred the matter directly to Nicholas, without risking a preliminary trial; and the answer of ttie pontiff, coimplimenting him on his reverence for St. Peter, and contrasting it with the insubordinate independence of those who were not ready to perform such acts of obedience, betrays in every line the joy of one who hopes to gain an unlooked-for victory, and who is receiving aid as welcome as it was unexpected.2 Tlhe battle between centralization and independence, however, was fought in the case of Rothadus, Bishop of Soissons. A regularly organized synod under Hinlclar condemned and deposed Rothadus, without seekiing from Rlome a confirmation of the sentence, or heeding the appeal of the convicted bishop from the decision, whichl was put into execution after he had vainly demanded a reference to the pope.3 This was too flagrant a denial of the new doctrines, and too favorable an opportunity for their vindicaNicolni PP. I. Epist. 89. 2 Lupi Ferrar. Epist. 130.-Nicolai PP. I. Epist. 1. Annal. Bertin. ann. 862. 13 146 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. tion to be overlooked by the vigilant Nicholas. Branding the verdict with nullity, he evoked the case to Rome, but he met a stubborn resistance. Rothadus was not permitted to cross the mountains until after the most vigorous threats and appeals to the bishops of France, to the king, and even to the queen.!NTicholas triumphed. Rothadus at last appeared in Rome, where for nine months he awaited his accusers. In sullen dignity they held themselves aloof, and the sentence was reversed. Another struggle ensued to procure his reinstatementt; but in this, also, by liberal threats of excommunication, Nicholas was successful, and the supreme jurisdiction of the Head of the Church was decisively vindicated.1 The Gallican bishops had maintailled that when,' in the trial of a bishop, questions arose not provided for in the canons, then, and then only, the authority of the HIoly See was to be invoked —a reasonable concession which greatly moved the indignation of Nicholas-and to the last lHincmar asserted that the pope had usurped a power to which he was not rightfully entitledcl, stiogmatizing the universal right of appeal as a new law in conflict with all received custom.3 One argument advanced by Nicholas is fairly illustrative of the kind of logic which Rome so successfully employed. The council of Chalcedon (can. 9) directed that where an ecclesiastic had a complaint against his metropolitan, le should bring it before the primate of the province or the Patriarch of Constantinople. Nicholas quotes this canon, and argues that the " primate" can only mean the pope.4 Incidental to the Nicolai PP. I. Epist. 33-38, 47-49, 71-77. —Anastas. sub Nicol. PP. I. H inemari Epist. 2. —Annal. Bertin. ann. 865. Hlis expression is " Rothadum a Nicolao Papa non regulariter sed potentialiter restitutum." The doctrine that appeal to Rome lay only in doubtful cases he adhered to, notwithstanding the inclignation of Nicholas, andc he again enunciated it in an epistle to Adrian II., in 872, concerning Ilincmar of Laon. 2 Goldast. Const. Imp. I. 206. 4 Nicolai PP. I. Epist. 73. He developed the argument more fully and more ludicrously in a letter to the Emperor Michael, during his quarrel with Photius (Epist. 86). THE PAPACY AND THE CHURCH. 147 discussion was a dispute by which the authority of the False Decretals was finally affirmed and enforced. The Gallican bishops had ventured to cast some doubt, if not upon their authenticity, at least upon their validity, to which Nicholas angrily replied that they might as well call in question the authority of the Old and New Testaments, because they were not to be found in the ancient collections of canons.l In this double victory, therefore, we learn both what the internal regulation of the church had been, and what it was rapidly becoming under the influences which were subjecting it to the control of a single mind for good or for evil. The evil connected with the new system, indeed, was not long in making itself felt, and its more superficial effects became soon the subject of complaint, as interfering with the local administration ofjustice, destioying all certainty of punishment, and affording illimitable opportunities for deception as regards documents emanating from distant Rome. Even as early as 742, Boniface found that the papal jurisdiction which he labored so earnestly to establish proved a serious impediment to the reformation which was his other great object. Prelates whose lives were passed in open adultery and shameless licentiousness went to Rome, and, on their return, defied him by exhibiting papal letters restoring them to the exercise of their functions; and on his complaininl to Zachary, his only comfort was the reply that the thing was impossible.' The vigorous government of Charlemagne put a stop to all such abuses, but with the abasement of the civil power, and the recrudescence of papal pretensions,. they again flourished to an alarming extent. The conviction soon became universal that, no matter for what crimes an ecclesiastic might be condemned at home, a valid reversal of sentence was readily procurable at Rome, which invited' Nicol. PP. I. Epist. 75. 2 Bonifacii Epist: 132, 138. 148 THE RISE OF TIIE TEMPOIRAL POWER. so pressingly such applications, and doubtless appreciated fully their pecuniary firuitfulness. The transalpine church grew restless under the insuborclination and vice naturally resulting from this state of things, and in 8S8 Charles-leChauve addressed to John VIII. a long and earnest remonstrance, in which he describes the subversion of discipline which it entailed. He speaks of the bishops who, appealing fiom the just sentences of their metropolitalns, felt secure that the distance and dancgers of the journey wo.uld protect them against the production in Rome of the testilmony which proved their guilt; of the priests who, after episcopal condemnation, disappeared, no one knew whither, until their return with a papal letter of acquittal —the genuineness of which, however doubtful, no one dared to disputeshowed that their absence had not been fruitless; and lie dwells especially on the protection which this system gave to concubinagoe which for a thousand years has remained a corroding ulcer of the church.l We see by this that the appellate jurisdiction of Rome already extended over all classes of the clergy, and, comparing it with thle legislationl of Charlemagne designating the royal Court as the ultimate tribunal in such cases,2 we learn the rapid growth of the power and influence of the Holy See. Charles might reimonstrate, but the temporal power was subdued by this time, and he did not venture to put an end to the evils which he so correctly appreciated. Indeed, the confused and shifting policy of those tumultuous times occasionally induced both king and bishops to recognize the pretensions of Rome, for the purpose of gaining some temporary advantage.3 Yet the church did not submit without occasional remonstrance to these pretensions, which clearly threatened 1 Hincmari Epist. 32, cap. 3, 20, 21, etc. 2 Capit. Carol. Mag. ann. 794, cap. 4. Goldast. op. cit. III. 284.-Thoinmssin, Discip. de l'Eglise, P. III. liv. I. cap. 1. THE PAPACY AND TIIE CIURCH. 149 to subdue the hierarchy to vassalage, and to' surround the enforcement of discipline with unaccustomed difficulties. Il 895, for instance, the council of Tribur speaks of the papal right of appellate jurisdiction as a grievous and almost insupportable burden, to be borne with such patience as the churches might commandc; but at the same time it endeavored to counteract in some degree the evil by another complaint made of the numerous cases in which clerks brought forward in their defence forged letters purporting to come from Rome, and it empowered the bishops to imprison all offenders suspected of such practices until consultation could be had with the Roman court —a regulation evidently intended as an indirect mode of inflicting punishment on all who appealed from the local tribunals to the apostolic see. In 1018 the council of Seligenstadt sought to check the aggressiveness of Rome by a canon forbidding any one to journey thither without special permission of the bishop or vicar of his diocese.2 The papal court, however, persisted in enforcing and extending its supremacy, and its interference called forth constant and well-founded remonstrances. About 1030 the Bishop of Angouleme excommunicated one of his flock, and refused to admit him to penitence until he should have rendered due satisfaction. The offender travelled to Rome and brought back a papal letter prescribing a certain penance for him, and requesting its approval by the bishop. The latter, however, boldly affirmed the letter to be a forgery, because it represented the pope as asking of him what it was his place to ask of the pope, and lie turned the criminal unceremoniously out of the church. About the samne period the prelates of Aquitaine were much annoyed by this constant interference with their jurisdiction, which destroyed all their authority, and in 1031 they assembled I Concil. Tribur. ann. 895, can. 30. 2 Concil. Salegunstat. ann. 1018, can. 16. 13* 150 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER, at Limooes, where, after a full debate, they agreed that tile papal mandate should only be obeyed when the local tribunal had sent the offender to Rome, as often happened in d(oubtful cases, with letters asking the papal judgment as to sentences imposed; and that Rome had no right to interfere when her intervention was not requested by the provincial authorities.1 Tlhe popes were not disposed to admit these claims of local self-government, and the bishops were loth to yield them, as we see when in 1066 Alexander II. sharply rebuked Gervase, Archbishop of iRheims, for delaying two years in restoring to their functions two clerks who had made a successful appeal to him after condemnation at home; and the invitation held out by promising immunity in such cases is well indicated in his declaration that ";Rome is the only refuge for the oppressed, who are accustomed always to find there redress for their wrongs (r."2 The Normans in Italy were stubborn on this point, andrefused to admit the right of appeal. until the treaty of peace in 1156 between William of Sicily and Adrian IV. granted it for Naples and Calabria, but still wvithheld it for Sicily.3 The aggressive energy of Innocenit III., however, and the distractions of the Germanic empire, finally caused the principle to be recognized in the law of nations. The charter of Otho IV. in 1209 admitted it in the fullest manner, and forbade any interference with those who desired to appeal to Romne from sentences in the local ecclesiastical courts;~ and when the unfortunate Otho was to be overthrown, and his rival, FYrederic II., substituted in his place, the price exacted of the latter for the papal recognition, in 1213, was the Golden Bull, or Constitution of Egra, in which the same formal recognition of the appellate power was inserted.5 Frederic in 1219 repeated this for the benefit 1 Concil. Lemovicens. II. ann. 1031 (IHarduin. T. VI. P. I. pp. 890-2). 2 Alex. PP. II. Epist. 39. 3 Linig, Cod. Itil. Diplorn. II. 854-5. 4 Ibid. II. 707. 5 Goldast. I. 289. THIE PAPACY AND THIE CI-HURCHl. 151 of Honorius IIi.; and in 1275 its confirmation formed part of the concessions whereby Rodolph of HIIapsburg purchased the papal confirmation of the election which transformed him from a needy soldier of fortune to the head of the Holy Roman Empire.l The appellate power thus finally became a jurisdiction, civil as well as criminal, over all cases to which ecclesiastics were parties, constituting Rome a court of last resort for all Christendom. It was not within the ability of finite intelligence to conduct so vast and complex a business, under its inevitable disadlvantages, without causing infinite wrong; but abuses were profitable, and the PRoman court was always needy. Occasionally a pontiff would admit the evils of the system, but it was never abandoned. Few confessions more humiliating can be conceived than that made by Alexander IV. in 1256, when he issued a bull deploring the impunity afforded to concubinary priests by the facility with which letters were obtained fiom him reversingl the judgments rendered against them at home; but the remeidy devised for this was artfully contrived to preserve the fees of his court. He directed that no respect should be paid to any letters which he mig'ht grant, ulless they set forth the circumstances of the case so fully as to show that they had not been issued in utter ignorance of the verdicts which they undertook to set aside2_-thus admnitting his own abuse of the powers assumed, while persisting in committing the wrong', and cheating' those who bribed him for a pardon by neutralizing it after it had been paid for. He was willing' that his court should attempt to do all the mischief that might be profitable, and threw upon the local prelates the responsibility of limitilg that mischief, by discrediting the power of the keys which he professed to inherit from St. Peter and the Saviour. It would seem incredible that so shameless a confession could be Liinig, op. cit. II. 715, 723, 727. 2 Dalham, Concil. Salisburgens. p. 104. 152 THE RISE OF TIIE TEMiPORAL POWER. mnade by the head of anl infallible church, and yet within fifteen years the command was repeated in the same terms by Gregory IX.1 Not only was the appellate power thus fatal in its influence on tile discipline and morals of the church, but it was necessarily the source of illimitable injustice, enabling, as it did, a wealthy pleader to dictate terms of settlement to a poorer antagonist, who might not be able to endure the expense of carrying on a suit procrastinated amid the perpetually increasing business of distant Rome. All these evils were keenly felt for ages, and at length, when the church marshalled itself at Bale against the papacy, they formed one of the numerous subjects of reform unsuccessfully attempted. The council stigmatized the system as one of intolerable abuses and vexatious, and descanted earnestly on the wrongs and endless litigation which it fostered. The remedy adopted was the conferring of final jurisdiction on all courts situated at more than four days' journey from Rome, except in cases specially reserved by the canon law for papal decision;2 but it is easier to condemn a profitable abuse than to abolish it. Rome paid little heed to a regulation which would have limited her harvest of fees to Italian territory, although, after considerable delay, she was forced, in 1446, to give an unwilling consent to the Basilian canons.3 The abuse continued unchecked, and bore with almost equal severity on the laity and the church. As spokesman for the former, the Diet of Niirnberg, in 1522, complained of it witht little ceremony in the list of grievances presented to Adrian VI.;4 while the views of those churchmen who sincerely wished the purification of the. establishiment found a voice in the project of reformation drawn up by order of Paul III., which denounced in the strongest terms the innumerable' Baluz. et Mansi, III. 117. o Concil. Basil. Sess. xxxi. 3 I-Iartzheim, Concil. German. V. 301. l4 ravaTmina, art. 60 (Goldast. I. 474). PAPALr OMNIPOTENCE. 153 scandals caused throughout Christendom by the facility afforded to ecclesiastics of escaping from the jurisdiction of their superiors, and of purchasing free pardons at the papal court.l The council of Trent made some effort to check the evil,2 but the system was too profitable to be lightly abandoned, and it is scarce a hundred years since an honest Gerinan ecclesiastic, looking back with fond reoret to.the reforms attempted at Bale, laments their failure — Read, I pray you, these most admirable statutes, and compare with them the daily abuses arising from appeals!"3 W~hat the Roman court, however, has never been willing to abandon, was practically abolished by the reconstruction of society which followed the French Revolution. It can readily be perceived how, during the Middle Ages, a jurisdiction so universal and so absolute as this gave to the papacy the unlimited and irresponsible control over the church and all its members, from the highest to the lowest. PAPAL OMNIPOTENCE. Closely connected with the recognition of this supreme jurisdiction, springing from the same principles, strengthening it and being strengthened by various mutual reactions, andc extending the papal prerogative over every class of society, was the privilege of granting dispensation and absolution, which about the period of Carlovingian decadence commenced to elevate itself into importance. The power to bind and to loose was one capable of indefinite 1 Concil. de Emend. Eccles. (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 601). o Coneil. Trident. Sess. xsII. Decret. de Reform. cap. 1, 2, 3.-Sess. xxIv. Decret. de Reform. cap. 20. 3 Wurdtwein, Concil. Mogunt. p. 18. 154 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. application, and more than human self-control would have been requisite to abstain from assuming a prerogative so eagerly ascribed to the papacy by those who saw their own advantage in procuring its recognition. At the commencement of the ninth century we see but little of it, and the swift justice of Charlemagne would hardly have stayed her pace, because her victim had sought refuge and impunity at the feet of Adrian or of Leo. As the secular power declined, however, and men saw how it shunned a conflict with the rising influence of St. Peter, they naturally turned to the latter as an egis ever ready to confer protection on those whose intelligent reverence counterbalanced their misdeeds, while every instance of successful interference of course attracted numerous additional suppliants for similar favors. In 861, Nicholas I., on the authority of an Isidorian decretal (Pseudo-Alexandri Eplist. 1), released Thietgaud of Treves and his clergy firom a disagreeable oath by which they had bound themselves, and he assumed the power of declaring them discharged fr'om any civil or criminal liability for the consequences.l When John VIII. could write to Charles-le-Chauve and the Bishop of Chartres in favor of a murderer, and declare that the length of his journey and the depth of his repentance entitled him to a free pardon, to restitution to all his benefices, and to protection against the family of the slain,2 it is no wonder that Nicholas I. was able to cxclaim with plide that criminals from all parts of the world flocked to Rome to obtain pardon and escape retribution for their deeds.3 That this does not allude merely to Nicolai PP. I. Epist. 10. 2 Joann. PP. VIII. Epist. 39, 40, Cf. ejusd. Epist. 92; Nicolai PP. I. Epist. 136. 3 Nicola.i PP. I. Epist. 22. " Et quoniam ad hane sanctam Romanam.... Ecclesiam, qua- ob sui privilegii principatum..... de div ersis murndi partibus quotidie multi sceleris mole oppressi confugiunt, remissionerm scilicet et venialem sibi gratiam tribui supplici et ingenti cordis memrore poscentes." PAPAL OMNIPOTENCE. 155 spiritual absolution is evident from the occasion on which it was written, being a demand for the pardonl of Baldwin of Flanders, who, after carrying off Charles's daughter Judith, had fled to!Rome to escape the penalties, civil and ecclesiastical, denounced against him by the justly exasperated father. The immense number of these pilgrimages, as described by Nicholas, proves that they were not fiuitless, for the experience alone of success would induce mnultitucldes to undergo the perils, privations, and expense of so long and dangerous a journey; and it is easy to imagine the effect of the return of a rehabilitated criminal among his friends, conveying to the remotest corner of Christendom the influence of Rome as overriding the laws and justice of the secular courts; nor would the inference be uncharitable that the popes had already discovered in this prerogative the source of a notable augmentation of thei r revenues. It seems almost incredible that a power like this should be formally recognized and admitted by the secular lawgivers, and yet in the Welsh laws of the ninth century there is a provision that in some classes of criimes, such as waylaying and treason, which involved the punishment of death and confiscation, if the criminal could manage to escape to Rome, and return with a papal letter of absolution, his life should be spared and his property be restored to him on payment of a fine.' While thus acquiring unlimited control over the populations, the papacy was likewise rapidly extending its supremacy over the secular rulers. The most efficient instrument in this was perhaps the forged donation of Constantine to Sylvester I. In examining this remarkable document one scarcely knows which most to admire —the consummate boldness that could anticipate belief in it, or the credulity that was ready to admit that the first Christ-' Dimetian Code, Bk. Ii. chap. xxiii. ~ 25. (Owen's Ancient Lawvs, &c., of Wales, I. 551.) 156 THE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. ian Emperor transferred the seat of empire and founded his new IRome for the single purpose of relinquishing to the popes the sole and undisputed possession of the West, and of rendering the successors of St. Peter the legitimate heirs and successors of Augustus. We read, in the style of an eighth-century notary, a formal donation-entre-vif.s of the Western Empire and its appu-rtenances, to be held and enjoyed with all the imperial rights in independent sovereignty, as superior to that of the emperors as spiritual thlings were superior to temporal-and all this mingled with puerile directions as to the trappings and stage-properties of the pope and his spiritual court, crowns, white horses, linen garments, and felt shoes. Armed with such title-deeds, and the Leonine constitution, which barred all alienation of church property, the Roman Pontiff became the rightful owner of Western Europe, and kings held their territories only by his sufferance. The gratitude of Adrian I. for the comparatively insignificant beneficence of Charlemagne was too openly manifested for us to suppose that ideas of such lmagnificent acquisitiveness could then have been entertained. Appetite grows by what it feeds on, however, and when, a few years later, in 776, this extraordinary document was produced from the papal manufactory, it was quoted timidly by Adrian to the Frank as a hint that he might not improperly imitate a munificence alongside of which his generosity was absolute niggardness. To this the stern founder of the new empire turned a deaf ear, nor does his disregard of the claims thus advanced appear to have interfered with the good understanding between the respective heads of church and state, whose mutual suplport was mutually necessary. His successor, Louis, with all his reverence for ecclesiastical authority, p)aid as little respect to the extravagant pretensions of tile grant; and when he, too, in 817, made a donation to the Holy See, confirming the gifts of Charlemagne and of Pepin, lie took care to reserve to himself the sovereignty of the PAPAL OMNIPOTENCE. 157 territories whose usuf ruct he bestowed on St. Peter.' That this sovereignty was not merely nominal, but active, is sufficiently established by facts already alluded to; but if nore be needed, it may be found in the edict of Lothair, in 824, wherein, while enjoining on the inhabitants of the Roman territory the utmost respect and obedience to the pope, his instructions to the dukes, counts, and judges, with regard to the exercise of their functions, and his appointment of Mlissi to supervise their dispensing of justice, prove thle complete jurisdiction which he exercised without protest or objection on the part of Eugenius.2 If the strong government of the united Franks. however, repressed the aspirations of ambitious but prudent pontiffs, the dissensions which ensued, and the final disruption of the empile, afforded the opportunity which was needed. This forgery, lying latent with those of Ingilram and Isidor, was roused "Salva super eosdem ducatus nostra, in omnibus dominatione, et illorumn ad nostram partem subjectione" (Decret. Confirmalt. Ludov. Pii). This clause, and a succeeding one by which the emperor reserves the right of interference in cases of tyranny and oppression, dispose me strongly to regard the document as genuine. Had it been fabricated in the eleventh century, as has been suggested by critics, Catholic as well as Protestant, these expressions would certainly not hbve been inserted, as they are directly in conflict with the efforts then making to free Italy from Teutonic domination, and to release the Holy See from the traditional supervision of the emperors. The abnegation of the right to confirm the papal elections is probably an interpolation of the latter period, as also the extensive donations of territory in central and southern Italy, which either was retained by the Carlovingian emperors, or else never belonged to them. These concessions suited exactly the politics of the successors of Gregory VII., and their insertion has doubtless swelled what was a very simple confirmation of the benefactions of Charlemagne into the formidable dimensions which have caused its rejection by candid historians of all parties. Muratori's apologies for his incredulity (Annali d'Italia., ann. 817) may excite a smile; but an opposite emotion is aroused by the confident assertion of Baronius (annn 817, No. 14) that four authentic copies exist in the Vatican MSS. The attempted extension of territorial acquisition may be classed with the similar fictitious donation of Charlemiagne, which Anastasius ha.d before him (Anastas. Biblioth. No. 97), but which has since been seen by no one. Ba.luze, II. 17-20. 14 158 THE RISE OF TIIE TEMPORAL POWER. from its slumbers; and, though the Saxon emperors might venture to call it in question, for more than half a thousand years the imperial liberality of Constantine was received as an undisputed fact, which it was rank heresy to call in question.l The man was not wanting to the opportunity. The circumstances which I have briefly sketched had placed in the hands of tile church weapons of vast and indefinite power. The times were ripe for their employment, for the necessities of the age demanded an intellectual tyranny to coerce and counterbalance the countless blind and aimless despotisms of individual chieftains, who were rapidly crushing out what little mental life was left in Europe. 1 About the year 1100, Otho III., in a grant to Sylvester II., takes occasion to stigmatize the donation of Constantine as a fiction: "'HIc sunt enim commenta ab illis ipsis inventa, quibus Joannes diaconus, cognomento digitorum mutius (mutilus) praiceptuln aureis litteris scripsit, sub titulo -langni Constantini longa mendacii tempora finxit... Spretis ergo commenticiis prmceptis et imaginarniis scriptis, ex nostra liberalitate sancto Petro donamlus quna nostra sunt, non sibi quam sua sunt veluti nostra conferimus." (Baronius, -nn. 1191, No. 57.) And not long after, in a donation of St. IIenry II., confirming the previous liberalities of the emperors, no mention is made in the recital of Constantine's gift, showing that it was still regarded as supposititious (Lilnig, Cod. Ital. Diplomn. II. 698). This soon passed away, however, and any doubt as to the authenticity of the donation was assumed to spring from unworthy enmity to the just claims o)f St. Peter. About the year 1150 Geroch of Reichersperg writes: "Memini enim cum in urbe Romana fu fuissen, fuisse mihi objecturn a quodam causidico ecclesiao Dei adversario, non esse rata privilegia imperatoris Constantini ecclesia-tica libertati faventia, eo quod ipse vel baptizatus vel rebaptizatus fuisset in lmresi Ariana, ut insinuare videtur historia tripartita.." (Geroch. Expos. in Psalm. LxIV.) The reviving study of the imperial jurisprudence might well cause a shrewd lawyer to doubt the obsequiousness of a Roman emperor, but he found it prudent to invent an equally improbable fiction to excuse his unpallatable criticism. The stubborn vitality infused into these forgeries by their success in establishing the papal power is shown by the learned Christian Wolff, as late as the close of the seventeenth century, alluding to the donation of Constantine with as much confidence as though its authenticity had never been questioned (Chr. Lupi Opp. II. 261). PAPAL OM N TPOTENCE. 159 The arm to wield these weapons was found when Nicholas I. ascended the pontifical throne.'rTo the service of the cause he brought a dauntless spirit, an unconquerable wvill, an unbending e;ergy, a prudent daring, and a knowledge of the men and the tendencies with which lie had to deal, that enabled him to establish as absolute rights the principles which had previously been more or less speculative.1 The history of the Divorce of Teutberga, which marks an era in ecclesiastical annals, is a fair illustration of the manner in which he reduced to practice the theories of the False Decretals, and laid the foundation of that papal omnipotence which was to overshadow Christendom. On the retirement of the Emperor Lothair, his son of the same name succeeded to that portion of his dominions which took from him the appellation of Lotharingia, nmodernized into Lorraine, and extending from Switzerland to the mouths of the Rhine. MAarried in 856 to Teutbelrga, the uncontrolled licentiousness of the young king led hirn within the next year to abandon her for a succession of concubines, one of hloln, Waldracla, with whom he had had relations previous to his marriage, succeeded in permanently captivating his fickle passions and weak understanding. The favorite resolved to share her paramour's crown, and Lothair, ready to secure her smiles at any cost, entered eagerly into a disgusting conspiracy. A charge of the foulest incest was brought against the unhappy queen, who, by means which can readily l)e guessed, was forced to a confession. Condemned to perpetual penance in a convent by the Lotharingian prelates at the synod of Metz, she succeeded in escaping to Frailce, where she was duly protected by Charles-le-Ch auve, with the trule Carlovingian,desire of nursing trouble for his nephew. MA[eanwhile Lothair caused anotlkr synod to be assembled at Aix-laThe churchmen of his own period, when not themselves outraged by his imperious authority, recount his exploits with honest professional pride. "Regibus ae tyrannis imperavit, eisque acsi dominus orbis terrartum authoritate prmefuit."-Rlegino, ann. 868. 160 TIIE RISE OF TIHE TEMPOR AL POWER. Chapelle, where, on stating' his piteous case, deprived of his wife and unable to restrain his paissions, the charitable bishops, after clue deliberation, declared that a won:man stained with the crimes confessed by Teutberga was not canonically a wife, and that he was at liberty to marry. His nuptials with Waldrada were immediately celebrated. and Gunthair, Archbishop of Cologne, the instigator and mllanager of the plot, received his appropriate reward in the dishonor of a niece, whose promised elevation to the throne had been the prize held out for his co-operation. Lothair, in his pollution, might forget the world, but the world did not forget him.'His uncle, Charles-le-Chauve, hankering after the fertile plains of Austrasia, began to hint that his nephew had forfeited all claim to human society, and Teutberga's )powerful family urged her to appeal to the central arbiter a-t Rome. The occasion was one in which the common feelings of mankind would excuse any stretch of avenghing prerogative, and Nicholas seized it with vigorous joy. The comparison is instructive between his alacrity and the prudent reticenice of Adrian in the previous century. A moralist would findc it difficult to draw the line between the connubial irregularities of Charlemagne and those of Lothair; but Hermengarda found no puissant pope to force her inconstant husband into the paths of dissimulation, or to justify wrong by cruelty. When Charlemagne grew tired of a wife, lie simply put her aside, nor would Adrian or Leo have thanked the meddling fool who counselled interference. But times had changed since then, and other principles had gained supremacy. According' to Isidor, the holy Calixtus I. hacd decreed that an unjust decision, rendered under the pressure of kings or potentates, was void' —an axiom 1 Injustum ergo judicium et definitio injusta, regio metu et jussu, anut cujusdnam episcopi aut potentis, a judicibus ordinata vel acta, non vnleat. — Pseudo-Calixti Epist. 1 (Ivon. Decret. P. v. cap. 235). Benedict. the Levite gives it in a somewhat abbreviated form (Capitul. Lib. v. cap. 405) from Ingilram, can. 78. P A PAL T OMNIPOTENCE. 161 which, however morally true, carried with it the dangerous corollary that, if it meant anything, there must be some one to decide upon the injustice of the sentence. If a kinog had procured it, the only arbiter to revise it was the pope, to whom a canon of Ingilra-ii's had specially attributed the power of abrogating at will the proceedings of any local synod.1 As supreme judge of all questions, Nicholas accordingly addressed himself to the work. To his first legates Lothair simply responded that he had only complied with the decrees of the national synod; and the legates, heavily bribed, advised him to dispatch to Rlome Gunthair, with his tool Thietgaud, Archbishop of Trbeves, who could readily make all things riglht with the Holy Father. The legates, on their return, had to seek safety in flight fronm the indignation of Nicholas; but the two archbishops, in the self-confidence of craft and stupidity, appeared before a synod called for the purpose, and presented thle acts of the synods of Metz and Aix, in the full expectation of their authoritative confirmatiol. The delilberation was short; the two archbishlops were recalled to hear sentence of deposition from their sees, and degradation from the priesthood; the synod of Metz was stigmatized as " tanquam acldulteris faventern, prostibuluml;" and a sentence of excommunication was suspended over the heads of all the Lotharingian plrelates, to be removed only b)y prompt retractation of tlieir acts, and individual application to the pope. The proceeding was somewhat violent, as it amounted to condemnation in the absence of the accused, with no array of witnesses and evidence such as the canons iequired, even the acts of' the Lotharingian synods not havinlg been acknowledged by the archbishops without equivocation. Gunthl.ir, breathing furious revenge, anll Thietgaud, stupefied by the blow, betook themselves at Ingilram. cap. 42. 14' 162 THIE R'ISE OF TIIE TEMdPORATL POWESI. once to the Emperor Louis, Lothair's brother. I-e listened to their story, and eager to avenge his brother, and to snppress the rising insubordination of the pontiff, he marched directly on Rome. The fasts and prayers of Nicholas availed little against the reckless soldiery of Louis; a massacre ensued, and the pope, escaping in a boat across the Tiber, lay hidden for two days, without meat or drink, in the cathedral of St. Peter. A sudden fever, however, opportunely laid hold of the emperor, and there were not wantin(g counsellors who attributed it to the sacrilege which lhe had committed. Louis therefore sent for Nicholas, macde his l)eace, a.nd withdrew, colnmanding the archbishops to return home and consider themselves deg:raded. Thietgaud, a'fool rather than a knave submitted without further resistance; but Gunthair addressed an epistle to his brother bisllops, exhorting them to repel the encroachments of the papacy, which was aspiring to the domination of the world, and retorting on the pope ]iis sentence of excommunication. This docnment his brother Hilduin, an ecclesiastic, laid on the tomb of St. Peter, after fordhing an ectrance with arms, anid killing' one of the guards. On their return home, Thietgaud abstained from officiating, but G unthair, still threatening vengeance, took possession of his diocese, until the fiightcned Lotharingian bishops induced Lothair to depose him, while they individually and humbly made their p)eace with Rlome, by submitting to all the requisitions of the pontiff. 1 It is interesting to mark the contrast between the independence of the first half of the century and the submission of the second half. When, thirty years before, Gregory IV. came to the Field of Falsehood in the train of Louis-le-Ddbonnaire's rebellious sons, the bishops of Louis's parity stoutly declared that if he came to excommunicate, he should return excommunicated, as he hacl no such authority under the ancient canons of the church —" nullo modo se velle ejus voluntate succumbere, sed si excoinmmunicaturus adveniret, excommnunicatus abiret, cum nliter ha.beat antiquorum auctoritas canonumn" (Astron. Vit. Ludov. Pii cap. xiv.). The fact that in PAPAL (MNIPOTENCE. 163 Another iegate, Arsenius, was sent with instructions to enforce the threatened excommnunication of Lothair, if he persisted in iniquity, and with letters to Charles-le-Chauve and Louis-le-Germanique, denouncing the conduct of their nephew with an acerbity till then unknown in the intercourse between popes and kings.1 Lothair felt himself unable to face the storm which he had aroused. He professed himself in all things an obedient son of the church, lie put away Waldrada, who promised to seek absolution in Rome, and lie took back the unfortunate Teutberga, tnder menaces of eternal punishment in the name of God and St. Peter. Then suddenly all was again confiusion, as untamed human passions struggled against the unaccustomed bonds. Waldrada escaped firom the custody of Arsenius and returned to her infatuated lover, while the queen was subjected to every kind of humiliation and oppression. But Nicholas was equal to the strife which be had provoked, and on which he had staked the future of the papa-cy, and, indeed, of C hristian civilizatio n.'W aldrada he excommunicated. Clharles-le-Chauve, with wvhomn Teutberg'a had again taken refuge, he encouraged with a laudatory epistle, mingled with threats concerning a rumored arrangement by which an abandonment of her cause was to be purchased by a cession of territory; and, in spite of the interference of the Emperor Louis, he caused another synod to confirm the degradation of the delinquent archbishops. Teutberga herself, worn out by seven years the two cases the respective positions of right and wrong were reversed between the two parties, makes no difference as regards the question of obedience and subordination.' Ilinemar, notwithstanding his zeal for the church, and his active sympathy for Teutberga, calls attention to the altered tone of the pontiff towards crowned heads, and evidently disapproves the bullying invective inaugurated by Nicholas, which subsequently proved so potential —" Non cum apostolica mansuetudine et solita honorabilitate, sicut episcopi Romani consueverant in suis epistolis honorare, sed cum malitiosa interminatione. epistolam Nicolai Papme plenam terribilibus et a mnodestia sedis apostolicre a.ntes[ inauditis maledictionibus"-Annal. Bertin. ann. 865. 164 TIlE RISE OF THE TEMAPORAL POWER. of persecution, petitioned the pontiff for peace, and begged to be separated from Lothair, that she mio-lght end her days in quiet; but the victory was not yet gained, and Nicholas scornfully refused her request. An endeavor of Lothair to settle the question by appeal to the wager of battle was rejected with indignation, and for the third time he ordered the timid prelates of Lotharingia to enforce the sentence of excommunication pronounced again st the aspiring concubine. Commands were addressed to Louis-le-Germanique to join in the pressure oil Lothair, and to desist from his intercession in behalf of the deposed archbishops, while the prelates of Germany received a sharp reproof for joining in the appeal. The opposition of nmonarch and prelate was at last broken dowin, and WTaldrada was for(ed to Rome; but before his triumph was complete Nicholas died, leaving to his successor Adrian II. thle legacy of this quarrel, and the widening schism of the Greek church, which he had rashly provoked. Lothair, hoping to find the new pope more considerate of the regal dignity, intimated a desire to visit Rome in person, to justify his course, and to be reconciled to the church. Less imperious than his predecessor, Adriain welcomed the apparently repentant sinner. The excommunication of Waldrada was removed on condition of absolute separation from her lover; and, that Lothair's journey might be impeded by no pretext, epistles were addressed to Charles and Louis, commanding them not to trouble Lotharingia during the pious absence of its king. An honorable reception awaited Lothair. He was admitted to communion on the oath, which no one believed, that he had obeyed the commands of Nicholas as though they had been those of heaven, alnd had abstained from all intercourse withl Waldrada. The victory of the pope was as complete as the abasement of the king. The sacrament was administered as an ordeal, in which the courtiers of Lothair were associated as accomplices in his guilt, and PAPA L O, Ni POTENCE. 165 both parties separated, equally satisfied with the result. A still further triumph, however, was reserved for the church by one of those mysterious occurrences which account for the belief, then universally prevalent, of special interpositions -of providence. Lothair was scarce fairly started on his return home, when his progress was arrested at Piacenza by an epidemic which broke out among his followers; and tlhere, after a short illness, died the miserable young king and his partners in guilt. Of course, the effect was prodigious. Divine justice had completely vindicated the acts of Nicholas and Adrian; and God himself had condescended to execute the sentence of the church on the hardened adulterer, who had sought to shield himself by sacrilegious peijury from the punishment due to his offen ces.l The papacy had thus triumphed over both church and state, and Heaven had sanctioned the immense extension of prerogative. The principle was asserted and maintained, that an appeal to ecclesiastical jurisdiction barred all subsequent reclamation to the ordinary tribunals2 —a doctrine capable of infinite application and illimitable results. By deposing and degrading Gunthair and Thietgaud, without a preliminary trial at home, without an accuser, alcId withlout the orcdinary judicial formalities, Nicholas erected himself into a jludge of first and last resort, without responsibility and without appeal —the sole arbiter of destiny for the highest dignitaries of the hierarchy. By annulling the acts of the Lotharingian synods, and forcing their menmbers not only to submit to this, but humbly to apologize for the iniquity of their decrees, he established a complete The Annal. Bertin., Regino, the Epistles of Nicholas I., and the works of Ilinemar, furnish a.bundant materials for this history, of which I have only sketched the salient points. Q " Quia eeelesime refugium quxmrens, et ecclesiasticum judicium semper expetens, soeculari non debet submitti judicio"-Nicolai PP. I. Epist. 148. — We here see the practical application of the interpolation of the Theodosian Code, Lib. xvI. Tit. 12. 166 TIHE RISE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. ascendency over the provincial prelacy, and vindicated the supremlacy of the Holy See as the only irrefragable authority in the church. Nor was the victory over the secular power less complete. When Lothair appeared before the papal legates to answer the appeal of Teutberga, he acknowledged the jurisdiction of popes over monarchs; and however he might subsequently dissemble, lie never afterwards dared to deny it, each step only serving to confirm that jurisdiction in its most absolute sense. And when Adrian threatened the kings of France and Germany, and ordered them not to interfere with Lotharingia during the absence of their nephew; he placed himself at the head of Christendom, as the self-constituted sovereign of sovereigns. The moral effect was not less decisive. An unarmed priest, unable to protect his palace or his person from the brute force of his enemy, Nicholas, under the guardianship of heaven, walked without swerving along the path which lie had marked out, over the prostrate necks of kings and prelates, clothed only in the mysterious attributes of his station, and inivoking the Most High in the name of truth and justice. What wonder that the populations should revere him as the Vicegerent of Christ, as the incarnate representative of God, and that the most extravagant pretensions ascribed to him by Ingilramn or Isidor were regarded as his legitimate and imprescriptible prerogatives? It will be observed throughout this affair, that the weapon relied upon to enforce obedience in all cases was the deprivation of communion, involving, in the case of ecclesiastics, degradation from their benefices, and in that of laymen, exclusion from the Christian church. It was in this that the power to bind and to loose found its readiest practical expression, and the control which the church thus acquired over the life of man in this world aund his salvation in the next, opened out before it a career of boundless supremacy which will be considered in a subsequent essay. PAPAL OMNIPOTENCE. 167 Yet it must not be supposed that the vast powers thus successfully asserted b)y Nicholas and Ad rian descended in an unbrolken line from them to Innocent III. Society was still too ru(le and its anarchic elements too tumultuous, to submit without many struggles to the absolute despotism of influences purely spiritual and moral. Its protest against subjection took many and various forms, and the vices and weaknesses of the clergy seemed at times to postpone indefinitely the ultimate triumph. The tenth century was yet to see the darkest period in papal annals, infamously illustrated by Marozia and John XII., when the Holy Father was the puppet of any savage noble who could control the miserable population of Rome. Whatever wrongs Italy may have suffered from the Tedeschi, the world yet owes to them that Teutonic power rescued the papacy from this degradation, and placed it in hands less incompetent to discharge the weighty trust. Blindly working for the present, the Saxon and Franconian Emperors little thought that the3r were elevating an influence destined to undermilne their own, or that the doctrines of Isidor, in the mouth of a priest, would break the power of an iron Kaiser, the warrior of sixty battles. BENEFIT OF CLERGY. A MONG the most important and dearly-prized privileges of the churclh was that which conferred on its members immunity from the operation of secular law, and relieved them from the julriscliction of secular tribunals. Not only did they thus acquire a peculiar sanctity, which separated them from the people and secured for them veneration, but the personal inviolability thence surrounding thein gave them an enormous advantage in all contests with the civil power. Secure in this panoply of privilege, they could dare all things. Amenable only to divine law, the statutes of emperors and kings were to them but the idle breath of men; the church was independent of the civil power, and in its aoogressive enterprises it occupied a vantage-ground of incalculable value. So priceless a prerogative was not obtained without a long and resolute struggle. That disputes arisingO between ecclesiastics should be settled by the arbitration of the bishops seemed not unreasonable, and friomn an early perliod it was the established rule of the church that all such questions should be so settled;1 but to ask that a monk or priest guilty of crime should not be subject to the ordinary tribunals, and that civil suits between laymen and ecclesiastics should be referred exclusively to courts comlposedl See, for instance, the elaborate provisions of Coneil. Chalced. can. 9. 15 170 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. of the latter, was a claim too repugnant to the common sense of mankind to be lightly accorded. The respect due to the sanctity of the episcopal functions was the entering wedge, and for this antiquity was claimed, coeval with the revolution by which Christianity and the church became recognized by law. If the account given by Rufinus be correct, when the Nicene council was assembled for the condemnation of Arius, and the holy fathers, neglecting that duty, busied themselves only with mutual criininations and accusations, Constantine ordered them to hand him all their libelli of complaint, and then addressed them: " God has constituted you His priests, and has given you authority to judge usS but you are not to be judged of men. Wherefore await the decision of God between you, and keep your quarrels, whatsoever they be, for His decision alone. For you are gods, given to us by God, and it is not fitting that man should pronounce judgment on gods." Whereupon he ordered the accusations to be burned without examination, and commanded the bishops to proceedcl with the business of the council.l It may well be assumed, however, that IRufilnus has exaggerated what probably was only a polite form in which the shrewd aLnd politic emperor veiledl the reproof which he administered, and the sarcasm which lurked in his deferential assumption that they were worthy of the tribute which he rendered to their office. Sozomen, in fact, gives what is doubtless a truer account, in stating that Constantine merely remarrked that it did not become him as a man to decide between them.2 Whatever may have been his precise form of speech, Rufini I-Iist. Eccles. Lib. I. cap. 2. This blasphemous expression was embodied textually in the Capitularies of Benedict (Lib. v. cap. 315), and was made the basis of extravagant pretensions, without apparently observing that it destroyed ecclesiastical as fully as secular jurisdiction over prelartes. It continued to be quoted, till after even the Council of Treilt, as the foundation-stone of clerical immunity. See Concil. Salisburgens. ann. 1569, Const. xxxix. cap. 1.' Hist. Eccles. Lib. I. cap. 16. IMPERIAL LEGISLATION. 171 he merely desired to expedite the business of the council and to elude the annoyance of arbitrating in so nmany obscure quarrels. That he waived the right to treat his bishops as his subjects is impossible, when we find him not long afterwards threatening to punish St. Athanasius for disobedience by removing him from the see of Alexandria, without even the form of a trial, and warningo hiln that he woulcld be replaced with a more pliable successor.' It is true that, in 355, Constantius embodied in a law, the principle that bishops could only be tried by bishops.2 This, however, shows that no such legal custom pre-existed, and even this was for a temporary purpose, arising, like the Sardican canons, from the Arian schllism, and it was only of temporary authority. It cannot have been more, for in 376 a constitution of Gratian expressly reserves to the secular tribunals all cases concerning ecclesiastics, except in matters relating to religion and those of trifling importance.3 A law of Ilonorius in 412, and one of Valentinian III. in 425,4 are more favorable to ecclesiastical pretensions, and were strenuously uroged in the ninth century to support the claims of the church to immunity; but the former may safely be assumed to refer only to ecclesiastical matters, while the latter was doubtless extorted by the powerful church party from the youthful emperor and his mother Placidia immediately after the overthrow of the usurper John. That it was opposed to the received jurisprudence of the age and was not long allowed to remain in force is shown by an edict of the same emperor in 452, which expressly declares that tile imperial laws subject to secular jurisdiction all classes of the clergy, from bishops down, the only exception being that a prosecutor, if himself a t Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. i. cap. 20. 2 Lib. xvI. Cod, Theod. Tit. ii. 1. 12. 3 Ibid. 1. 23. This shows that the law attributed to Constantine by Sozo. men (Lib. I. cap. 9), granting to clerical clefendants the right to elect episcopal judges, either neverexisted or else was only of temporary authority. 4Ibid. 11. 41, 43. 172 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. layman, was allowed to select an ecclesiastical tribunal in which to bring' his action;1 and in 468 a law of the Emperor Leo shows that churchmen were by no means exempt froml the ordinary j uriscliction.2 Mleanwhile the church had not been lackingl( in efforts to maintain exclusive jurisdiction over the affairs of its members, and severe penalties were denounced, in 397, by the third council of Carthage, against all clerks who should voluntarily appeal to the secular tribunals in either civil or criminal cases, on account of the clisrespect thus manifestecld towards their own officials. At the same tinme the council could not control cases in which they were prosecuted by laymen, and as it enumerates bishops among those who might justify themselves before lay judges the canon shows that the exemption attributed to Constantine problably never existed, while the privilege granted by Constantius had fallen into desuetude, presumably on account of its heretical intent.3 Even in strictly ecclesiastical concerns the church could not maintain an independent jurisdiction, for at Chalcedon, where its totality was represented in the most potential form, under the boasted presidency of papal legates, the absolution of the five bishops who abandoned their Entychian tendencies was conducted by the imperial commissioners acting under direct instructions from the emperor; and tle condemnation of Dioscorus of Alexandria required the imperial assent before it could take effect.' Towards the close of the century Gelasius might gratify himself by asserting that churchmen could be tried only in ecclesiastical courts;5 but the emptiness of this boast was shown when Theodoric formally proNovell. Valent. III. Tit. xxxv. ~ 1. A law in the Theodosian Code (Lib. xvI. Tit. xii. 1. 3) might likewise be cited, but its authenticity is doubtful. n Const. 33, Cod. I. 3. 3 Concil. Carthag. III. ann. 397, can. 9. 4 Concil. Chalced. Act. Iv. (Harduin. II. 414). 5 Gratian. caus. xI. q. 1, can. 12. GRANTED BY JUSTINIAN. 173 claimed that the Bishop of Rome himself was not exempt from trial and condemnation at the command of his sovereign,D a'principle which the Ostrogoth did not hesitate to put in force against both Symmachus and John 1. As an Arian, perhaps, he was not to be expected to have unnecessary reverence for orthodox prelates; but under the Catholic Justinian there was quite as little scruple when Belisarius convicted Pope Silverius on a fabricated charge of treason.2 A step, indeed, had been gained when another Arian sovereign, Athalaric the Ostrogoth, granted that any suit or prosecution against a Roman ecclesiastic should be brouglht before the pope; but it was rendered virtually nugatory by the fieedom allowed to the plaintiff to appeal fi'ornom the decision to the secular nagistrates.? The privilege attributed to Constantine and attempted by Constantins was finally established by Justinian, who conceded to the episcopal dignity the right to have episcopal judges; but as he carefully reserved the imperial prerogative to disregard the exemption, the principle of ecclesiastical subordination was preserved intact,4 and the deposition and banishment of numerous bishops for their contumacy respecting the Three Chapters, in the exciting Monophysite controversy, show how freely he exercised his power, even in matters of faith.5 While thus jealously guarding the supremacy of the crown, ilowever, he was disposed to favor the autonomy of the church, and in 539 Goldast. Const. Imp. III. 613. At the same time Theodoric does not seem disinclined to favor ecclesiastical jurisdiction, for le find him sending for trial to Eustorgils, Bishop of Milan-'- cujus est et aquitatem moribus talibus imponere'-some priests charged with perjury and fa;lse witness of an aggravated character (Goldast. III. 32) -offences which in the legislation of Justinian were specially reserved for the secular courts. Anastus Biblioth. No. 60. 3 Athala.r. Const. xvi. (Goldast. III. 9S). Novell. 123, cap. 8. " Nisi princepsjubeat." Victor. Tunenens. Chron. ann. 551. 15* 174 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. he placed the monasteries under the sole control of the bishops, in order that their hallowed precincts should not be profaned by the sacrilegious intrusion of secular officials.l A few months later, at the solicitation of Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, he ordered that all civil suits against ecclesiastics should be brought before their bishops, ewitl recourse to the state tribunals only when the prelate was unlable to arrive at a decision. Criminal prosecutions, however, were reserved for the civil magistrates, except in minor offences;2 and there is nothing to warrant the belief that a clerical plaintiff could select a judge of his own order.3 The result of these favors was apparently not satisfactory, for a few years later the privilege was practically nullified by allowing the largest liberty of appeal to the secular tribunals from such episcopal decisions.4 In Italy, the popes took care to enunciate with sufficient frequency the principle that an ecclesiastical defendant was entitled to be tried in his own court;5 and that they succeeded is shown by an order of Gregory the Great, directing that hospitals shall be placed under the charge of eccelesiastics only, to exempt them from thle jurisdiction of the secular tribunals which otherwise mllight trouble and pillage them.Y The regions subjected to the Burgundians s and Wisigoths, however, adhered more closely to the traditions of the Roman jurisprudence, and maintained to a great extent the supremacy of the civil law. This was the natural result of their Arianism; but even when the Goths were converted to orthodoxy, in 589, they adhered to their ancestral principles. The council of Agde in 506, and that 1 Novell. 79. 2 Novell. 123, cap. 20. 3 Novell. 83. 4 Novell. 123, cap. 21. 5 Gregor. PP. I. Regist. Lib. vI. Epist. 11; Lib. xI. Epist. 77. Gratian. Cans. xI. q. 1. can. 11, 12, 38, 39, 40. "Gregor. PP. I. Regist. Lib. iv. Epist. 27. "Religiosi dumtaxat, quos vexandi judices non habeantipotestatein." DENIED BY THE WISIGOTHS. 175 of Epaone in 517, while ordering the clergy not to seek the secular tribunals as plaintiffs, directs them to make no resistance when summoned as defendants, showing that an effort had been made to secure the exemption, and that it had failed.' Even this measure of separation fronm the civil jurisdiction was not easily maintained, for at the third council of Toledo, held in 589 to celebrate the abandonment of Arianism, the bishops complained bitterly of the clergy who were constantly infringing the rules of discipline by carrying their suits before the lay courts.'2 With the conversion to Catholicism came an effort to secure complete inmmunity from secular jurisdiction, which was asserted with so much vigor that about the middle of the seventh century Chindaswind was obliged to put a stop to it by a law which imposed a heavy fine on bishops refusing to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals, and inflicted on the lower orders of the clerg'y the same penalty as that incurred by the laity for such contempt of court.3 Even this was not sufficient, and the bishops endeavored to secure, at least for themselves, some immunity from the law, for the eleventh council of Toledo, in 6T5, was obliged to declare that for aggravated offences they should be punished according to the secular code.4 Singularly enough, the ancient British church presents one of the earliest instances of the formal recognition of clerical immunity, and this nearly in the form which was preserved in England until the Reformation. A collection of Welsh canons, attributed to the seventh century, provides that a clerk prosecuting a layman shall bring his complaint before the secular judge, but that if the clerk is Concil. Agathens. can. 32. Concil. Epaonens. can. 11. Concil. Toletan. III. can. 13. L1. Wisigoth. Lib. II. Tit. 1. 1. 18. This subjection of the clergy is the more remarkable as the bishops at that time enjoyed great power and influence. 4 Concil. Toletan. XI., ann. 675, can. 5. 176 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. the defendant the case shall be heard by the bishop, providled that the ecclesiastic has not been previously tried and convicted, in which case he must be content with secular law.l The careless barbarism or the zealous fervor of the newly converted Franks took little pains to maintain the equality of the laity and the priesthood. It is easy to understand this wlhen we consider that under the Frankish domination all laws were personal and not territorial. The Frank, the Roman, the Goth, and the Burgundian, however intermingled, had each a right to be tried by his own code, and it therefore might seem natural that the ecclesiastic should have the benefit of his canon law, which moreover could only be expounded by the courts-Christianl familiar with its peculiarities. As early as 538, even before the carefully guarded grants of Justinian, the third council of Orleans thus was able to enact a canon rendering episcopal assent necessary before a clerk could appear in a secular court, either as plaintiff or defendant.2 This virtually placed in the hands of the bishops complete control over all cases in which ecclesiastics were concerned; and the principle was more fully developed three years later at the fourth council of Orleans.3 Possibly iin this there was an undue assumption of power; certainly more was assumed than could be maintained in times so tumultuous, for subsequent legislation and canons prove that there was no definite system of procedure. The history of the period also affords ample evidence that practically there was no limit to the exercise of the royal power over ecclesiastics, as confessed by Gregory of Tours, when lie reproved Chilperic I.-"' I any one of us, 0 King, exceeds the limits of justice, you can punish him, but if you transcend the right, 1 Canones Wallici, c. 40, 41, 44, 45. (IIaddan and Stubbs's Councils of Great Britain, I. 133-4.)' Concil. Aurelian. III. can. 32. 3 Concil. Aurelian. IV. ann. 541, can. 20. LEGISLATION OF THE FRANKS. 177 who shall restrain you?"l and not long afterwards he at-e tributes to divine interposition a serious illness of King Gontran, who was thus prevented from executing an intention of banishing a number of his bishops.2 It was not only the royal authority, however, that thus infringed on the immunities claimed by the church. Sometimes, powerless to enforce her own laws, she was forced to invoke secular assistance, as when in 567 the second council of Tours appealed to the lay tribunals for aid in separating from their wives monks who should commit the indiscretion of marrying.3 The fultility of the endeavor to enforce the claim of exemption is shown in an ingenious expedient, devised by the council of Auxerre in 578, by which a suit against a clerk should be brought against a brother of the defendant, or some other layman.4 Even this attempt to save appearances was abandoned by the council of Macon in 581, which conceded, what it probably could not refuse, to secular judges criminal jurisdiction over clerical offenders.5 The council of Paris, in 615, sought to withdraw this concession by repeating the injunctions of the councils of Orleans, requiring the assent of the bishops in all cases;6 but the secular power was not willing.thus to abandon its jurisdiction, and the edict of Clotair, which gave legal force to the canons of the council, limited with some strictness this provision, and ordered a mixed tribunal for the trial of all cases between the clergy and the laity.7 Even this was probably a greater favor than the church could secure in practice, for the council of Chalons, in 649, complains of the civil magistrates as extending their jurisdiction over monasteries and parishes-;s and about the same period the Bavarian laws, 1 Greg. Turon. Hist. Franc. Lib. v. ca,p. 19. 2 Ejusd. Lib. vIIi. cap. 30. 3 Concil. Turon. II. can. 15. 4 Concil. Autissiodlor. can. 41. 5 Concil. Matiscon I. can. 7. 6 Concil. Paris. V. can. 4. Edict. Chlotar. II. ann. 615, c. 4, 5. s Concil. Cabillonens. can. 11. 178 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. while exempting the episcopal order from liability to private vengeance, treat it as in every respect amenable to the royal and popular tribunals.' Whatever was doubtful in the prevailing custom, however, was eventually construed in favor of sacerdotal immunity. In 755 the acts of the synod of Verneuil, issued under the authority of Pepin-le-Bref, contain the important privilege more distinctly enunciated;2 while a capitulary of Charlemagne, in 769, threatens excommunication for any secular judge who shall try and condemn an ecclesiastic without the knowledge of his bishop;3 and another, in 789, denounces heavy penalties against any clerk who should so far disregard the rights of his order asto obey a SUlmmons to a secular court as defendant in either a civil or criminal action.4 Another, in 794, provides a mixed tribunal for nmixed cases;5 and one, of uncertain date, gives to the bishops sole jurisdiction in criminal cases affecting their clergy, while in civil suits a secular judge could only send a commissioner to see that justice was done against a clerical defendant in the episcopal court.6 A law of Pepin, King of Italy, in 793, admits the same principle by authorizing the courts to judge as laymen all clerks whom the negligence- of their bishops permits to assume the secular habit.t' LI. Baioar. Tit. I. cap. 11, ~ 2. The clergy, however, were under the jurisdliction of their bishops, except for incontinence. (Tit. I. cap. 13, ~..) C Capit. Pippini, ann. 755, cap. 18. About the same time a similar rule was proclaimed in England-Ecgberti Excerpt. cap. 16. 3 Capit. Carol. Mag. ann. 769, cap. 17. 4 Ejusd. cap. ann. 789, cap. 37.-Cf. Cnpit. ann. 794, cap. 37. Ejusd. Cnpit. Frankfort. ann. 794, cap. 28. Such regulations were evidently of no practical imnportance, and are only interesting as a manifestation of the expedients resorted to with the hope of reconciling the irreconcilable. G Ejusd. Capit. incerti anni c. 25 (Hartzlheim, Concil. German. I. 427). This capitulary probably refers to Italy. Cf. Capit. incerti anni cap. 17 (Baluz. I. 352). 7 Pippini Capit. ex LI. Longobard. cap. 17 (Baluz. II. 371). WITHIELD BY CHARLEMAGNE. 179 In principle, the point was thus gained, but its practical enforcement was reserved for a later period; and we may safely assume that little respect was paid to such prerogatives by warrior-judges, who thought that the safety of ecclesiastics was amply guarded by investing them with a double or triple wehr-gild for life or limb.l This, indeed, is not a mere matter of conjecture. We have already seen that Charlemagne and Louis-le-Debonnaire held the pope himself as subject to their jurisdiction, and the latter even sent a layman as commissioner for the trial of Pascal I. WVhen, in 815, Leo III. dared to trespass on the imperial prerogative by executing some conspirators, and Louis resented this infringement of his rights, Leo, in hlis apology, professed the most profound obedience, admitted his subjection to the imperial jurisdiction, and eagerly requested the emperor to come or send a commissioner to sit in judgment on him.2 In 805 a capitulary of Charlemagne orders the public judges to expedite with diligence the suits of churches, widows, and orphans,3 showinog that the secular courts were open to ecclesiastical cases, and were habitually applied to for them, which is confirmed by an allusion in Flocloard to the custom of Mulfarius, Archbishop of Rheims, and of his successor Ebbo, in conducting personally the causes of their church before the civil judges.4 A law of 794 shows that the monarch exercised the right of sitting in ultimate appeal in criminal cases involving churchmen as freely as in those involving the laity.5 In 803 we find him summoning to his tribunal the The second council of Macon, in 585, complains bitterly that the inviolability of episcopal dignity received little respect at the hands of irreligious judges (Concil. Matiscon. II. can. 9). This is not to be wondered at when these privileges were disregarded by those who were most interested in maintaining them. The fifth council of Paris, in 615, found it necessary to forbid bishops from attackling each other in the secular courts (Concil. Paris. V. can. 11). Grantian. caus. IJ. q. 7, cian. 41. 3 Capit. Carol. Mag. II. ann. 805, cap. 2. Flodoard. Ilist. Remens. Lib. II. cap. 18, 19. Clapit. Carol. Mag. ann 794, cap. 4. 180 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. monks of St. Martin of Tours, to be tried for contumacy in refusing to surrender a fugitive clerk condemned by Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans;' and an edict of 805 directs the loftiest prelates to be brought before him for judgmlent.2 Even for certain violations of ecclesiastical discipline, Louis-le-De'bonnaire, in 816, directed that clerical offenders should be sent to him for punishment. a Under this conflicting and uncertain legislation attempts were naturally made to escape subjection to the secular tribunals, and Charlemagne, in 811, ridicules the idea that men who sometimes bore arms, and possessed private property, should refuse to answer the appeals of laymen under such a plea.4 His disapprobation of the pretension is manifest, and how little it was regarded is evident from a law of 819, forbidding the duel when both parties to an action were ecclesiastics, but allowing it when one was a layman, and, in the former case, referring the matter to the count of the province, thus showing how complete was the jurisdiction of the secular tribunals over the clergy.5 The practical exercise of the power thus conceded and. assumed is further manifested in a supplication to Louis, about the year 820, from a priest asking for justice against another priest in a quarrel about tithes. The suitor alleges that his antagonist's friends had cudgelled him, and then made him swear on the altar that he would not appeal either to the emperor or to his mi.ssus. No question could well be more strictly appropriate to the action of the ecclesiastical courts, and yet there is no allusion to any canonical trial, nor (lid either party seem to think of recourse to 1 Carol. Mag. Epist. ap. Baluz. I. 292. 2Capit. Canrol. Mag. III. ann. 805, cap. 14. 3 Lundov. Pii Epist. ad Archiep. Salisburg. (Mirmi Cod. Donat. Piar. cap. 13). Capit. Carol. Mag. II. ann. 811, cap. 8. Capit. Ludov. Pii ann. 819, cap. 10. Tha.t the church accepted this is shown by its being included by Regino in his collection of canons-De Discip. Eccles. Lib. II. cap. 334. OBSOLETE UNDER THE iCARLOVINGIANS. 181 any source of justice save the throne.l The same principle is developed in a minute account of a trial when the Abbot of Anisola was endeavoring to escape from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Le Mfans. It would seem to be a matter especially pertinent to a local synod, and yet the case was heard, in 838, by Louis-le-Do'bonnaire in general assembly; lie conducted the examination and rendered judgment, which was confirmed by the assent of all present, both prelates and nobles. The details are all preserved, and prove that no immunity from secular jurisdiction was enjoyed by the church.2 Nor was the supremacy of the sovereign immediately destroyed by the abasement consequent upon the civil wars, nor did the throne cease to be the source of all justice. In 845 the synod of Thionville besought the assembled Carlovingi'an princes to employ their authority vigorously in bringing the church back to its former purity,3 and a few months later the synod of Vernon made a special request to Charles-le-Chauve that he would delegate full powers to commissioners to examine into and punish the violations of ecclesiastical discipline everywhere rampant.4 About the same time we find Modoin, Bishop of Autun, employing the secular courts in various quarrels with the clergy of his metropolis, Lyons, and maintaining the doctrine that only bishops and abbesses were exempt from secular jurisdiction, much to the disgust of the Lyonese, who were deprived of their leader by the degradation of St. Agobard.5 That Modoin was correct would seem Bonifac. Epist. 107. 2 Gest. Aldrici Cenoman. Episc. cap. 51. Capit. Carol. Calv. Tit. II. cap. 4. 4 Ejusd. Tit. III. cap. 2. 5 Florus Diaconus vented his indignation at this in a long elegy, soothing in its monotonous objurgation. I-le describes the doctrine of Modoin" Dicere nullus honos debetur (credite) sacris Ordinibus; cunctos pulset ubique fora-un. Nam nisi cceobiiln mater niuliebre gubernans Et sacer antistes, cwstera pulvis erunt." 16 182 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. evident, for we see in the canons of St. odclolpl, Archbishop of Bourges, a passage permitting the presence of priests in civil courts, with the assent of their bishops, when their own cases were on trial.' It would be useless further to multiply evidence to prove that ecclesiastics were amenable to secular jurisdiction in both civil and criminal cases, and that the king was recognized as the fountain of justice, firom whom emanated the power of punishment and of vindicatingo the majesty of the law, even when the wrong-doer was a churchman. How great a change was wrought in a few years we may learn from a trifling incident at the synod of Soissons in 853, -where Charles-le-Chauve is described as entering humbly" simnpliciter cumn episcopis resedebat" andc he, the King of the Franks, and the grandson of Charlemagne, laid a complaint before the assembled prelates against a petty clerkl, Deacon RIainfroy of IRheims, whom he accused of forging the royal signature; and the bishops condescended to order the accused not to leave RIheims without justifying himself.2 Unimportant as is the occurrence, it registers a victory gained by the lowest in the church over the highest in the state, and it marks the submission of the king to the doctrines of the False Decretals. The fabricators of the forgeries indeedl, were far too, shrewd not to estimate at its full value the privilege of exemption from human law. This is asserted throughout the decretals of Isidor to be the imprescriptible right of tihe churchl with a fiequency which renders citation impossible, and which reveals the earnest effort made to secure the immunity.3 The Capitularies of Benedict afford a similar manifestation in the untiring persistence with which Capit. Rodolf. Buturicens. ca.p. 19. Capit. Carol. Calv. Tit. xI. act. 6. E. g. Pseudo-Clement. Epist. 1; Pseudo-Fabian. Epist. 2; Pseudo-Gaii Epist: 1, cap. 2; Pseudo-Marcellin. Epist. 2, cap. 3;.&c. ASSERTED BY TIIE CHIURCIH. 183 they enunciate and enforce principle in all its forms.' Yet though it might be admitted in theory, the revolution was too great to be at once successful, and the royal power made various efforts to recover its old supremacy. In 869 Charles endeavored fruitlessly to assert for himself an appellate jurisdiction in quarrels between bishops and laymen,2 the very terms of his edict showing how completely the jurisdiction had slipped through his hands. Occasionally, too, when feeling momentarily strong, he indulged in a violent exercise of arbitrary authority, as, when the restless Hincmar, Bishop of Laon, became involved in a dispute about a piece of land, Charles evoked the case to a secular court. Hincmar did not deny the jurisdiction, but sent an excuse in reoular leoal form for non-appearance on the day assigned for the first hearing, when the angry monarch committed the hig'h-handed act of seizing all the temporalities and revenues of the see of Laon. This drew Upon him a long and earnest remonstrance fiom the sufferer's uncle, the powerful Hincmar of Rheimls, who stigmatized the royal act as utterly illegal and unexampled in the history of Christian princes.3 Spasmodic efforts such as this were utterly insufficient to restrain the progress of ecclesiastical independ(ence. The church had become thoroughly persuaded that her ministers were exempt from all subjection to secular laws and judges, and she maintained this claim with her customary perseverance-in fact, as it had been asserted to be of divine right handed clown from apostolic times, it was a claim. which could not be abandoned. In 866, Nicholas I., when replying to the inquiries of the King of Bulgaria, told him Capitul. Lib. v. cap. 70, 192, 378; Lib,. v. cap. 11, 164, 434; Lib. vII. cap. 139, 210, 43S, 469, &c. 2 Capit. Carol. Calv. Tit. XL. cap. 7. 3 " Quod nec in legibus nec in libris ecclesiasticis quemquam Christianorum principum fecisse legimus." IHinemar. pro Eccles. Libert. Defens. Expos. 1. The Bishop of Laon was finally reinstated, and subsequently proved a thorn in his uncle's side. 184 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. that neither he nor any other layman had a right to investigate the conduct of ecclesiastics or to judge them, for all such matters were reserved exclusively to the bishops, the sacerdotal character being too sacred for discussion by those whose only function was to revere and to obey.1 In the same spirit the synod of Ravenna, in 877, forbids clerks and nuns, and orphans and widows under the guardianship of bishops, from being brought before secular courts, and threatens with the dread anathema any potentate who may dare to infringe the rule.2 Germany was not behindhand in proclaiming the same principle, for in 895 the council of Tribur established the bishops as the sole judges in all cases to which ecclesiastics were parties, whether as plaintiffs or defenldanlts.3 The persistence of the church, backed up by the unfailing resource of excommunication, finally triumphedl and the sacred. immunity of the priesthood was acknowledcged, sooner or later, in the laws of every nation of Europe.4 1Nicolai PP. I. Epist. 97 ~ 70. 2 Synod. Ravennat. ann. 877, can. 4. (Harduin. T. VI. P. I. p. 186.) Concil. Tribur. ann. 895, can. 21. B4 racton. Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. 9.-Laws of Howell Dda, Dimetian Code Bk. II. chap. viii. ~~ 124, 130 (Owen's Ancient Laws, &c., of Wales, I. 475-9).-Beaunmanoir, chap. xI. ~ 40.-Las Siete Partidas Pt. I. Tit. vi. 1. 61.-Constit. Sicular. Lib. I. Tit. 42.-Assises de Jerusalem, Baisse Court, cap. 14, 367.-Feudor. Lib. v. Tit. xvii. ~ 4.-Specul. Suevic. cap. 77.Legg. S. Stephan. Ilungaror. R. cap. 3. —Raguald. Ingemnund. Legg. Suecor. Lib. I. cap. 20.-Constit. Christof. II. Danie, ann. 1320, ~~ 2, 11.-Legg. Opstaalbom. ~ 24. The Scots aappear to have been somewhat chary of granting the privilege, for though it is expressed in the ancient canons which pass under the name of the Ecclesiastical Laws of Macbeth (Spelman. Concil. I. 571), yet the statutes of a Parliament held in the year 1400 (Stat. Robert. III. cap. 5, ap. Skene.) would seem to show that at that period the secular tribunals had cognizance of ecclesiastical causes. The early Icelandic church likewise was in this respect exceptional. The primitive code of ecclesiastical law in force there from 1122 to 1275 provides no exemption for the clergy. Even for ecclesiastical offences they were tried in the ordinary manner by a jury of the vicinage, and were punishable with the secular penalties of fines, &c. (Kristinrettr Thorlaks oc IMPUNITY FOR CRaIME. 185 This of course was a source of injury to the community and of corruption to the church, for the clerks, in emancipating themselves fiom human law, did not obtain exemption from human infirmities, and in the ecclesiastical courts not only were the facilities of escape through the system of canonical compurgation vastly greater than in the secular tribunals, but the theory which regarded degradation from the priesthood as one of the heaviest penalties that could be inflicted, and the rule which forbade the spiritual judges from pronouncing sentences of death or mutilation, rendered their jurisdiction virtually an asylum for offenders when compared with the atrociously cruel criminal jtirisprudence of the time. In addition to this, there was the esp~rit de corps which tended to incline the episcopal officials to seek the acquittal rather than the conviction of those of the cloth, and it is therefore not surprising that the laity came to regard the clergy as entitled to a lenity which amounted almost to impunity for crime. Thus, as early as 1085, a constitution of the Emperor tIenry IV., enforcing the l'ruce of God under penalties of frightful severity, draws a broad line of distinction between the church and the people. At that time I-Tenry was emancipated from the papacy, and was the political head of a successfill scllism, so that lie was in a position to legislate f'or all classes of his subjects. The manner in which he favored the clergy therefore shows how profound an impression had already been produced in the popular mind as to the superior privileges of the church. A crime so unclerical as the violation of the temporary truces which were placed under the special sanction of God, would rather seem to claim additional punishment for malefactors Kettils, cap. ii. xiii. xv. Ed. Thorkelin, Havnive, 1776.) The only allusions in the code to any ecclesiastical jurisdciction are that a priest disobeying his bishop is to be tried by a synod of neighboring priests; and that questions arising with respect to tithes due to a bishop are to be decided by the bishop himself. (Ibid. chap. xv. xxxIx.) 16* 1.86 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. whose peaceful profession ought to render it peculiarly odious, particularly when we reflect that simple degradation would prove but a trifling penalty for offenders who were so lost to all sense of veneration for their sacred functions as to come within the provisions of-the edict. Yet deeds for which laymen were to be decapitated brought only degradation to clerks; while for lighter infractions of the law mutilation was inflicted upon laymen, and clerks were only to be suspended from their functions and subjected to the canonical penance of fasting and the discipline.l In England, in the thirteenth century, the only punishment provided for clerks was degradation, irrespective of the number and magnlitude of their'crimes;2 and in the Norman legislation of the same period the ecclesiastical courts visited only with degradation and exile the offences which in laymen were punished with mutilation and death3-a provision retained throughout the revisions of the Coutumier until 1580.4 So in Wales a first offence is described as only entailing degradation to laymanship, though it is true that one collection of Welsh laws adds confiscation of property.5 These instances will suffice to show the general tenor of the principle established in mecdieval legislation. So serious an interference, however, with the administration of criminal justice could not but be the cause of perpetual strife between church and state; and a rapid sketch of its vicissitudes in some of the leading nations of Christendom may not be uninteresting. 1 Ienric. IV. Const. Iv. (Migne's Patrol. T. 151 p. 1134). Bracton, Lib. cII. Trsct. ii. cap. 9 ~ 2. 3 Cod. Leg. Norman. P. iI. cap. 16. (Ludewig, Reliq. Mssctor. VII. 297.) Anc. Cout. de Normandie, chap. 83 (Bourdot de Richebourg, IV. 33). See also, Etablissement de Philippe-le-Bel, ann. 1302 (Isambert, Anc. Lois Frang. II. 748). In 1540, however, Francis I. forbade the Norman ecclesiastical judges to try criminal cases without previous notice to a royal official appointed to be present and to guard the rights of the sovereign. (Isambert. XII. 714.) 5 Owen's Anc. Laws, &c., of Wales, II. 341, 669. LEGISLATION IN ENGLAND. 187 In England the prerogative was not secured without a struggle, though it was fully recognized in the Anglo-Saxon legislation.1 Henry II. was too astute a ruler not to perceive the immense evils arising from it, and the limitation which it imposed upon the royal power by emancipating so large a class of his subjects from obedience to the laws of the realm. When in 1164 he endeavored, in the Constitutions of Clarendon, to set bounds to the privileges of the church, he therefore especially attacked the benefit of clergy, and declared that ecclesiastics were amenable to the royal jurisdiction.2 Thomas'a Becket, however, speedily vindicated the imperilled prerogatives of the church by excommunicatiiig the sacrilegious men who dared thus to invade her rights, and the disastrous result of the quarrel between the king and the archbishop rendered it necessary to abandon all such schemes of reform. Yet even the humiliation of John, and the supremacy gained by the papacy, did not cause this perversion of justice to be implicitly respected, and, a century later, although the principle was unreservedly admitted by Bracton, in practice the courts were perpetually violating it. Thus in 1261 the council of Lambeth complained that ecclesiastics, when accused, were frequently seized and imprisoned by the secular officials; while, if they refused to obey a sumions, the royal judges outlawed them without ceremony for contumacy. To punish these infractions of the canon law, the council proceeded to excommunicate all concerned in such cases, and to place under interdict their residences and the localities where clerks were imprisoned, until the sufferers should be released.3 This action does not appear to have accomplished its purpose, for in 1275 Edward I. interposed, and ordered the delivery to the ecclesiastical courts of all clerks indicted of felony, adding that the episcopal judges Laws of Cnut, Eccles. cap. 4; Secular, cap. 41, 43. 2 Constit. Clarendon. cap. 3, 16. 3 Concil. Lambethens. ann. 1261 (Harduin. VII. 539). 188 BENErFIT OF CLERGY. ought not to discharge them without cldue purgation, and intimating that if they neglected to do their duty, he mig'ht feel obliged to interfere.' This threat shows that Edward was not disposed to admnit that he had no control in the matter; but it was an empty boast. A legal writer of the time of Edward II. lays down the rule that the judge must remand to the episcopal court a clerk accused- of a capital crime, after he shall have proved his clergy (even if he had made a confession, under 9 Edw. II. c. 15, 16), and instructs the prosecutor to pursue his action before the spiritual tribunal, quietly addinlg: "Et le clerke, apres clue purgation, recit toutes ses biens mouvables et fiefs sans difficulty.'2 The immunity thus afforded to offenders bore its natural results in fostering crilme, and in 1402 there was a clisposition shown in Parliament to curtail the benefit of clergy in the interest of justice, as the tenderness or connivance of the ecclesiastical officials allowed offenders, as a general rule, to escape. The church, thus threatened, promised better behavior for the future, pledged itself that criminals should not be allowed to go unpunished, and obtained a continuance of the privilege, which continued to be abused as before.3 As time passed on, the benefit of clergy gradually extended itself. That the laity were illiterate and the clergy educated was taken for granted, and the test of churchmanship came to be the ability to read, so that the privilege became in fact a free pardon on a first offence for all who knew their letters. So liberally, indeed, was the rule expounded, that aliens were provided with books in their own tongues out of which to prove their clergy, and blind men escaped the halter by being able to speak Latin "4congluously." Henry TII. recognized the difference between these putative clerks and men who really were in orders when he sought to check the prevalence of crime attributable to this anomalous privilege. By a law of 1487 3 Edward I. cap. 2. o IIorne's Myrror of Justice, cap. III. sect. 4. 4 Henr. IV. cap. 3. LEGISLATION IN ENGLAND. 189 he directs that lettered persons not in orders shall enjoy the benefit of clergy but once, and that after conviction, before release, murderers shall be branded on the thumb with the letter M, and other felons with the letter T, so that on a second conviction they may be known and treated as laymen. Men in orders, however, were not exposed to this, and were only required on a subsequent trial to produce their letters of ordination, on the strength of which they again escaped.l It is true that in such cases the episcopal officials were bound to degrade these unworthy members of the church, but practically this was rarely done, andc the offender generally was enabled to continue without limit his evil courses. The ceremony of degradation required for its due execution a certain number of bishops, and had to be performed at the place where the crime had been committed. Owing to the difficulty of assemblinig the requisite number of prelates, the offenders in most instances escaped the penalty of degradation, and were discharged unpunished and still clothed with the mysterious attributes which shielded them from human justice. That the church should continue to protect indefinitely the lawless careers of men who disgraced their order grew at length to be a scandal past endurance when the Reformation came to open the eyes and loosen the tongues of scoffers; and when Cardinal WTolsey undertook to reform the worst abuses of the Anglican establishment, he sought to check this source of evil by obtaining from Clement VII. a bull which authorized a single bishop, with two abbots or other dignitaries, to perform the ceremonial requisite to degradation.2 Henry VIII. followed this up with various laws imposing restrictions on the privilege in atrocious crimes. Before his rupture with Rome he thus excepted from the benefit of clergy those who were not actually in orders, and who were convicted of various felonies, including treason, 1 4 Henr. VII. cap. 13. 2 Rymer, Fcedera, xIv. 239. 190 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. murder, burglary, highway robber, &c., and, after he had assumed the supremacy of his church, he extended the same rules to include those who were actually ordained.1 By indirection, Queen Mary obtained tile repeal of these laws.2 Under Elizabeth, certain heinous offences were declared felonies without benefit of clergy, and the rule was adopted that, in all cases where clergy was allowed, the convict should be branded as required by the law of Henry VII., and should be deprived of clergy on trial for a subsequent offence. The farce of delivering the released convict to the ordinary, or episcopal official, was disused, and he was imprisoned at the discretion of the judge for a period not exceeding a year.3 Much legislation ensued from time to time affecting the limitation of the privilege in various offences; and long after it had thus lost all special reference to the church the ingenuity of lawyers was taxed to the utmost, in distinguishing between the shades of crime entitled to the privilege and those for which the convict was ousted of his plea, rendering this, according to Sir Matthew Hale, "one of the most involved and troublesome titles of the law."' Early in the reign of Anne the benefit of clergy was extended to all malefactors, by abrogating the reading test, thus placing the unlettered felon on a par with his better educated fellows, and it was not until the present century was well advanced that this remnant of medixval ecclesiastical prerogative was abolished by 7 and 8 Geo. IV. c. 28. In Germany, before the imperial power was broken in the contest with the pnpacy, there was a decided disposition to resuscitate the temporal supremacy enjoyed by Charlemagne andl lost by his descendants. We have seen Henry' 23 Henr. VIII. cap. 1.-25 H. VIII. cap. 3.-28 H. VIII. cap. 1.-32 H. VIII. cap. 3. I 1 Mary Sess. 1. cap. 1, ~ 5. s 18 Eliz. cap. 7. Placit. Corona, chap. XLIV-LIV. LEGISLATION IN GERMANY. 191 IV., towards the close of his strife with Rome, legislating for the clergy of his dominions; while his grandfather, Conrad the Salic, had the audacity, in 1037, to depose and banish, without form of trial, the bishops of Vercelli, Cremonla, and Piacenza; and though the chronicler appears somewhat scandalized at this summary proceeding? it is rather at its want of formality than at its invasion of ecclesiastical privilege.1 All such pretensions vanished, however, when the triumph of the popes in the long contest rendered the clerical power supreme; and in 1220 Frederic II. decreed that no one should clare to drag a clerk before the secular tribunals, either in civil or criminal actions, under pain of forfeiture of his claim, while judgments rendered under such circumstances were declared null and void, and the presiding judlge was punished by deprivation of his judicial functions.2 Yet the Schwabenspiegel which not long afterwards embodied the j urisprucence of Southern Germany, in regulating civil cases between clerks and laymen, while empowering the clerk to summon an adversary before the secular court, diminished somewhat the exemptionl which he enjoyed of refusing to appear as a defendant, by excepting cases of debt firom its operation.3 The long struggle between Louis of Bavaria and the popes for a time shoolk the foundation of ecclesiastical prerogative, but when Louis passed away, his successor Charles IV., the creature of the papacy, was eager to preserve the favor of his patrons by maintaining the threatened prerogatives. When, in 1359, the German clergy complained of the aggressions of the secular tribunals, he promptly issued a constitution which punished the imprisonment of a clerk with outlawry and forfeiture of all possessions, in addition to the penalties provided by the civil and canon law;4 and 1 Wippo de Vit. Chunrad. ann. 1037. 2 Constit. Frideric. II. ~ 7 (Post Lib. Fendor.). 3 3ur. Provin. Alaman. cap. 77. Caroli IV. Constit. de Immunit. Cleric. ann. 1359, ~ 5 (Goldast. I. 93). 192 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. this edict was resuscitated and confirmed by M{artin V. in 1418.1 So completely was the church thus emancipated from all subjection to the secular power that in 1491 we find a synod of Bamberg threatening with excommunication and deprivation of the fruits of his benefice any ecclesiastic who should obey in any way a summons from the secular courts in either civil or criminal cases.2 There was one tribunal in Germany, however, which dared to assert and maintain its jurisdiction over churchmen —that of the terrible Free Judges of Westphalia, whose wide-spreading power, based upon the terrorism of secrecy, enabled them to claim and exercise the right. That it was generally submitted to is shown by the exemptions occasionally granted by the Vehmgericht as a special favor to particular churches;3 but it was sometimes resisted, for when the Holy Vehme, in 1448, at the complaint of two knights, summoned the Primate of Germany, Theodoric, Archbishop of Mainz, that powerful prince appealed for protection to the papal legate at the imperial court, and the Cardinal of San Angelo accordingly lost no time in denouncing the heaviest spiritual penalties against those who dclared to disregard the imprescriptible rights which protected every ecclesiastic from the jurisdiction of the laity.4 Yet the audacity of the attempt shows the height to which the power of tlhe Free Judges had risen. We have seen Frederic II. granting all that the church could ask in the Empire which it virtually controlled, but in his hereditary dominions of Naples and Sicily lie was not quite so obedient. Th-e traditions of independence handed down from the Norman kings were by no means Dalham, Concil. Salisburgens. p. 267. 2 Synod. Bamberg. ann. 1491, Tit. xiii. (Ludewig, Script. 1Rer. German. I. 1206.) Senckenberg dce Judic. Westphal. cap. xix. ~ 7. Gudeni Cod. Diplom. IV. 306. LEGISLATION IN ITALY. 193 extinct, and he preserved and extended the old laws which held ecclesiastics liable in the secular courts on charges of high treason and other serious crimes against the sovereign; which retained to the feudal superior the cognizance of cases involving property inherited by clerks and not belonging to the church, and those which punished contempt of the royal court, whether committed by laymen or chl urchmell. The same disposition to limit clerical privilege existed at the other extremity of Italy. In 1347, a citizen complained to Lucchino Visconti, Signor of Milan, that a clerical adversary, while alleging the secular law in his favor, refused to be bound by those statutes which were adverse to him, whereupon Lucchino proclaimed that the laws of the state were binding on priest and layman alike.2 In the same spirit, Gian-Galeazzo Visconti, in 1388, decreed that all cases should be decided in the court to which the defendant belonged, thus depriving ecclesiastical plaintiffs of the benefit of their own jurisprudence.3 This gave some sort of equality between the classes, as regarded civil cases, while preserving to the church its prerogative in criminal matters. In accordance with the canon law, the Archbishop of [Milan, in 1352, issued a pastoral reminding his clergy that the spiritual courts were not to protect them when detected in crime, unless they wore the clerical habit and abstained from secular callings, but he added that these questions -were not to be decided by the secular judges under pain of excommunication.4 This, as might be anticipated, did not diminish the evil, and in 1381 we find GianGaleazzo complaining of the numerous crimes of those who wore the tonsure without having taken orders, and were constantly claimed of the temporal courts by the Archbishop. In a spirit of independence only to be explained Constit. Sicular. Lib. I. Tit. 42, 65, 66, 72. 2 Antiqua Dueurnm Mediol. Decreta p. 3 (Mediolani, 1654). Ibid. pp. 136-7. 4 Ibid. pp. 5-6. 17 194 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. by his power and prosperity, he orders his jucSges to disregard such reclamations and to enforce the laws against all who were not actually in holy orders.' Again, in 1419, the same trouble rises into view, and Philippo-Maria Visconti was obliged to order that simple tonsured clerks, not wearing the habit, should be held and reputed as laymene subject to secular jurisdiction. Yet when Milan lost her independence, uncler Spanish rule, she was reduced to implicit obedience, for, in 1615, one of her jurisconsults declares that a clerk wearing secular garments does not forfeit his benefit of clergy in case of crime until after he has had three warnings.3 Spain was perhaps the latest country in Europe to succumb to the centralizing sacerdotalism of Rome, and its long-preserved independence was reflected in its legislation on the subject of clerical immunity. We have already seen that in the seventh century the Gothic laws of Chindaswind subjected both prelates and clergy to the jurisdiction of the secular courts. In the Fuero Juzgo, or Romance version of the Wisigothic code, in force until the thirteenth century, the bishops appear to have emancipated themselves from this liability, but the provision remains as to the other orders of the clergy, who are required to obey the summons of the civil judges, under the ordinary penalties for contempt of court.4 Yet it is questionable whether, towards the end of this period, the church had not secured the immunity of its ministers in ordinary cases, for a Spanish council of the thirteenth century orders that an ecclesiastic taken in the act of committing forgery, robbery, coining, homicide, rape, or other capital crime, shall be publicly degraded by his bishop;5 and about the same 1 Antiq. Duoum Mediol. Decret. p. 52. 2 Ibid. p. 246. 3 Carpani Leges Ducat. Mediolan., P. I. cap. 44, No. 25 (Mediolan. 1616). 4 Fuero Juzgo, Lib. II. Tit. I. ley 17. 5 Martene et Durand. Thesaur. IV. 171. LEGISLATION IN SPAIN. 195 period Alphonso the Wise, in the Siete Partidas, describes the existing' law to be that for such crimes the clerk is to be tried by the spiritual court, with the penalty of cegradation if convicted, when for a subsequent offence he is liable to secular law.' Those, however, who fall into heresy, or propagate heretical opinions, or remain under excommunication for a year, or disobey their bishops, or forge papal signatures or seals, come at once under secular jurisdiction; and forging royal letters is punishable with degradation and branding.2 In civil suits, moreover, the episcopal courts have cognizance only when both parties are ecclesiastics-actions between clerks and laymen coming before the lay judges;3 and this provision, so adverse to sacerdotal claims, was preserved in the Recopilacion. Nearly a century later, in 1335, the' Portuguese bishop, Alvarez Pelayo, distinctly asserts that no ecclesiastic, however mean, can bte subjected to any secular power, in any case.4 He admits that of old this had not been the case, even as in his own time tyrants sometimes infringed on the rights of the church, but that the popes had won the privilege from the emperors;5 and having thus conceded that the prerogative was not of divine law, he proceeds to establish it by scholastic dialectics, proving that the emperor holds his empire as a fief in vassalage of the church, and that since no vassal can judge his suzerain so he cannot judge the church, whence the conclusion is plain that no inferior potentate can have any jurisdiction over ecclesiastics, especially as the laity are inferior to the clergyA. In France the question of clerical immunity was the source of endless debate. In 1204 the crown and thle Las Siete Partidas, P. I. Tit. vi. ley 61. s Ibid. leyes 59, 60. 3 Ibid. ley 57. 4 Alvari Pelagii de Pla.nctu Eccles. Lib. I. art. 37, No. 5 (Lugduni 1517). 5 Ejusd. Lib. I. art. 44, ~ F. E Ejusd. Lib. I. art. 67, ~ J. 196 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. nobles endeavored to establish the principle that a clerk convicted of a capital offence in the spiritual court was to be degraded and abandoned to the temporal power for the punishment due to his crime,l but the attempt was of no avail. Towards the close of the century we find Beaumanoir warning the secular judge that any disregard of the benefit of clergy involved an excommunication removable only by the pope himself; yet, ill theory at least, the immunity of the clergy was not complete, for the ecclesiastical courts were directed to inflict on their convicts not only degradation but imprisonment for life'2-a provision, as we shall see hereafter, but rarely carried into effect. The revival of the study of the Roman law was creating a race of jurists who were not disposed to regard the church with reverence or to submit to the interference which her pretensions were constantly provoking. Every effort, therefore, was made to take full advantage of the distinction admitted by canonists between ecclesiastics in orders devoted to the ministry of the altar and the hordes of those who sought the lower grades without abandoning their worldly pursuits. St. Louis thus declared that clerks who did not wear the tonsure were subject to secular jurisdiction, while their tonsured brethren were exempt, and so complete was this immunity that even confession before a lay judge was of no legal value as not being lawfully made.3 His son, Philippe-le-Hardi, in 12714 carried the distinction still further by subjecting to the civil law those, whether tonsured or not, who were married or who followed secular industries.4 Philippe-le-Bel, in 1291, was obliged to admit that even letters under the royal seal could not compel an ecclesiastic to appear in a secular court to answer personal charges j; but in 1300 he ventured to tresEtablissement de 1204, ~~ 2, 6 (Isambert, Anc. Lois Frang. I. 197). Cout. du Beauvoisis, cap. xI. ~~ 44, 45. 3 Etablissemnents, Liv. I. chap. 84. Isambert, op. cit. II. 655. s Ibid. p. 686. FRANCE-ABUSES OF IMMUNINTY. 197 pass on clerrical privileges by an edict declaring that acquittal in the courts-Christian should not protect the possessions of a clerk from confiscation by the royal tribunal when his crime was notorious.1 Loulis Hutill, in the disturbances which threatened the opening of his reign, endeavored to propitiate the clergy, in 1315, by enacting and confirming the constitution of 1220 of Frederic II., which guaranteed complete immunity to ecclesiastics;2 blit the tendency of the age was opposed to such reaction, and the contest between the crown and the church became constantly more bitter. The power of the feudal lords was rapidly declining. and the royal jurisdiction was everywhere usurping that of the seignorial courts. In place of dlealing with the spasmodic violence of the petty seigneurs, destitute of cohesion or unity, the church found herself confronted with a system of royal courts, all animated with an aggressive spirit, co-operating with each other to produce not anarchy but civilization, and under the general guidance of the able lawyers who composed the royal Parlement. These men knew what they fought for, and were rarely mistaken in the means adopted; nor was a class from which sprang Guillaume de Nogaret, the audacious captor of Boniface VIII., likely to be troubled with scruples concerning the sanctity of privileges which in the study of the Pandects and the Code were seen to be without foundation. The systematic abuses of clerical privilege were, in fact, becoming unbearable. They grievously oppressed the laity, they greatly interfered with the administration of criminal justice, and they threatened to bring the church itself rapidly into disrepute. Perplexing- questions constantly arose, and rogues eagerly availed themselves of the conflict between the secular and clecclesiastical courts to escape altogether the penalty of their crimes. Some reIsambert, II. p. 725. 2 Ibid. III. 123. 198 BENEFIT OF CLERG~Y. form was necessary, and the church applied it with a tender hand, so as not to abancldon the immunity which alone rendered these abuses possible, while endeavoring to evade the odium of the criminals who everywhere claimed and enjoyed her protection. For the purpose of obtaining this substantial benefit, crowds of worthless wretches entered the church and took the lower grades, which at that time did not entail separation from their wives or abandonment of worldly pursuits, and she was rendered responsible for their misdeeds, and was called upon to protect them. To meet this flagrant abuse, Innocent III., as early as 1212, had decreed that a married acolyte could not be compelled to wear the tonsure and was not entitled to benefit of clergy.1 In 1298 Boniface VIII. also endeavored to adjudicate on the vexed questions which constantly arose by declaring that no lay court was competent to try any one who was commonly reputed to be a clerk; that even when there was a reasonable doubt of laymanship, and the criminal had always conducted himself as a layman, and had only recently assumed the tonsure and sacerdotal dress, then all proceedings against him should cease until the spiritual court could investigate the case and decide as to which jurisdiction could claim him.2 These concessions, if they can be so calledc, amounted in reality to nothing. They pretended to touch a few of the more palpable scandals, but left unreformed the intolerable abuses which the increasing enlightennment of the age was not inclined to brook. In 1328, Philip of Valois complained with exceedingo bitterness that murderers and malefactors of all kinds were released from the secular courts on merely asserting their clergy, and he did not hesitate to accuse the bishops of adimitting to the tonsure married men of full age, who applied for it merely to escape the' Can. 7 Extra, Lib. III. Tit. iii. 2 Can. 12 in Sexto, Lib. v. Tit. xi. FRANCE-ABUSES OF IInMMUNITY. 199 punishment due to their crimes.l Not lonog afterwards Raymond, Bishop of Nismes, found himself obliged to condemn the prevalent practice of ecclesiastics buying up doubtful claims, and then wearying out their adversaries with the endless proceedings of the courts-Christian, to which they were entitled to carry their cases.2 In 1344 the council of N'oyon pronounced an ipso facto excommunication against the graceless laymen who pretended to be clerks, and who gave themselves the tonsure3 —an empty fulmination, for the classes which adopted the expedient were for the most part far beyond the reach or influence of spiritual censures. In 1365 the council of Prague deplored the evils arising from the system, both on account of the ceaseless quarrels to which it gave rise with the secular power, and the demoralizing influences which it exercised on the church; but the only remedy which the wisdom of the assembled fathers could suggest was the futile one of decreeing that no protection should be extended over criminals who did not wear the tonsure and the clerical habit4-a precaution which the rogues were not likely to neglect. In fact, the councils of the period piesent an abundant store of canons directed against the crowds of -vagabonds who were amenable to no discipline, and who made no pretence of abandoning their secular lives, while they confidently claimed protection of the body which they disgraced. The church could find no cure for the evil, however, without abandoning some of her most cherished prerogatives, and she preferred to endure the scandal rather than to suffer the loss. Commingled with these friuitless canons are others equally numerous, directed against the daily increasing efforts of the laity to free themselves from these evils by encroachI Bib. Mng. Patrum T. XIV. pp. 79-80 (Ed. Colon. 1618). 2 Statut. Eccles. Nemaus. Tit. xv. cap. 14 (Martene, Thesnur). 3 Concil. Novionmens. ann. 1344, can. 14 (Halrduin. VII. 1674). 4 Concil. Pragens. ann. 1365 (Hartzheiln, X. 744). 200 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. ing upon the privileges and jurisdiction of the chlurch. In 1329, Philip of Valois, disregarding the fate of Belshazzar, which was held up to hinm as a warning, made a vigorous effort to reform the system.l The church maintained her ground, however, and refused to abandon a tittle of her prerogative. The council of Noyon, in 1344, denounced the severest punishment o01 clerks who tamely submitted to verdicts taken in the civil courts;2 and that of Paris, in 1346, laid an interdict on all places where a clerk was imprisoned and was not surrendered on demand.3 The struggle was hard, but the church gradually had to yield, and in 1375 an agreement was made between Charles-le-Sage and Aimcry de Maignac, Bishop of Paris, by which the latter abandoned his claim to jurisdiction over all married and unbeneficecd clerks, while the royal supremacy was declared in a clause leaving to the bishop his remaining jurisdiction over unmarried cleriks only during the king's pleasure4-an empty assertion, however, which could not have been made good. The records of the Chatelet, or criminal court of Paris, for the Aears 1389 and 1390 have been preserved, and their recent publication affords us an instructive insight into the difficulties which beset the administration of justice, and the manner in which the church protected the vilest criminals ill her zeal to preserve her prerogatives. Thus, in one series of cases occurring in 1389, a band of wretches, whose lives were all endless series of fearful crimes, were arrested and brought before the prevot. They claimed the benefit of clergy, and showed the tonsure to substantiate the claim. Though wholly illiterate, and unable, under the closest cross-questioning, to give intelligible accounts of the times and circumstances of their admission Bertrandi contra P. de Cugneriis Liber.' Concil. Noviomuens. ann. 1344, can. 6, 8. 3 Concil. Parisiens. ann. 1346, can. 1. 4 Cartulaire de l'Eglise de Paris, I. 4. FRANCE-ILLUSTRATIVE CASES. 201 to the church, or to adduce any evidence in support of their assertions, yet the swift and relentless justice of the Chatelet dared not to subject them to the customary procedure of the torture, but gave them various terms of delay in which to produce their letters of tonsure or other proof, and in one or two of the cases these delays were repeated. a iad such proof been attainable they would at once have been remanded to the bishop's court, as had happened to some of them before, when they had subsequently been set free. At length one of them admitted that he was not a clerk, and made full confession of his guilty career. In the course of this he stated that after being concerned in a most brutal murder, his accomplices advised him to assume the tonsure, in order to secure exemption from secular jurisdiction, and they counselled him, moreover, how to tell the story of his admission to the church, in case he should be apprehended. He further asserted that some of the other prisoners, whose cases were then under advisement, were no more clerks than himself. On obtaining this revelation, the Prevyt of Paris consulted with the chancellor and royal council, and was authorized to torture such of the others as could not prove their clergy. Some of them under torture, and others without it, confessed a hideous catalogue of crimes, and stated that they had adopted the tonsure at the recommendation of their f'elows, in a manner which shows that it was a recognized measure of precaution against the hour of trouble among the dangerous classes. One of them, indeedl, remarked that they had fountd, when condemned by the ecclesiastical courts, that they were only subjected to imprisonment, from which they were sure to be let loose again upon society, sooner or later, in some general jail-delivery on the accession of a prelate or other dignitary. This certainly would seem to be a case in which the church would willingly wash her hands of her putative children, but when the proceedings reached the ears of the Bishop of Paris, he claimed the 202 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. prisoners and protested against such interference with the liberties of the church. After angry negotiation, however, his demands were refused, and a formal order was made by the royal council that tonsured criminals, who were wholly illiterate, and who were unable to offer any evidence to prove their clergy, should be allowed reasonable time to obtain testimony, and that if they failed in this no heed should be given to the reclamations and protests of the bishop, but that they should be duly tried and convicted or acquitted as laymen. Fortified with this order, the authorities of the Chatelet proceeded with renewed vigor, and speedily brought to justice the whole crew, of whom seven were convicted and executed.l A case which occurred in March, 1390, may perhaps be thought to throw some light on the motives impelling the bishops to vindicate so energetically their jurisdiction for the protection of these " gaigneurs d'aventage." Girart Doffinal, arrested for an attempted larceny, denied the fact and claimed the benefit of clergy. He wore the tonsure and asserted that he had received it ten years before at the hands of the Bishop of Rodez. His letters of tonsure he declared to be at Barbatenne, near Avignon, and lhe was given six weeks in which to procure them. The six weeks were extended to three months, but when again brought before the court in June, he had no evidence to prove his claim, and he was accordingly exposed to the torture customary in the trials of laymen. This extorted the confession that he had given himself the tonsure three years before at Avignon, by way of safeguard, and in the lono array of robberies which he detailed, he alluded to one for which he had been convicted in the court of the Bishop of Rodez and thrown into prison, where lie lay for thirteen months until his friends procured his release by paying five hundred Registre Criminel du ChMtelet de Paris, I. 47=114 (Paris, 1861). FRANCE-ILLUSTRATIVE CASES. 203 francs to the good bishop. The Chatelet did not let him off so easily, and in a few days he was duly hanoged.1 The tonsure thus was the oegis on which these wretched men relied for impunity, and so important was it deemed to make no mistake in the perplexing questions which daily embroiled the civil and spiritual powers, that the Chlatelet had among its officials a sworn barber whose duty it was as an expert to guide the court in its decisions on the obscure cases which were constantly presented. Another portion of his functions proves the careful respect withl which the sacred emblem of sacerdotalism was regarded, for whenever a tonsured man failed to prove his clergy, the court immediately ordered him to be shaved, before it would venture to try him, torture him, or execute him. The symbol of the church must be obliterated ere lie could be treated as an ordinary criminal. How useful an official this barber sometimes was, and how desperately the miserable wretches clung to the protecting influence of the churich, is shown by a case occurring in January 1390, when Fleurent de Saint-Luc was brought before the Chatelet on a charge of theft. So constant was the claim of clergy that the first proceeding with a prisoner was to examine him minutely for the tonsure or other sign of clericature, and none were found on Fleurent. To prevent collusion he was shut up alone for the n1igt, and next morning, to the surprise of the court, he boldly pleaded clergy and exhibited a tonsured head. The barber was forthwith summoned, and after a careful inspection of the scalp declared that the tonsure was not produced by shaving, but by pulling out the hairs one by one —the ingenious expedient of the prisoner during the night, in his solitary cell. Unfortunately for the success of this device, lie had admitted to the jailer that he was betrothed in marriage to a certain Marguerite of Compiegne. The court 1 Registre du Chatelet, I. 244-54. 204 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. therefore had no hesitation in pronouncing him a "purs bigames;" as a married man he had no right to benefit of clergy, so his pretended tonsure was promptly destroyed by shaving, and he was tried and executed.l A still more perplexing case for the tonsorial expert occurred in October of the same year, when Jehan Jourge, a jeweller, was accused by an accomplice of coining. He pleaded clergy, though he confessed to have been married for twelve years, and the condition of his scalp seems to have puzzled the official barber, for a jury of thirteen of his brethren was summoned to examine the prisoner's head. Under oath they reported that after full investigation they found him not to be tonsured, though he had several bald spots. The court decided that as a married man and untonsured he had no right to plead clergy. The crime was a heinous one and speedy justice was required, so within two days of his apprehension he was convictedl, sentenced, and duly boiled to death.2 The rapidity of these proceedings is perhaps to be explained by the constant efforts of the Bishop of Paris to reclaim these strayed sheep. Thus, in March of the same year, Jehannin Menel was accused of theft. He confessed it, but pleaded clergy, stating that he had received the tonsure twenty years before. Though wholly illiterate, he was given the customary six weeks in which to present proof, and the officers of the episcopal court undertook to obtain it if possible. The time was extended until June, when, all efforts failing, he was again brought up. To prolong his miserable days, he averred that one of the bishop's retainers could vouch for him, whereupon a commission was appointed to take the alleged testimony. Their report was not made until August 30th, when it appeared that the person in question had no knowledge of the prisoner. Then Menel at length was tortured and confessed that he 1 Registre du Chatelet, I. 201-9. 2 Ibid. I. 480-94. CONFLICT OF JURISDICTION. 205 had given himself the tonsure fourl years before, ill order to escape the consequences of a heavy robbery in which he had been engaged.1 While this was in progress, another case occurred in which the bishop did not limit himself merely to friendly aid in seeking for testimony. In July, Ernoul de Lates was accused of a petty theft. Hle pleaded clergy and showed the tonsure, but on a searching examination was forced to admit that he had assumed it only a fortnight previously, under fear of prosecution. The next dclay tile court was notified that the bishop had made formal appllication for the prisoner to the Parlement. Ernoul was recalled, and repeated his confession before a royal notary, who reported it to the Parlem ent, and a decision was rendered in favor of the jurisdiction of the Chatelet. Ernoul then confessed the crime laid to his charge, together with others, and w,,as accordingly condemlneld to deathl when the persevering bishop again appealed to the Parlement, and that body, after a second hearing, again confirmed tile proceedings of the Chatelet.2 It would be useless to multiply these trivial details. Enough has been given to show the endless conflict between the civil andl ecclesiastical jurisdictions, thle constant interruption of justice, and the countless evils arising to society from the practical impunity with which the church endeavored to shield the vilest criminals. Few judicial bodies could venture to display the boldness of the IParis Chatelet, under the immediate protection of the king, and supported by the Parlement, yet everywhere the royal courts were seeking -to enforce their jurisdiction, and the. prelates were battling desperately for tile preservation of the old abuses. At this very time, in 1389, the council -of St. Tiberius, at Narbonne, drew up, to be laid before the pope and the king, a long list of clerical grievances, proRegistre du Chlatelet, I. 398-406. 2 Ibid. I. 294J-301. 18 206 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. ninent among which were the encroachments of the royal courts on ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the refusal to surrender untonsurecd and married clerks accused of crime, and the disregard of the interdicts laid on all parishes where these abuses were conlmmitted.l The times were unpropitious for the church, however, and these complaints availed but little. The Great Schism had vastly weakened ecclesiastical influence, especially in France, and the enorinous increase in the royal power under Charles-le-Sage gave a temporary predominance to the secular element which threatened the speedy extinction of the church's dearest prerogatives. This did not last, however. The church reunited at the council of Constance renewed its vigor, while the disasters of the miserable reign of Charles VI., the wars of Henry T., and the civil broils of the Armagnacs and Bourguignons reduced the temporal authority almost to a nullity, and rendered it utterly incapable of following up its advantages. It is significant of reprisals on the part of the church that, during the English domination, an order of HIenry VI. regulating the proceedings of the Chatelet of Paris provides that the first thing to be done on the entrance of a prisoner shall be to examine whether he is clerk or layman; antd that to prevent encroachments on secular jurisdiction, a special officer is detailed to be present at every hearing of the ecclesiastical courts of the bishop and chapter, to see that the royal prerogatives are not invaded.2 As the royal power recovered itself, however, it resumed its aggressions, and the Estates of Languedoc in 1456 complained bitterly to Charles VII. of the little respect pMcad by the sovereign courts to the immunities of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whereupon the monarch dryly responded by asking the Gravam. Concil. ap. S. Tiber. ann. 1389 (Martene, Thesaur. IV. 345-8). 2 Ordonnance de Poitiers, ann. 1425, 9~ 15, 149 (Isambert, VIII. 701, 723). STRUGGLE TO MAINTAIN IT. 207 retnonstrants to specify, cases when they should be properly provided for.l Still the church gallantly held her ground. Il 1468 we find the Cardinal-Bishop of Autun asserting his sole jurisdiction over all members of the ecclesiastical body, antd threatening interdcicts for any delay in surrendering them to him, with all the energy and conscious strength of an Innocent or a Boniface;' and the administration of jnustice continued to be impeded as of old. In 1516, Francis I. complained to Leo X. of the crimes and scandals committed with impunity by those who were connected with the church, and the pontiff granted, as a special favor to France, that unless the tonsure and habit had been worn within four months of the date of the offence for which a criminal was arraigned, he might be subject to secular jurisdiction.3 This was a very imperfect measure of relief, and, some fifteen years later, Chassanlee, one of the most distinguished jurists of the clay, lays it down as an absolute principle of law that a clerk is exempt firol secular justice both before and after conviction; but he couples this with numerous exceptions, rendering the application of the rule almost as " involved and troublesome"' as Sir Matthew Hale described the English law to be, showing how eagerly the courts and lawyers were laboring to find some relief fiom the difficulties with which the church surrounded the administration of justice.4 The evils arisi]ng flom this state of things were by uno means confined to the escape of malefactors who personated the ecclesiastical character. The impunity conferred by the benefit of clergy on clerical offenders necessarily exer1 Doldances des Etats de Languedoc, art. 25. (Ibid. IX. 298, 311.) 2 Statut. Synod. Eccles. ZEduens. ann. 1468, cap. 47 (Martene IV. 514-5). 3 Bull. Rormanum decet Pontif. a.p. Chassenai Comment. Consuet. Burgund. p. 184 (Ed. 1590). "Chassenmi op. cit. pp. 182-91, 206. 208 BENEFIT OF CLEPRGY. cised the most unfortunate influence on the church itself, and was a powerful element in bringing about the corruption of the ecclesiastical body which was the disgrace of the middle ages. An honiest archdeacon of Salzburg, writing in 1175, complains that the clergy were restrained by no fear of punishment, and therefore abandoned themselves to excesses which laymen hardly dared to attempt. HIowever vile might be their lives, they felt no dread of the ecclesiastical authorities, for they could not be accused by the laity, and would not accuse each other, since all were guilty of the same practices, and each endeavored to protect his companions in sin. In fact7 he adds, they are surely the scales of Leviathan which cling' to each other so closely that no weapon can penetrate into its pestiferous body21 The archdeacon is especially concerned at the iminlnity which was thus conferred on the concubinage and adultery universal among his clergy, and a practical illust ration of this particular result was afforded a hundred and fifty years later in Naples, when, in 1317, under IRobert the Good, an effort was made to enforce a statute imposing a fine on the concubines of priests who refused, for a year after excolmmuunication. to abandon their guilty connection. The priests vigorously assumed the cause of their partners, andc succeeded in extending the benefit of clergy to their concubines wlho, as part of the clerical family, they asserted were liable to prosecution only in the ecclesiastical courts)2 Having established this as a reogular rule of law, they were liberated from the sterner jurisdiction of the laity, and felt reasonably secure that their illicit relationships would not be disturbed. So long' as the benefit of clergy existed, there was no possibility of purifying' the church; and when }Hussites negotiated with the council of Bdale for reconciliation, they wisely made its abrogation one of the four IIenric. Salisburg. Arhclid;nac. de CMalamit. Eccles. Salisb. cap. iXo Giannone, Apologia, cap. 14. CORRUPTION OF TIHE CHURCH. 209 conditionS on which they would consent to return to the foldl.l On this point the church was immovable; the evil continued unchecked, and it afforded, at the dawn of the IReformation, a fair mark for the indignant eloquence of the reformers. Thus, in 1521, Luther, in his controversy with Ambrogio Caterino, exclaims: " Finally, criminals can neither be reproved, nor accused, nor punished, except by the pope, who could not if he would, and now does not wish to. From this prolific source arises their iniquity; hence the debaucheries, the adulteries, the fornications, the uncleanness, the avarice, the fraud, the swindling, the universal chaos of crime, which not only abounds but reigns everywhere, unpunished and unchecked by fear of God or man. If any one reproves them, he is guilty of sacrilege and of treason to the pope. All this arises firom those accursed laws which exempt the clergy and all belonging to them from secular accusation, trial, and punishment."2 It seems to be the echo of the voice of Henry of Salzburg' sounding through the interval of three centuries and a half; and fierce as was the declamation of the sturdy reformer, he was not guilty of exaggeration if we may believe the formal complaint of the orthodox, addressed in 1522 by the representatives of the empire assembled in the Diet of Niirnberg to Adrian VI., praying for the reform which was confidently expected at his hands. This authoritative document, in enumerating the disorders existing in the church, asserts that the benefit of clergy was the direct source of countless cases of adultery, robbery, coining, homicide, arson, and false witness committed by ecclesiastics, and significantly adds that unless the clergy were relegated to secular jurisdiction, there was reason to fear iIartzheim. Concil. German.. 760-73. Lutheri Opp. T. II. fol. 374 a. (Jene, 1581). I 8a 210 BENEFIT OF CLERGYo an uprising of the people, for no justice was to be had in the spiritual courts against a clerical offender.e It was not only in the license afforded to individual criminals that the immunity of the clergy mlade the church odious to the people, but also in the opportunity which it afforded of exercising oppression and irresponsible despotismn, for which no redress could be obtained. That this Nwas not lost sight of by the reformers in their efforts to arouse the populations to overthrow the hoary structure of sacerdotalism is shown in Sir David Lyndsay's "1 Satyre of the Thrie Estaits," where he introduces a im'endicant recounting the mnisadventures which had reduced him to beggary. lie had had a mare and three cows, wherewith he had supported wife and children, besides his aged parents. The father dying, his mare had been seized by the laird for heriot, while the vicar carried off a'cow. Then his mother died, and the vicar took another cow. This diminution of their substance so preyed upon his wife, that she soon followed, when the vicar claimed as his fee thle last remaining cow, and the parish clerk seized their movables. His interlocutor asks whether the parson had not stood his friend, but is told that the latter had excommnunicated him for being in arrears with his tithes, and that he has but a groat remaining in the world, with which he is begging his way to St. Andrews to fee a lawyer to see whether he cannot get justice of those who have plundecled him of his little all. He is laug'hed at for his pains:"Thou art the daftest fuill that ever I saw. Trows thou, man, be the law to get remeid Of men of kirk? Na, nocht till thou be cleici"and presently this last remailing groat is filched from himl by a pardloner, under promise of remitting' for him a thouGravanm. Nat. German. cap. 21 (Le Piat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 178-9) EFFORTS OF THIE CHURCIH. 211 sand years' penance in purgatory.l The satire is broad, and yet it has sufficient verisimilitude to explain to us the bitterness with which the ancient church was regarded by the peoples which threw off her yoke. A feeble corrective of these manifold evils was proposed by Pius III. in his projected Bull of Reformation, prepared in 1546, to the effect that clerks wearing secular habits, and refusing to abandon them on due admonition, should not be entitled to the benefit of clergy, but should share the wholesome rigor of secular law with their secular brethren.2 This would have been wholly inadequate to the necessities of the times, as it left the iniquities of the clergy at large untouched; but as the bull was prudently suppressed through the opposition of those whose license it threatened to curtail, its suggestions are only of interest as showing the impossibility of enforcing any such distinction as Pius proposed. The rule which lie enunciated had been the law of the church for three centuries, and its attempted revival merely shows that it had been completely neglected and rendered obsolete. As the church apparently could not or would not reform itself, the laity grew bolder, and insisted con relief in some shape. Thus, when Charles VT., feeling himself juggled out of the reform promised by the council of Trent, undertook to purify for himself the Teutonic church, the synod which in 1549 assembled at Salzburg in obedience to his conmmands undertook to complain of the invasionl of clerical immunity which was daily growing more audacious on the part of the secular judges. The progress of Lutheranism had weakened the respect felt for the church, even by the orthodox; and Duke William of Bavaria, zealous Catholic though he was, responded briefly that the' Sir David Lyndsay's Works, P. IV. pp. 451-61 (Early Engi. Text Soc. 1869). It is somewhat remarkable that the " Satyre of the Thrie Estaits" was repeatedly represented in public as a dramatic performance in 1539, prior to the first movements of the Reformation in Scotland (Rogers, Scotland, Social and Domestic, p. 204; Grampian Club, 1869). o Published by Clausen, Copenhagen, 1849. 212 B ENEFIT OF CLERGY. secular courts would not hlave undertaken to enforce thle laws on the clergy had they not found that the bishops habitually allowed clerical offences to remain unpunished. The synod replied by a series of grievances, among which were enumerated the infractions of clerical privilege. The princes concerned were not disposed to listen to these, and proposed that they should be submitted to the Emperor Ferdinand, who prudently suppressed them, and no action was had on the subject for twenty years.1 At length the hopes of the purer portion of the Catholics grewv high as the final convocation of the council of Trent in 1562 assembled with plentiful promises of the reformatioln which every one deemed essential to the preservation of the orthodox faith. One of the principal reforms expected of the council was the removal of the abuses, which, under guise of clerical immunity, scandalized the faithful and corrupted the church. This is evident in the projects submitted to the assembled fathers by the various princes whose zeal for the faith led them to point out the evils that rendered their peoples impatient of the yoke. Thus the honored Bartholomew a Martyribus, Archbishop of Braga, dlrew up for Sebastian of Portugal a series of articles of reformation, which was presented in the name of the Portuguese nation. In this it was proposed substantially to abolish the four lower orders of the priesthood, leavinonothing below the subdiaconate, in order to preserve the church from the endless scandals arising froln the hordes who took these lower orders for the single purpose of abusing the immunity conferred by them.2 The Spanish bishops asked for a less radical measure, onlyt suglgestingl that married clerks, who wore secular habits, should not enjoy the benefit of clergy; and they coupled this with a request that even papal authority should not be allowed to sanctionl infractions of clerical privilege.3 1 Dalham, Concil. Salisburg. pp. 328-9. —Hansiz. German. Sacra, II. 618. Artic. Sebast. R. Portug. No. 39 (Le Plat, op. cit. V. 84). Artic. Reform. Epise. H-lispan. No. 25, 27 (Ibid. V. 565). COMPLAINTS OF THE LAITY. 213 The Emperor Ferdinand, who had an intimate acquaintance with the foulness of the Teutonic church, and the dangers of the aggressive Lutheranismn of the age, was particularly earnlest in his demands for a thoroug'h reform which should check thle progress of the Reformation. Uinder his commands, a series of articles was drawn up by one of his most trusted counsellors, Frederic Staphylus, whose learning and orthodoxy had won for him the cap of the doctorate of theology at the hands of the pope himself, when his marriage had rendered the universities doubtful about conferring the honor upon himl. In this laper, submitted to the coruncil in the name of the emperorl, the exemptions of the clergy were denounced with little ceremony. 6" Crimes remain unpunished, which is the greatest of evils, and ruinous to the public welfare..... A lay murderer is justly put to death by the law, while an ecclesiastic escapes withl trifling penance, or none at all... The clergy sin with impunity, whence it arises that they are a scandal to the children of God, and a pest to the state."' Hle argoues that these privileges are derived firom human and not from divine law, and that they can be abrogated by the secular power, to the manifest advantage of both church and state.l The sane assertions are made in another consultation prepared by order of the emperor to be laid before the council. " The insolence of the clergy has risen to that point that they think they have a right to conmmit crimnes which in laymen are punished with the utmost rigor of the law-."2 The spirit in which these representations were received is shown in the extraordinary proposition presented by the papal legates to the ambassadors of the sovereigns, Sept. 23, 1563. Two-thirds of the prelates present at the council had been induced to pledge themselves that no re-formation Frid. Staphyli Consil. No. 50-2 (Le Plat, V. 227-8). 2 Consult. Imp. Ferdinand, cap. 13 (Ibid. V. 244). 214 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. of the church should be debated until this paper had been considered, and no more effectual mode of evading the pressure for reform could be conceived. It demanded, as a condition precedent to ecclesiastical reformation, that the relations between the various princes and the church should be revised in a sense which swept away all concordats and pragmatic sanctions, and deprived the sovereigns of what little control they enjoyed by rendering the church entirely independent. In this comprehensive scheme, the widest interpretation was given to the claims of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; all questions of doubtful clerkship were reserved for the spiritual courts alone; no appeal from them was allowed to the secular tribunals; the anathema was denounced against all who should infringe on the ancient canons, and in general everything that had been gained by the secular power in a struggle of centuries was swept away.1 As was expected, the fierce- opposition of the princes, whose rights of appointment and patronage were abolished in this scheme, caused it speedily to be dropped, but its animus is none the less interesting as developing the policy of 1Rome, and the objects of papal ambition. Animated by this spirit, it was not likely that the council would lend itself to any searching or adequate reform. At its previous convocation, in 1551, it had already adopted a canon declaring that no secular ecclesiastic should be -withdrawn from the jurisdiction of his bishop on any pretence2-a rule which infringed upon the judicature by this time established in some countries, such as France and the Netherlands.Y Under the protests of the princes, indeed, it was at last willing to leave to their fate the hordes of worthless vagabonds who sought by a nominal affiliation on the church to obtain the immunity from' Le Plat, VI. 228-9, 232-3, 249. Concil, Trident. Sess. xiv. de Reform. can. 4, 3 See the remnonstrances of the Sovereign Council of Brabant (Le Plat. VII. 84). TIHE TRIDENTINE REFORMe 215 punishment consequent on its prerogatives; but no disposition was shown to abandon one tittle of the rights claimled for those who held a substantial place in the ecclesiastical body. Thus the reform was restricted to forbidding any one from holding a benefice before his fourteenth year, or untonsured, or not in the lower orders, and no one could claim benefit of clergy unless he held a benefice, or wearing the habit and tonsure was employed in the service of a church, or prosecuted his studies in a seminary. On the other hand, the customs of those countries which subjected married clerks to the secular courts were disregarded by reviving a decretal of Boniface VIII., which granted them the privileges of the clergy, provided they wore the tonsure and habit.l Another canons regulating the proceedings and jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, manifested a determination to win back all that had been lost during the preceding two centuries;2 while a final declaration asserted the continued vitality of all the ancient canons, decrees of councils, and papal sanctions which defined the liberties of the church, the immunities of her members, and the punishments for infringing those immunities; and all emperors, kings, princes and states were emphatically warned that these penalties would be enforced with the utmnost rigor?3 This action called forth vigorous remonstrances fromn the secular powers; and that they were not mistaken in the' Concil. Trident. Sess. xxiII. de Reform. can. 6.-Cf. can. 7 Extra IiI. 3; can. un. in'Sexto iii. 2. This called forth vehement remonstrances from the states of the Netherlands and France (Le Plat. VII. 33, 43, 61, 269). " Concil. Trident. Sess. xxIV. de Reform. can. 20. This likewise gave occasion to lively reclamations-see Le Plat, VII. 17, 18, 66, 87. The celebrated lRichardot, Bishop of Arras, responded by a vigorous statement of the little respect paid by the courts to the claims of clerical immunity (Ibid. 28, 29). Subsequently, however, in 1566, he deplores the scand.als caused in the church by the absence of punishment for clerical offenders, who, according to popular belief, were always enabled to escape by a moderate pecuniary sacrifice. (Ibid. p. 186.) 3 Concil. Trident. Sess. xxv. can. 20, 216 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. belief-that it was intended to maintain and perpetuate the ancient abuses, is clearly manifested by the action of the synod of Salzburg, assembled in 1569 to publish the council of Trent. An elaborate system of church polity was based on the Tridentine canons, so as to reorganize the ecclesiastical establishment, define its position and duties, and adapt it in every respect to the new order of things. This was formally approved by Gregory XIII. in 1572, and the Emperor M[aximilian was ordered to enforce it.' As presenting an authoritative exposition of the revised policy of the church, it is therefore worthy of note that it asserts in the most formal manner the immunity of the clergy as founded not only on human but on divine law. Any decision rendered against a clerk by a secular tribunal, whether in a civil or a criminal case, is pronounced null and void, and the judge granting it or even endeavoring to compel a clerk to appear before him, is excommnunicated until he renders full satisfaction, pays whatever damages may have been caused by his action, and undergoes proper penance. The utmost concession allowed is that when a clerk has committed some crime of a peculiarly heinous character, and is supposed to be on the point of absconding, the civil authorities may arrest him on condition of delivering him within twenty-four hours to the episcopal officials;' who, it is true, are urgedl to perform their functions without fear or favor, and are prohibited for the future from taking bribes to allow criminals to escape.3 iNot only were the officers of secular justice thus forbidden to take cognizance of clerical offences, but even the people were enjoined to shut their eyes to the sins of their pastors, no matter how scandalous imight be the lives Dalhamn Concil. Salisburg. pp. 557, 568. Concil. Salisburg. XLVI. Const. xxxix. cap. 1, 2, 3. (Dalham, op. cit. pp. 481-2.) 3 Ejusd. const. lxiii. cap. 1, 2 (op. cit. pp. 5411-2). CORRUPTION DEFENDED. 217 of the latter. They were warned that the fate of Ham, and the curse of Canaan awaited those who did not hasten to conceal the shame of their fathers; and as the priests were the fathers of the people, it followed that their sins were not to be commented on or bruited abroad. In fact, it was asserted that a wicked priest wvas a chosen instrument selected by God to punish a wicked people; he was therefore to be venerated; and those who suffered from him were on no account to resist the will of God by accusing' him of his crimes.1 The full audacity of such teaching as this can be appreciated only after a fair understanding of thle unspeakable corruption of the whole ecclesiastical body in the sixteenth century, when popes and councils united in declaring that the laity were vitiated by their priests, that religion was rendered odious by the vices of its members, and that the Lutheran heresy was the natural protest against the clerical vileness which no system of ecclesiastical discipline could control.2 That this should be the case was the inevitable result of such teachings; and though the council promulgated various regulations to check the prevalent vices of the priesthood, it is no wonder that when Pius V., not long afterwards, wrote to the Archbishop of Salzburg, urging him to increased energy in extirpating the concubinage which was universal among the ministers of the altar, the prelate sadly responded that he had done everything in his power, that he had proved utterly unsuccessful, and that he despaired of being able to effect the desired reform.3 1 Ejusd. const. lvii. cap. 4, 5 (op. cit. pp. 512-3). See Concil. Coloniens. ann. 1527 (Hartzheim Concil. German VI. 21013)- Concil. Augustan. ann. 1548 (Ibid. VI. 388) —Breve Pii V. ad Archiep. Salisburg. (Ibid. VII. 231).-Concil. Constant. ann. 1567 (Ibid. VII. 455)Breve Pii V. ad Abbat. Frisingens. ann. 1567 (Ibid. VII. 586).-Even in the very council which promulgated these doctrines, Christopher Spncdel, in the closing address, declared that the vices of the clergy had made them deservedly the objects of popular contempt and detestation (Hiartzheim VII. 407). 3 Dalham op. cit. pp. 557, 568. 19 218 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. The Tridentine fathers and their obedient prelates might amuse themselves with adopting and promulgating brave resolutions proclaiming the imprescriptible rights of the clerical body, but the inevitable progress of civilization and enlightenment was against them. The corruptions which brought about the lReformation had gradually divested the church of its claims to respect, and the Reformation itself had had its influence on the orthodox as well as on the reformer. Never again could the church hope for implicit obedience, or expect that men should listen to its commands as to the oracles of God. Scarcely had the ink fairly dried on the canons of Trent, when the Polish Diet of 1565 enacted that a clerk charged with any criminal offence should be tried by the secular and not by the spiritual court.l Indeed, even while the council was yet in session, the French government, despairing of the long promised reformation, took the matter into its own hands, and in January, 1563, solved the question by decreeing that no clerk beneath the grade of sub-deacon should enjoy the benefit of clergy.2 Some concession was made in 1566 by including within the privileged limit those in orders actually engaged in the ministry of the church, but this was counterbalanced by reserving to the civil courts the proof of clergy.3 Still more significant of the tendencies of the age was the fact that while France was risking her existence in the effort to crush her Huguenot children, she never could be persuaded to accept and publish the council of Trent, notwithstanding the most urgent and repeated efforts of the Holy See. While, too, the bigoted Louis XIV. was enforcing Catholicism with relentless severity, he manifested complete disregard of the pretensions of the church by creating, in 1695, mixed tribunals of ecclesias1 Krasinski, Reformation in Poland, I. 131. 2 Ordonnance de Roussillon, Janvier 1563, art. 21 (Isambert, XV. 165). Ordonn. de Moulins, Fdvr. 1566, art, 40, 55 (Ibid. pp. 200, 203). PRESENT POLICY OF TE CHI-IURCH. 219 tics and laymen for the trial of clerical offenders.l If, during the eighteenth century, the benefit of clergy was still maintained, it was under such limitations and restrictions as showed thlat it existed only by sufferance of the civil power,2 and in many places it was virtually abrogated. The Revolution of 1789 naturally swept away what remained of it, with the other shreds and tatters of class-privilege, and all men at last became once more equal before the law. Yet an infallible church cannot abandon a claim. that has once been made and admitted. If tyrannical princes and republics insist on the equality of the citizen, and subject clerical offenders to the laws of the land as though they were ordinary mortals, it is simply an abusive exercise of power, to which the church submits with Christian meekness when she has no means at hand to assert her rights. The sacro-sanct council of Trent, under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, confirmed the privileges enjoyed for centuries, and announced to all earthly potentates that any invasion of those privileges was punishable with the dread anathema that bars forever the gates of salvation. As long as this remains unrepealed by an assembly equally gifted with the divine power, it is the irrefragable law which overrides all human ordinances. In fact, it is doubtful whether even an cecumenic council could undertake to abandon these positions, for Pius IX., in an apostolic letter of 1851, has condemned as a heresy the doctrine that clerical immunity drew its origin from the civil power, and asserts that it is derived from the direct Ordonn. Avril, 1695, art. 38 (Isambert, XXI. 254). 2 ldricourt, Loix Eccls. de France, E. xix. (Neufchatel, 1774). See also Dupin, Manuel du Droit Pub. Eccles. Paris, 1845, p. 39. 3 In Bavaria, for instance, the struggle was kept up for two hundred years, and in 1772 we find the clergy complaining of the secular jurisdiction exercised over them in criminal matters as a violation of their chartered rights. —Dalham, Concil. Salisb. p. 644. 220 BENEFIT OF CLERGY. order of God.1 So when, in May, 1851, the Republic of lNew Granada dared to abolish the ecclesiastical courts and to subject the clergy to the secular tribunals, Pius lifted up his voice and proclaimed to the nations that the act was null and void, and that all concerned in it had incurred the censures inevitable upon those who wilfully seek to violate the imprescriptible rights of the church.2 iNot less energetic and decisive was his action when the Mexican constitution of 1855 proposed to abolish the benefit of clergy; the constitution was at once declared to be annulled, and its supporters were warned of the penalties in store f'or them.3 Evidently the church only lacks the power and not the will to interfere as of old in the civil and political affairs of the nations. So, in the manifesto of the bishops who assembled in Rome for the canonization of the Japanese martyrs in 1862, one of the complaints made against the "' Sub-Alpine Government" was that it licld not hesitate to subject the priests of God to the unhallowed courts of secular law — the principal motives for the protest being apparently that the Italian cabinet had found itself obliged to prosecute the bishops of Bologna and Fano for issuing circulars ordering their priests to make use of the confessional for the purpose of stimulating desertion in the Italian army. In view of these declarations of principle, it is therefore a matter of course to find, in the Syllabus of December, 1864, the immunity of ecclesiastics from secular jurisdiction claimed as a matter independent of the civil law, and to see that potentates are warned that they have no right to curtail the exclusive control of the spiritual courts over all persons and things appertaining to the church.5 tRome therefore looks back with fond regret to the cldays Litt. Apostol. lVbetipices inter, x. Jun. 1851. " Alloc. Acerbissiiutz, 27 Septemrb. 1852. 3 Alloc. lVzqetnam fore, 15 Decemb. 1856. Declarat. Episc. 8 Junii 1862. 5 Syllab. Dec. 1864, Prop. 30, 31. PRESENT POLICY OF THE CHURCH. 221 of Innocent III., and eagerly anticipates the time when opportunity shall enable her to revendicate the rights of which she has been deprived by the irreligious generations of the past three centuries. Yet in weighing the countless blessings which have been vouchsafed to her church during the eventful past, it would be difficult to find one more substantial than the "persecution" which has restrained her from the suicidal gratification of her own inordinate desires. EXCO MUNICATION. N the long career of the church towards universal dcloination, perhaps the most efficient instrument at its comma-and was its control over the sacrifice of the altar. Through this it opened the gates of heaven to the obedient, and plunged the rebellious into the pit of hell; and the generations which implicitly believed in its authority over the world to come were necessarily rendered docile subjects in this world. Armed with power so vast and vague, it could intervene decisively in the dissensions between sovereigns and people, and subdue them both to its designs of highest state-craft, making each the means to humiliate the other; while, at the same time, it could control the life of the obscurest peasant, and bind him helplessly in blind submission to the behests of its humblest minister. This despotism so absolute and so all-pervading, which dictated the action of kings, while it interpenetrated every fibre of society, was based upon the religion of love, and self-sacrifice, and humility. HIuman history, so fruitful of paradoxes, scarce offers an example more notable of the perversion of good into evil. The divine precepts of charity, forgiveness, and self-abnegation, distorted by the ignorance, the passion, and the selfishness of man, became the warrant by which giced and ambition attained the fruition of their wildest hopes. To d(escribe minutely the countless vicissitudes by which 224 EXCOMMUNICATION. these results were reached would greatly transcend the limits of the present essay. I can only propose to present such a general view of the subject as may aid the student in tracing the origin of some of the moral and material forces which have moulded our civilization, and which, in a degree somewhat modified, are still at work around us. The church is infallible; it draws its inspiration from above, and cannot rightfully be called to account by any earthly power for the use which it may make of the authority confided to it. Thus autocratic by the organic law of its being, uncontrolled and uncontrollable by any human power, even the observer of the present may find profit in contemplating what was its policy in the past, and the use which it has macde of the supremacy conceded to it of old. PRIMITIVE DISCIPLINE. When Jesus said to his disciples" Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if lie shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. "BLut if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. " And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. " Verily I say unto you; whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." —(ZJatt. xviII. 15-18.) It would seem as though they at once proceeded to draw from his words deductions at variance with the exhaustless love and pity which it was his mission to preach to man, for the sacred narrative proceeds- PRIMJITIVE DISCIPLINE. 225 " Then came Peter to him and said, Lord, how often shall my brother sil aoainst me and I forgive him? till seven times?" And Christ, seeing that his precept was in dalnger of being misinterpreted, at once detected and rebuked the hidden thoughts of his disciples — "I say not unto thee, until seven times; but, until seventy times seven." Frail human nature grasped eagerly the reversion of the symbolical power to bind and to loose, and interpreted it in the most rigicd and odious form. It rejoiced in the authority to treat an erring brother as a heathen and a publican; but with all convenient speed it forgot the limziitation to forgive him seventy times seven. The teachings of the apostles shared the same fate as those of the Master. Jesus had said to them (Jotn xIIi. 35)-" By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another," and they never tired of inculcating that " God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him" (I. Joh7n IV. 16), and of preaching forgiveness, meekness, and long-suffering. Christ had said, Judge not, that ye be not judged,"c and Paul repeated after him (RomZ. xIv. 10), "For why clost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at naught thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgumentseat of Christ." When one of the faithful had strayed, he was to be brought back with all gentleness and kindness —" Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thouialso be tempted" (Galat. vi. 1). And above all, those to whom the guidance of their brethren was confided were warned to exercise their authority meekly and humbly —" In all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses" (II. Cor. vI. 4). "Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamlples to the flockl" (I. Peter v. 3). 226 E XCOMMUNICATION. Yet with all this, the old stern exclusive spirit of his Jewish training occasionally breaks out in St. Paul, and it suited the temper of later generations rather to give heed to his denunciations of punishment than to obey his injunctions of forbearance and forgiveness. It was no part of -the recognize(] duty of the apostles to frame an elaborate system of ecclesiastical discipline that should regulate the church of the future in its development over the earth. Believing, as they did, that the second conming of Christ was at hand, temporary regulations alone seemed necessary for the scanty flock of believers, whose enthusiasm in submitting themselves to the law of love was a sufficient guarantee against serious trouble, during the short time that was to elapse before the Messiah himself should return to govern the world. Accordingly, the indications which are furnished in the Pauline epistles as to the nature of the spiritual laws for the control of the Christian churches are necessarily vague and imperfect. Still, they show us the existence of two kinds of penalties. The first and most severe is the mysterious one which has puzzled so many commentators -" To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus," which is threatened in - I. Cor. v. for the punishment of a moral offence, incest, and in I. Tim. I. 20, to repress the spiritual sin of heresy. The other penalty is segregation from the church-"6 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no not to eat" (I. Cor. v. 11). Yet even this was to be administered in a loving spirit. and was evidently an infliction of comparatively trivial import. "'Now we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from any brother that walketh disorderly, not after the tradition which he received of us. PR I MITIVE DISCIPLINE. 227 "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. "Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother" (II. Thess. iII. 6, 14, 15).' And even the anathema which subsequently came to have a significance so awful meant evidently at this time only a setting aside or separation.1 As we shall see, however, in process of time all of these penalties became practically merged into one, combining all the severity of each; and the offender who was cut off from the church, was delivered to Satan, not in the flesh for the salvation of the soul, but in the soul for eternity. That a man believing himself to possess a power so fearfful could find pleasure in wielding it, and in condemning his fellow-creatures to a destiny so unspeakable, is an exhibition of the worst and darkest side of humnan nature; but when we see this performed daily in the name and for the honor of a God of love and(] pity, and for the honest purpose of enforcing the law of charity and universal brotherhood, we are led to face one of the mysteries of man's many-sided character which are past solution by our finite intelligence. This penalty of simple segregation or expulsion was, of course, a matter inherently within the power of each congregation of the faithful. A body bound together merely by the ties of spontaneous aggregation could choose its own associates, and could refuse to consort with those whom it might consider unfitted for or unworthy of companionship, and the test of this fellowship became, at an early period, the act of partaking of the Lord's Supper. The references to this by St. Paul (I. Cor. x. 16-18; xr. 20-34), combined with some obscure allusions to breaking bread (Acts II. 41-46; xx. 7-11), would seem to show that at first this test was eating in common, and that in obedience to the command, "Whatsoever ye do in word and deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving Cf. Rom. ix. 3.-I. Cor. xII. 3; xvI. 22.-Galat. i. 9. 228 E X C O MM U N I C A T I ON. thanks to God and the Father by him" (Coloss. III. 17), the early Christians felt that every act of the believer should be hallowed, that his whole life was a ceaseless dedication to God, and that his food and drink were the gift of the Lord, to be taken in thankfulness, as making him one with the Saviour who had died for him. Yet as the circle of the faithful enlarged, a celebration of this kind could not but give rise, among weaker brethren, to occasional scenes which to devout minds were a disgrace to the church, and a scandal to the memory of the Crucified. It was apparently to repress these that St. Paul ordered that the demands of animal hunger and thirst should be satisfied at home, and that the meal of fellowship in the place of worship should be sober, and worthy of the recollections which it was designed to excite. In process of time this celebration seems to have become separated into two —the agape, or love-feast,l and the ministration of the Eucharist, though the latter long retained its original aspect of a meal, rather than a ceremony purely religious. Thus, a century later than St. Paul, we learn firom Justin Martyr that, after prayers and thanksgiving, the attendant deacons distributed among the congregation the bread and wine, which were also carried home to those prevented by legitimate reasons from attending at worship.2 That the Eucharist still was more than * The agacpcc, or love-feasts, continued long to be celebrated in the churches. About the middle of the fourth centtry the council of Leodicewa endeavored to abolish them by forbidding participation in them to both clerks and laymen (can. 27, 28). This was unsuccessful, and the attempt was renewed in 397 by the third council of Carthage (can. 30). The extreme reformers of the modern Italian church, in their efforts to restore the primitive simplicity of worship, imitate, or rather exceed, the absence of ceremony described in the text. According to a recent traveller who attended one of their conventicles in Florence, the elements were represented by a loaf of bread and a decanter of wine, placed upon a common table in the midst of the assembly. After various religious exercises, one of the congregltion arose and broke off a piece of bread, which he ate and passed the loaf to a neighbor, and it was thus handcled around. Ie also PRIMITIVE DISCIPLINE. 229 the mere symbolical morsel of bread and mouthful of wine and water, is evident when the same author explains that it was provided by the voluntary oblations of the faithful.' The same is shown in tile next century by the reproaches of Cyprian to an avaricious dame, that she comes to the Lord's Supper without bringing her share of the sacritice, and that, although she is rich, she partakes of the Eucharist which has been contributed by the poor.2 Even towards the close of the fourth century, a sermon attributed to St. Augustine echoes the remark of Cyprian in stigmatizing as disgraceful the conduct of a man, able to make oblations, who receives the communion from the offering of another.? About the same period there appears to have arisen the necessity of limiting the nature of the oblations, which seem to have become varied, leading doubtless to abuses anci perversions of the rite.4 Such portions of these eucharistic offerings as were not consumed by those poured out a tumblerful of wine, took a sip, and it then followed the loaf. Unimpressive as this may seem, it derives full significance from the intense religious enthusiasm of the Evangelical Christians, as they call themselves. This, indeed, may be seen by the hymn which was sung immediately before the distribution of the elements. I give the first two and the last two verses:" Giojosi o fratelli, "I1 careo comnpiamo Sedianmo alla nensa, Precetto divine; In cui sotto un velo Gustiamo o fratelli, La fede dispensa Nel pane e nel vine Le arcane, le saunte Le arcane, le pare Dovizie d'amor. Dolcezze d'amor. " I1 pane e il vilne' Si celebri in questo I simrboli sono Santissimo rito Di gIrazia perenne, Del nostro riScattO Di pace e perdono, I1 prezzo infinite, Del corpo e del sangee In fin che dai cieli Del nostro Signor. Non torni ii Signor." Talnaccdge's Religcious Reform in Itacly, London, 1S66, pp. 89-91.' Justin. Martyr. Apol. II. Cyprian. de Opere et Eleemosyn. cap. xv. a Augustin. Sermon. Append. Serrn. cclxv. cap. 2. (Ed. Benedict.)' Concil. Carthag. III. can. xxiv. 20 230 EXCOMMUNICATION. present, or conveyed to the absent, were distributed among both clergy and laity, especial care being taken in general that:none should reach the catechumens, who were not permitted to join in the communion.l It was thus, indeed, that the poor of the church were fed, showing the substantial nature of the offerings.2 In. some places, also, the custom obtained, to a comparatively late period, to call in the school children and feed them on the surplus; and thus, occasionally, it might reach the unbaptized, as in a case mentioned by Evagrius, resulting in a miracle.3 The use thus made of the surplus must have continued until the ninth century, as we find it forbidden in the False Decretals.4 The idea of a celebration of this nature was familiar to all the races from which converts were to be drawn, for propitiatory and eucharistical feasts formed part of the religious institutions of Moses (Deut. xiv. 22-9), and the solemn eating of the sacrifice was, throughout Pagandom, the bond which manifested the connection between those who worshipped the same deities. From the very com1 Theoph. Alexandrin. Commonitor. can. vii. (Harduin. I. 1199). Cyprian de Op. et Eleemos. Evagrius (Hist. Eccles. Lib. Iv. cap. 35), writing during the reign of Justinian, describes this as an old custom in Constantinople. That it was regarded as a religious. rite is evident from the -miracle referred to. It chanced that a Jewish boy partook of the holy repast, along with his companions, and on his return home mentioned it as an excuse for his delay. The father, who was a glass-maker, transported with rage, cast his son into a glass-furnace, where the child remained for three days unharmed amid the flames, until his mother, who had vainly searched him everywhere, chanced to hear him answering her call. A beautiful woman, he said, had at once appeared to him, covering him with a garment impenetrable to the fire, and supplying him with food when hungry. By order of Justinian the mother and son were baptized, and the father, proving obdurate, was crucified. This same story is related by Nicephorus Callistus (Hist. Eccles. Lib. xvII. cap. 18) and by Gregory of Tours (Mirac. Lib. I. cap. 10). The custom which gave rise to it was likewise followed in the West, as appears from Concil. Matiscon. II. ann. 585, can. 6. 4 Pseudo-Clenment. Epist. II. PRIMITIVE DISCIPLINE. 231 mencement of Christianity the disciples were earnestly warned against partaking of the Eic;6}v-ea or sacrificial meats of the heathen (Acts xv. 29), and during the various persecutions this became one of the tests employed to discover the faithful, and the infraction of the prohibition one of the sins most difficult to pardon. That the eucharistic feast should come to be regarded as the symbolic bond of union between believers, and of their communion with God, was therefore inevitable, and every one professing Christianity was required to partake whenever he attended the meetings for worship.' These meetings, in some churches, were held regularly twice a day, and it was the duty of the faithful to be always present;" while in others a daily service only was required, in others weekly, and in others again several times a week.3 Not satisfied with the frequent opportunities thus afforded of participating in the communion; pious souls would carry the Eucharist home with them, that they might enjoy'its benefits at all times;4 and so universal was its administration that infants of the tenderest years, as soon as they received baptism, were expected to be brought regularly to the altar, where they joined unconsciously in the sacred mysteries,5 and an Canon. Apostol. x.-Concil. Antioch. ann. 341, can. 2. 2 Constit. Apostol. Lib. II. cap. xl. lx]iii. 3 Cyprian de Orat. Domin. cap. 18. —Justin. Martyr. Apol. II. —Tertull. de Orat. cap. 19. 4 Tertull. de Uxor. Lib. II. cap. v.-Cyprian. de Spectac. cap. 5. 5 Cyprian. de Lapsis, cap. 25.-The veneration which already was bestowed on the Eucharist is manifested by this passage. During the Decian persecution, a female infant was carried by her nurse before the magistrates, and made to eat of the pagan sacrificial meats. Her parents, ignorant of the fact, subsequently took her to church, and when the deacon placed the holy cup to her lips, she resisted violently. Forced at length to swallow a mouthful of the sacred wine, she immediately threw it up. As Cyprian remarks, the Eucharist could not remain in her violated mouth and body; the draught, sanctified by the blood of the Lord, burst from her polluted stomach. The council of Trent anathematized as heresy the belief that participation 232 E XO OM MUNI CATION. abuse at one time arose by which the holy symbol was even given to the dead —a profanation sharply reproved by thle third council of Carthage in. 397.1 Thus, as participation in the Lord's Supper became nniversal, perpetual, and obligatory, it naturally soon was recognized not only as the bond of union, but as the test of fellowship among believers. When the expected Second Advent did not come, and when the necessity for permanent organization and discipline grew apparent, the Eucharist thus inevitably assumed a fresh importance as a means of efficiently enforcing subordination and obedience. As a society of voluntary cohesion, the church had of course the right to exipel a refractory member; and if it had doubted its power, it had sufficient precedent to justify the assumption. Among the Jews, three degrees of separation from the synagogue were practised-n-iddzui, cherem, and sammadidti -to coerce contumnacious offenders, imposing segregation and disabilities very similar to those which we will see hereafter adopted by the church, when it acquired secular as well as spiritual authority.2 Among the Gauls, also, the theocratic government of the Druids was maintained by an expedient almost precisely similar in its details and application.2 The standard of morality erected by Christ was so different from that of the hideous society in which the infant in the Eucharist was essential for children before the age of reason, but forbore to condemn the practice of the ancient church (Sess. xxI. De Comnmun. cap. Iv. can. 4). Gregory XIII., however, soon after, in 1572, expressed great surprise on learning that the custom was preserved in some of the German churches, and strictly prohibited it, under threats of punishment. (Dalham, Concil. Salisburg. p. 577.) Concil. Carthag. III. can. 6. 2 Smith's Bible Diet. Vol. III. Append. p. cx.-Hippolytus (Refutation of Heresies, Bk. Ix. chap. xix.) asserts that among the Essenes excommunicates sometimes perished of starvation, being refused all aid by their fellows, and at the same time being forbidden by their tenets from partaking of ordinary food.:: Cs:tr. de Bell. Gall. Lib. VI. cap. 13. PRIMITIVE DISCIPLINE. 233 church was nurtured, that a large portion of the offences of its untrained converts could be restrained only by its own action, even had it been willing to see its members brought before the heathen tribunals for trial. Not only, as we have seen in the previous essay, did the church seek by every means to keep them from appealing to the courts in civil cases, but when they were accused and condemned for criminal actions it sedulously held aloof and abandoned them.l It was thus obliged to exercise a close supervision over the lives of its followers to repress the sins which, though heinous in the eyes of the devout children of the Redeemer, were venial weaknesses, or even praiseworthy deeds in the opinion of the heathen. There was an ample field for the exercise of its sternest vigilance, for, in the incurable corruption of social life under the empire, neither regeneration by the waters of baptism, nor the purifying influence of occasional persecution, could preserve the church from constant and wide-spread contamination. It was not merely the Christian ideal of purity of character and abstinence from evil thoughts and desires that were lacking, for even the grossest sins and crimes were not infiequent. Even in the second century, IrenmTus consoles himself with the conviction that the secret evil deeds of those who held higl position in the church would receive their due reward hereafter; and when a fraudulent banker like St. Calixtus I. could be elevated to the bishopric of Rome, there could not be any very elevated standard of morality in the Christian society of the Eternal City.3 After the Decian persecution, Cyprian lifts up his voice to proclaim that the sufferinogs of the church were the just penalty of its ineradicable corruption. Bishops neglected their sacred functions to devote themnselves to the accumulation of wealth wrung from the poor, Constit. Apostol. Lib. v. cap. iii. 2 Irenmei contra H-Ires. Lib. Iv. cap. xxvi. ~ 3. 3 I-Iippolytus, Refutation of Heresies, Bk. Ix. chap. 7. 10* 234- EX XCOMMUNICATION. while possessions gained by fraud were increased by merciless usury. As for the priesthood, it had neither purity of faith, charity of works, nor discipline of morals; while the laity were given over to avarice and cheating, blasphemy and slander.l Even the terrible purification administered by Decius was ineffectual, for, ten years later, an epistle of Gregory Thaumaturgus defines the penance appropriate for the crimes committed by the faithful during an irruption of the Goths into Pontus. Many Christians had joined the barbarians, and had aided them in their ravages, guiding them through the country, pointing out dwellings to be sacked, and murdering, plundering, and ravishing. Even after the raid, unfortunate captives escaping and endeavoring to return to their homes were seized by Christians and held as slaves, while others obtained possession of their neighbors' property, alid refused to restore it.2 Human nature, even am10ong the early Christians, thus evidently fell far short of ideal perfection, and when tried by the standard of the Gospel its shortcomings demanded the most earnest efforts at reform. Nor were the offences those against ordinary morality only, for the growth of Christian theology speedily added a new and interainable class of sins in the deviations of faith which were regarded as the most unpardonable of crimes against God. The church thus had ample work to do, and was obliged to provide for its systematic performance. PFor this it had full opportunity. Ignored or persecuted by thle civil power, and forming an independent body in the social order of the empire, it enjoyed entire autonomy within its own borders. Each local church could frame its own laws, fiom the application of which there was no appeal to aly external or superior power; and thus there gradually grew up a code, of which the administration fell of necessity into Cyprian. de Lapsis, cap. 6. o Greg. Thaumat. Epist. can. 6, 7, 8, 9. (Har(rduin. 1. 194.) PRIMITIVE DISCIPLINE. 235 the hands of the elders, presbyters, or priests of the individual congregations, or the overseers, episcopi, or bishops of the towns. The penalties provided for in this code were of course merely moral or spiritual; but to the enthusiastic Christian these were far more dreadful than the sternest inflictions of the temporal tribunals. He who failed in his observance of the rules of the church was admonished and reproved, or suspended from communion for a period proportioned to the gravity of his offence. PRepentance and amendment procured his restoration, but the hardened sinner who denied the authority of the church and persisted in his evil courses was cut off and ejected. To the sincere Christian no fate could be more deplorable than to be cast out of fellowship, to be pronounced unworthy of participation in the sacrifice of the Lord's table, to be deprived of the solace of intercommllunion with kindred souls, and to be shunned as one who had renlounced or forfeited his share in the redemption of mankind. To this it speedily caine. As joining in communion was the symbol of Christian fellowship and unity, so the church, by withholding the Eucharist, set upon the sinner the stigma of condemnation which separated him fi'om the righteous, which made him an outcast among the faithful, and which, by expelling him from the church, consigned him to eternal perdition. How soon the ministers of God conceived that they wielded this awful power to determine the destiny of immortal souls it would be difficult to assert with positiveness. It was not until long afterwards that the naked and abhorrent sentence of direct damnation came to be customary; but that such was the effect of the deprivation of communion on the unrepentant sinner was assumed and believed at a comparatively early period. The heretic who paltered with the faith consigned himself to hell; but it was the church, through its ministers, which deprived the unrepentanllt sinner of his share of eternal life in heaven. 236 EXCOMMUNICATION. In either case, outside of the pale there was no salvation. At least as early as the time of Cyprian, the church had thus interposed itself between God and man, and the doctrine was recognized that he who was not in communion was an enetnv of Christ and could claim no share in the Atonement. Unless the church was his mother, he could;ilot call God his father, and it was as idle to expect salvation out of the church as to look for safety in the Deluge.except in the ark of Noah.1 Implicit submission to those who were clothed with this tremendous authority was the only means of salvatilon.l As under the circumcision of the flesh, says Cyprian, those who disobeyed the priests an d judges were put to death (Deut. xvII. 12), now that we have the circumcision of the spirit, the proud and contumacious are spiritually killed by ejection from the church. For there is no life or salvation out of the church, and the Scripture warns us that the disobedient shall perish who will not yield to wholesome precepts (Prov. xv. 12, 10). To save them from this awful fate, they should be affectionately entreated before ejection, but if they will not listen, it is for us to do the work commanded of us by God.2 A little later than Cyprian, the Apostolic Constitutions develop the same theory. He who is cast out of the church by its duly constituted ministers is deprived of the glory of eternal life; in this world he is shunned by the good, aLnd God has already judged him for the next.3 A century later, St. John Chrysostom, in deprecating the freedom with which this fearful power was used on the most trivial occasions, does not admit that its efficiency was diminished by its abuse. The man who was anathematized was given up to the devil. Abandoned by Christ, he had no hope of Cyprian. de Unitate Ecclesie. This bitter exclusion was directed against the Novatians, whose only heresy consisted in refusing to receive back those who had lapsed in the Decian persecution. 2 Ejusd. Epist. Iv. cap. 4, 5, ad Pomnponium (Ed. Oxon.). 3 Constit. Apostol. Lib. II. cap. 51. PRIMITIVE DISCIPLINE. 237 salvation; and Chrysostom asks his hearers if they think it a light matter thus to take upon themselves the office of Christ, and to pass a sentence of such awful import before the time and the coming of the judge.l St. Augustine can find no equivalent for the dread results of excommunication save the expulsion of Adam from Paradise; and in 428, Pope Celestin I., in deprecating the withholding of the sacraments from the dying sinner, as commanded by numerous canons, exclaims that their denial is the denial of salvation.3 While the spiritual effects of expulsion from communion were so awful, the temporal punishment of the sinner was by no means neglected. Before the church had been united with the state undcler the Christian Emperors, it of course had no power of inflicting legal penalties or disabilities on its recalcitrant children, but it had nevertheless the opportunity of visiting them with annoyances hardly less severe. Principal among these was segregation-cutting off the excommunicate fioim all intercourse with his fellow believers-a penalty which, as we shall see hereafter, added enormously to the authority of the church during the middle ages. It would seem to be naturally derived from a similar regulation in the Jewish rules with regard to excommunicates, and among the apostles this would be heightened by the exclusiveness which, under the Jewish law, forbade companionship with the Gentile. As St. Peter said to Cornelius (Acts x. 28): "Ye know that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation," and the excommunicate being regarded as a leathen might naturally be held as coming under the same rule by those who were trained in Jewish traditions. Such an expedient, therefore, suggested itself as a matter of course to St. Paul-" I have Chrysost. IHomil. de Anathemat. cap. 2, 3. 2 Augustin. de Genesi ad Litteram, Lib. xI. cap. 40. 3 Ccelest. PP. I. Epist. II. cap. 2. (Harduin. I. 1259.) 238 E C O MU N IC A T ION. written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no not to eat" (I. Cor. v. 11). The command was a positive one, and was easily interpreted to extend to all who had fallen under the ban and had been suspended from communion. In the earliest record of church customs that has reached us, the Apostolic Canons, there is a provision that any one praying with an excommunicate in his own house shall be excomlmunicatedl. This would seem to cut off even those who were penitently striving to reconcile themselves with an offended God, and its harshness is condemned by the contemporary and more extended code known as the Apostolic Constitutions, which warns the bishops not to avoid the guilty, nor to prohibit them from the Lord's prayer, nor from living with the faithful, for Christ did not shun publicans and sinners, nor hesitate to take food with them. Therefore, it proceeds, should you live habitually with those who are cut off, helping, comforting, and consoling them, lest they lapse still farther into sin.2 While thus tender of the penitent, however, it orders that the impenitent and the heretic be cut off without mercy, and that the faithful be instructed to avoid not only prayers but even speech with them.' St. Paul had written "A mran that is an heretic after the first and second admonition avoid" (Titus III. 10), and Irenudus asserts that the Apostles carried out this regulation most rigidly.4 Stephen I., therefore, had warrant for his harshhess when he refused to confer with the Eastern bishops de)uted by their brethren in 256 to settle the quarrel between Rome and the East on the subject of the rebaptismn ICanon. Apostol. xI. Cf. Concil. Antioch. can. 2. Constit. Apostol. Lib. li. cap. 44. Ibid. loc. cit.; Lib. vI. cap. 18, 26. Irenw i contra Iteres. Lib. iII. cap. 3.-Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. Iv. cap. 14. PRIMITIVE DISCIPLINE. 239 of heretics, and when he moreover ordered that no one should receive them to hospitality. He had cut them off from his communion, but St. Firmilian of Cappadocia shows by his bitter complaints of these proceedings that the action adopted by Stephen was, to say the least, a most unusual one.' Stephen's example was not immediately followed, for the frequent prohibitions to allow excommunicates to receive the communion, which occur in the canons of the fourth century, prove that the more comprehensive p unishment of excluding them from all intercourse could not have been enforced. A distinction drawn by the fourth council of Carthage in 398 shows the revival of the practice in a special matter. In one canon it expresses the received rule that any one communing or praying with an excommunicate shall be excommunicated, while in another it forbids all intercourse with widows who marry after talking vows of continence.2 Two years later a more general application of the principle is developed by the first council of Toledo, which suspends from communion any one who knowingly holds intercourse with a man who is suspended; and, in the case of nuns who suffer themselves to be seduced, both the guilty parties, after separation, are condemined to ten years of penance, and excommunication is threatened against all who may associate with them until they are admitted to prayer.3 Contemporary with this is St. Aug'ustine's treatise against the Donatist Parmenianus, ill which he speaks of this complete segregation as the established rule of the church, in the case of excommunicates, but prudently counsels that such a sentence be pronounced only against those who are friendless, and who therefore will not be likely to excite disturbance or to create schism.4 At a few years' later date we have the Cypriani Epist. 75 (Ed. O2xon.). 2 Statut. Eccles. Antiq. can. 73, 104. 3 Concil. Toletan. I. ann. 400, can. 15, 16. Augustin. contra Epist. Parmnenion. Lib. InI. cap. 2, No. 13. 240 EXCO MMUNICATION. text of an excommunication pronounced by Synesi us, Bishop of Ptolemais, against Andronicus, Governor of the Pentapolis, in which he formally cuts off the guilty man from all intercourse with the faithful: " For this blasphemy the church of Ptolemais gives notice to her sisters in all lands: Let no temple of God be open to Andronicus, Thoas and his followers. Let every holy house and cloister be closed to them. There is no place in Paradise for the Devil, and if he steals in let him be expelled. I command all citizens and magistrates that they be with him neither under the same roof nor at the same table; and all priests that they neither salute him while living, nor grant him funeral service when dead."T' Very similar to this is the sentenice pronounced at the council of Constantinople in 448 against the Archimandrite Eutyches for his heretical notions as to the nature of Christ: " Sighing and weeping for his utter perdition, we decree, by our Lord Jesus Christ whom he has blasphemed, that he be d(eprived of all priestly functions, and of the government of his monastery; and all who, knowing this, shall converse with him and consort with him shall be punished with the same excommuniication. 12 By this time, therefore, we may conclude that segregation was fairly established as one of the penalties of disobedience to the church. All excommunicates, however, were not exposed to it. The sinner who repented of his misdeeds and sought absolution was required to pass through a course of probation, varying in length and severity with the gravity of his offence, before he was again received to comm-union, and during this time of penance he was not interdictecd from intercourse with the faithful. If, however, his patience gave way under the long and weary trial, which, as we shall see hereafter, was by no means unlikely, and he ventured to disregard the strict rules imposed on Synesii Epist. 58. 2 Synod. Chalced. Act. I. (IIarduin. II. 167). PRIMIITIVE DISCIPLINE. 241 him, the proceedings of various councils held about this time show that he was then to be rigorously segregated, and all Christians were strictly forbidden from associating with him in any manner.1 He was a pariah, cut off from human society; and though, during the earlier times, when the Christians were few and scattered, this might have been but a light infliction on the carnal and worldly-minded, yet as the religionists multiplied it became more and more severe, and when paganism was finally overthrown, it was the destruction of the victim's life and prospects. In this world the church ruined his career and excluded him from the company of men, as in the next it ejected him from that of angels, so that life here and hereafter was equally within its control.2 Thus terrible was the fate of the recalcitrant who was too proud to submit, or too weak to endure the penalties of his transgression; and in time he who earnestly sought reconciliation and pardon for wrong-doing found his lot scarcely more endurable. In the earlier ages of the church, the penance imposed upon the repentant sinner was a very simple matter. Cyprian was somewhat scandalized to see those who had lapsed in the Decian persecution readmitted to communion with little or no probation, and he remonstrated energetically but vainly against it, though even he was willing to welcome them back with a very slight amount of penance.3 In the Apostolic Constitutions, likewise, the bishop is directed to smooth the path of the sinner, and after a few weeks of fasting, to test the sincerity of his repentance, the fold is again to be thrown open to him, though the impenConcil. Arelatens. II. ann. 441, can. 49.-Synod. II. S. Patric, c. ann 460, can. 1, 2. 4.-Concil. Turon. I. ann. 460, can. 8.-Concil. Venetic. ann 465, can. 3. 2 In the sixth century, however, Gildas seems to argue against the propriety of segregating the excommunicate.-Abedoe et Ethelvolfi canon. Lib. XXXIx. cap. 4. (Haddan and Stubbs, Councils of Gr. Britain, I. 108.) Cyprian. Epist. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25 (Ed. Oxon.). 21 242 EXCOMMUNICATION. itent is to be cut off without mercy.l About the same period Gregory Thaumaturgus describes for us this process of penitence, which was divided into four stages. The first, or fletus, was the period of weeping, when the penitent stood outside the church door, weeping and begging the faithful as they entered to pray for him. During the second, auditio, he was allowed to stand in the vestibule until the catechumens were dismissed from the congregation. In the third, subjectio, he was admitted inside of the church amid the catechumens. The fourth period, consistentia, saw him among the faithful and allowed to remain during the services, but not to partake of the sacrament.2 Throughout this period, however, there had been zealous puritans who were not disposed to pardon so easily. Montanus taught that there was no power in the church to forgive atrocious sins, and Novatianus held that the Decian apostates were not readmissible into the fold. They refused even death-bed communion to those who had lapsed, and their followers, under the names of Montanists, Cathari, and Novatians, formed sects of heretics which lasted for centuries. So, after the final persecution of Maxentius, the Donatists for more than a hundred years plunged the African church into confusion because Felix of Aptungis was allowed to perform the episcopal functions after he had betrayed the sacred books and vessels of his church to the heathen. These heresies were stoutly resisted by 1 Constit. Apostol. Lib. II. cap. 19. 45. 2 Gregor. Thaumat. Epist. can. xi. (IIarduin. I 194). Jerome describes for us the appearance of the noble Roman matron Fabiola, while undergoing voluntarily the first stage of penitence —" Saccum indueret, ut errorem publice fateretur: et tota urbe spectante Romana ante diem Paschbe in basilica quondam Laterani..... staret in ordine penitentium, episcopo, presbyferis et omni populo collachrymantibus, sparsum crinem, ora lurida, squalidas manus, sordida colla, submitteret. Qus, peccata fietus iste non purget?" -Epist. 77 ad Oceanum. So St. Ambrose-" Volo veniam reus speret, petat eam lachrymis, petat gernitibus, petat populi toti gemitibus, utignoscatur obsecret. "-De Poenitent. Lib. I. cap. 16. PRIMITIVE DISCIPLINE. 243 the orthodox, but their rise and growth are the evidence of the tendency which existed in the minds of all the faithful to meet increasing corruption by sterner measures of repression, and by lodging greater power in the hands of the hierarchy. The church was fast losing the boundless charity which it had received from the Redeemer, and was becoming more and more an organization of worldly forces, wherein fear was recognized as a much more potent element than love in enforcing submission. Thus, within half a century after the I)ecian apostates had been received back into the bosom of the church with scarce a question, and Novatianus had been declared a heretic for refusing to join in communion with them, the orthodox council of Elvira decrees that to offer sacrifice to an idol after receiving baptism is a sin which no expiation can cleanse, and the sinner is denied reconciliation even upon his death-bed.' Twenty years later the council of Niciea relaxed somewhat from this severity, and parades its clemency in limiting the penance of such backsliders to three years passed in the second stage of penitence, six years in the third, and two in the fourth, after the contrite and humble performance of which the guilty one was at last restored to communion.2 Having once entered into this career the church could not stop, and as its membership increased in numbers and deteriorated in righteousness, its functions as a law-giver became more and more active. A large portion of the canons of its councils are devoted to establishing a criminal code, which existed side by side with the imperial jurisprudence, and which, while providing for numberless cases which were not noticed in the civil law, created duplicate punishments for many offences which were likewise under the cognizance of the secular tribunals. These canons, however, were mostly local and tentative in their character, Concil. Eliberit. ann. 305, can. ]. 2 Concil. Nicmn. can. xi. 244 EXCOMMUNICATION. varying greatly with time and place; and though ample materials exist for forming a tolerably complete summary of their leading features, yet space will hardly permit the consideration of more than two important points which bear directly upon the future development of our subjectthe disabilities imposed upon penitents and excommunicates, and the questions connected with death-bed absolution and communion. We have just seen that for apostates the council of NicTea imposed a penitence of eleven years-increased to twelve by a IRoman synod in 488.1 Long as this term may seem it was by no means unusual, for the length was proportioned to the grade of offence committed, and for heinous sins there are various canons which deny reconciliation d(uring a lifetime, and only permit on the death-bed.2 This course of penitence was by no means a mere deprivation of spiritual privileges, for the church had to deal for the most part with natures by far too much hardened to be broken into subjection by penalties so light. In fact, the council of Vannes, in 465, gives us a curious illustration of the decline of reverence for the awful privilege of the Eucharist in providing for drunken ecclesiastics the alternative of corporal punishment or thirty days' suspension from communaionA Evidently something more substantial was required, nor was there much scruple in finding it. Fasting, as we have seen, formed part of the punishment as early at least as the date of the Apostolic Constitutions, and as the church obtained influence over secular life it commenced to interfere with the worldly pursuits and privileges of its penitents. Thus they were deprived of the right of acting as prosecutors or of appearFelicis PP. III. Epist. vii. o Concil. Eliberit. can. 3, 10, 13. —Concil. Ancyrens. can. 21. Concil. Venctic. ann. 465, can. 13. PRIMITiVE DISCIPLINE. 245 ing as witnesses;' and guilty prelates took advantage of this by excommunicating their clergy, to shield themselves from prosecution, so that it became necessary to provide a sort of temporary absolution in such cases to procure testimony against bishops who had thus disabled those who could convict them.2 Not only was marriage prohibited during penitence,3 but even all connubial intercourse between husband and wife,4 so that, with profound respect for the rights of both parties, neither could be admitted to penitence without the consent of the other.5 The penitent, moreover, was forbidden to bring suit-he was not allowed the privilege of refusing to appear as defendant, but lie must not act as plaintiff. This of course cut him off from all legal defence of his civil rights; but in cases of peculiar hardship Leo I. astutely suggested that he might be allowed to appeal to the ecclesiastical tribunals.0 He was likewise prohibited from rendering military service, and it was even doubtful whether he could transact business. Leo I. hesitates to enforce this latter regulation, but suggests that the penitent had much better suffler loss than risk the sin that is almost inseparable from trade.7 The two or three, or ten or twelve years spent in penance were evidently not a pleasant portion of a sinner's life, and as the penance had to be applied for voluntarily, it is no wonder that an alternative so fearful as expulsion from human society was found necessary as the alternative to coerce the recalcitrant. In many respects, moreover, the penitent when readmitted to communion was not restored to his original condi-' Concil. Constantinop. I. ann. 381, can. 6.-Cod. Eccles. African. can. 128. - See the case of Ibas of Edessa, ap. Chr. Lupi Append. ad Ephesin. Latrocin. (Opp. II. 223). 3 Concil. Arelatens. II. ann. 441, can. 21. 4 Siricii PP. Epist. I. cap. v. (Harduin. I. 848). 5 Concil. Arelatens. II. can. 22. 6 Leon. PP. I. Epist. CLXVI. Inquis. 10. Ibid. Inquis. 11, 12. 21* 246 EXCOMMUNICATI O N. tion. When the church had once condemned a man, the mark set upon his brow was indelible, and no subsequent repentance or expiation could wholly efface it. God might forgive him wholly and freely, but God's ministers were not so placable. Any one, whether clerk or layman, who had once been forced to pass through a course of penitence, became thereafter ineligible to holy orders, and a bishop knowingly ordaining such a manl forfeited the power of ordination.1 Hie was likewise, if belonging to the military profession, forbidden to return to it;2 and the inquiries made of Leo I., by Rusticus of Narbonne, show that doubts were even entertained whether it was lawful for an absolved penitent to engage in business or to marry.3 On this latter point Leo prudently replies that it would be better for a man who had assumed to undergo penitence to remain for life chaste in mind and body; but that, if he fears that youthful ardor may lead him into sin, and therefore takes a wife as a precadtion, the transgression may be regarded as venial. All this was doubtless intended for the health of the souls of the faithful, but its efficacy was quite as great in extending the authority of those who had so absolute a control over the lives of their fellow-creatures. The questions connected with the granting or withholding of death-bed communion involved considerations of more tremendous import. When man assumes to place himself between his Creator and his fellow-beings, and to wield, without appeal, supreme authority over eternal life and death, the contrast between his finite intelligence,' Siricii PP. I. Epist. 1, cap. xiv.-Concil. Roman. ann. 465, can. 3.Gelasii PP. I. Epist. v. cap. iii.-Statut. Eccles. Antiq. can. 68.' Leon. PP. I. Epist. CLXVII. Inquis. 12. 3 Ibid. Inquis. 11, 13.-From a passage in this it is evident that penitence was sometimes assumed in times of danger or calamity, as an act of propitiation, in the same way that pilgrimages, and other pious performances, were vowed in subsequent ages. PRIMITIVE DISCIPLINE. 247 obscured by human passions, and the infinite power to which he aspires, would be ludicrous if it were not revolting. To make the salvation of a living soul dependent upon the ministrations of a fallible fellow-creature, to be withheld at his caprice, or lost through his malevolence, or ignorance, or supineness, would seem to be an imposture too gross for the most fatuous credulity; and yet it has been for fifteen hundred years, and still is, the belief of a majority of those who profess faith in their Redeemer, and in the doctrine of the Atonement. When, in enlightened France, within a few years, we have seen a priest on his trial for murder, because in his ignorant zeal he performed the Coesarian operation, and thus destroyed both mother and child in the effort to save the unborn babe by the water of baptism, we can hardly be surprised that in former ages doctrines so monstrous found ready acceptance in the minds of all. The good fathers of the council of Elvira had a stiffnecked generation to deal with, and they doubtless felt that, in their zeal for the enforcement of morality, they were merely exercising, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, the power intrusted to them by Christ, yet they designated no less than fourteen offences for which the transgressor was to be cut off fiom all hope of salvation by refusing him communion even upon his death-bed. Jesus had pardoned the thief upon the cross, and the Apostle had said, "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.... love is the fulfilling of the law" (Romrans xII. 21, XIII. 10), but those who assumed to speak in His name, and to act as His direct agents, proclaimed that no amount of repentance, no subsequent reformation and lifelong remorse could wash out sin, and merit salvation for a woman who had left her husband and married another; or for a priest who did not separate himself from an adulterous wife; or for a man who brought a false accusation 248 EXCOMMUNICOATION against a bishop or priest, and who failed in his proof.' For these and for many kindred offences the sinner was cut off in this world and rejected in the next. Christ had intrusted his ministers with the power to bind and to loose on earth and in heaven, and they exercised this authority by giving or withholding the sacraments, of which they possessed the exclusive control; nor was there any possible tribunal to which an appeal could be carried against their decisions, for they spoke in the name and with the assent of the supreme and omnipotent God. That men believing themselves armed with so tremendous and fearful a power should exercise it so recklessly, seems incredible, and yet unfortunately the facts exist to show beyond the possibility of doubt that those who so acted were possessed of that belief. The man who died excommunicate and unreconciled was damned beyond the hope of redemption. It is true that if he had been admitted to penitence, and had been zealously seeking to merit forgiveness, and was suddenly cut off by shipwreck or other unforeseen accident at a distance from priestly aid, then the church indulged in some doubt as to his perdition. He might possibly be saved, but the presumption was against him, and his name might not be included in the prayers of the faithful, for if God had willed his salvation, he would not have been condemned to die afar off from the saving viaticum2 —though, it is true, some authorities shrank from so cruel a practical application of the principles which all professed.3 For those not yet reconciled, l Concil. Eliberit. ann. 305, can. 1, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, 7], 72, 73, 75.-Concil. Arelatens. I. ann. 314, can. 22. 2 Leon. PP. I. Epist. CLXVII. Inquis. viii. 3 Thus the fourth council of Carthage, in 398 (can. 79, 81), leaned to the more merciful view of the matter, and the eleventh council of Toledo, in 675, alluding to the conflict of precedent on this point, concluded in favor of reconciliation to the church (Concil. Toletan. XI. can. 12). So also did the Concil. Vasens. I. ann. 442, can. 2. PRIMITIVE DISCIPLINE. 249 who expired within reach of ghostly assistance, and who yet failed of the last sacraments, there was therefore no hope; and the extreme severity, such as that of the council of Elvira, which deliberately refused the communion to the despair of the dying sinner, was rebuked by the less rigorous portion of the church, not for assuming a power which did not belong to the ministers of God, but for its unmerciful abuse. In 428 Celestin I. expresses his horror at the impiety of those who coldly refused to grant the entreaties of the dying, and to relieve them of the weight of the sins that would bear them clown to hell, thus cruelly killing the soul, and adding a second death to that of the body.l The practice of the church, therefore, was by no means uniform in the exercise of its awful prerogatives. Cyprian mentions that some bishops of his day, as we have seen them subsequently do, refused to allow penitence or a chance of forgiveness to adulterers. He himself considers this contrary to the precepts of Christianity; but at the same time he decides that sinners who have not sought for penance during health, cannot be listened to when the approach of death warns them to prepare for the judgmentseat; for he who has lived without thought of death, is not worthy to be forgiven in death.2 This extreme rigor declined somewhat in time, and the great council of Nicsea condemned it by restoring the primitive rule which forbade the viaticumn to be denied to any one demanding it on his death-bed.3 This view became generally adopted, and is laid down by Siricius about the vear 385, by the fourth council of Calthage in 3985, by Innocent I. in 405, by Leo I. in 452, and by the eleventh I Ccelest. PP. T. Epist. Iv. cap. 2. 2 Cyprian. Epist. 55, cap. 21, 23 (Ed. Oxon.). Concil. Nicen. I. can. 13.-." Etiamnunc lex antiqua regularisque servabLitu1r." 250 EXCOMMUNICATION. council of Toledo in 675.1 Yet we have just seen that a hundred years after the authoritative declaration of the most venerable first general council, the epistle of Celestin I. shows that its commands continued to be disregarded notwithstanding the efforts made in the interval to abrogate the abuse. The temptation to employ to the utmost a power so absolute over their fellow-men was too much for frail humanity. If God had deigned to share His authority with His creatures, He had not seen fit to accompany the grant with the grace requisite to its proper exercise; and it was, perhaps, some recognition of the awful responsibility attaching to this power, as well as the desire to extend the control of the church beyond the grave, that led to the adoption of the doctrilie of Purgatory-an intermediate state of probation, in which the sentence of the condemned could still be revoked, and the deficiencies of the death-bed be made good by prayers or sacrifices offered on earth. An instructive illustration of this is to be found in a story related of himself by Gregory the Great. While he was yet abbot of the monastery of St. Andrew, three pieces of gold were found, belonging to one of his monks, then lying in mortal sickness. So gross a violation of the vow to possess nothing except in common, could not be passed over without exemplary chastisement, and Gregory ordered that all the consolations of religion should be denied to the dying man, and that when dead his corpse should be buried in a dung-hill, without funeral rites. A month after the death of the unhappy wretch he relented, and commanded that for thirty days the sacrifice of the Eucharist should be daily offered for the salvation of the defunct. At the expiration of that time the spirit of the departed appeared to his brother, and stated that he had been in torment until that day,' Siricii PP. Epist. I. cap. 5.-Concil. Carthag. IV. ann. 398, can. 76, 77.-Innocent. PP. I. Exsuperio Tolosan. cap. ii.-Leon. PP. I. Epist. cvmII. cap. 4.-Concil. Toletan. XI. ann. 675, can. 12. PRIMITIVE DISCIPLINE. 251 when he had at last been blessed by being admitted to communion. In coldly recording this solemn warning, Gregory seems to manifest no sense of the friightful responsibility attendant on the power of thus regulating at his caprice the salvation or damnation of a human soul.' All men were not so lenient as Gregory, and indeed there were other differences besides those already mentioned as to the employment of these awful prerogatives. The complete reconciliation of the sinner required the sacrament of penitence, including the imposition of hands by a bishop. In the sudden emergency of death it is evident that the episcopal ministration could not always be at hand, giving rise to nice questions as to what was to be done in its absence; yet a canon of the council of Elvira adopted to settle this point shows the confusion existing by giving, in the readings of different MSS., instructions diametrically opposite -one of them insisting on the interposition of a bishop, or at all events of his authority, while another directs that a priest, or even a deacon, in cases of necessity, can administer the viaticum to the dying sinner.2 In this conflict of opinion, we find that the second council of Carthage, in 390, reduces the chances of salvation by directing that the priest appealed to for absolution by a dying sinner in the absence of his bishop shall seek that functionary for orders before granting the request.3 Fortunately, in the African Gregor. PP. I. Dialog. Lib. iv. cap. 55.-This work of Gregory's shows us the commencement, in his time, of the belief in a definite condition of temporary purgation, accessible to the efforts of the church. After relating various marvellous visions, and other manifestations tending to the establishment of the doctrine, he is asked by his interlocutor why, in these latter times, so much is revealed to man concerning the future life, which had previously been concealed -" Quid est hoc, queso, quod in his extremis temporibus tam multa de animabus clarescunt qum ante latuerunt?'" To this Gregory can only give the answer, that, as the end of the world was approaching, our nearness to the world to come rendered its manifestations more appreciable (Ibid. cap. 40, 41). This belief in the impending destruction of the earth is elsewhere expressed not infrequently by Gregory. 2 Concil. Eliberit. can. 32. 3 Concil. Carthag. II. ann. 390, can. 4. 252 EEX CO MMUNICATIO N. church of the period, bishops were almost as plentiful as priests were elsewhere; and possibly the practical inconvenience of such a rule in the larger dioceses of Gaul may be the reason why the first council of Orange, in 441, decreed that the imposition of hands was unnecessary for the reconciliation of the dying penitent.l Even in the African church the interposition of the bishop could not always have been insisted on, for in 397 the third council of Carthage permits by implication, in cases of pressing necessity, the absolution of a penitent by a priest whose bishop is absent;2 and in 398 there is a canon providing that when a dying man asks to be admitted to penitence, and the priest on arriving finds him speechless and insensible, the evidence of those who heard his request shall be sufficient, and the priest shall open for him the gates of heaven by pouring the Eucharist down his unconscious throat.3 It would be difficult to conceive a more complete usurpation of the divine right of judgment and pardon. While this death-bed communion washed off all stain of sin from the soul which sought the judgment-seat of God, and was amply sufficient' for the tribunal of heaven, it was remarkable in this that it was insufficient for the tribunal of man, if the soul was so unihappy as to remain on earth. Dying siiners sometimes recovered unexpectedly, and naturally enough supposed that that which had been assumed to be enough for God might be held to satisfy the claims of the ministers of God. In this they were mistaken. The church was not disposed thus to abandon its claims upon its penitents, and nearly all the canons quoted above contain a clause providing that, in case of recovery, Concil. Arausican. I. ann. 441, can. 3. 2 Concil. Carthag. III. can. 33. 3 Concil. Carthag. IV. ann. 398, can. 76. In the eighth century, this proceeding is commanded by Gregory III. (De diversis Crimin. et Remed. cap. xxxi.) and in the eleventh century by Burckhardt (Decret. Lib. xvIII. cap. 10). PRIMITIVE DISCIPLINE. 253 full penitence must be performed before the reanimated sinner can be received again into full colmmunion. Even those who died in the bosom of the church and were dismissed with the saving viaticum were not always safe from a power which extended to the uttermost regions of the world to come. Their peaceful slumbers might be broken by posthumous excommunication, and the Almighty be notified that the zeal of His watchful agents could not rest satisfied with the judgment that He might already have pronounced. It is true that the power to bind and to loose had been delegated only as to things on earth, and so Gelasius I. decided, saying that the church had no authority to determine as to the condition of those who had already passed away, and in 495 a Roman synod confirmed his decision emphatically.' Leo I. in 432 had already taken the same position, alleging that, for the dead, God had already passed His judgment, which the church could not subsequently modify.2 In 401, however, the fifth council of Carthage had decreed that bishops bequeathing their property to heretics or pagans should be anathematized after death;3 and a hundred and fifty years earlier Cyprian chronicles the decision of a council which deprived of all connection with the church those who in dying should appoint an ecclesiastic to the guardianship of their children. In those clays it was a crime to impose secular cares on the ministers of the altar, and Cyprian orders the sentence to be enforced in the case of a certainz Geminius Victor who had nominated a priest named Geminius Faustinus as guardian.4 St. Augustine more than once offered to the Donatists, in the name of the African church, that, if they could prove the crimes alleged against Cecilianus, he should be anathematized, though he had 1 Gelasii PP. I. Epist. 4, 11-Concil. Roman. II. 2 Leon. PP. I. Epist. 108, cap. 3. Cod. Eccles. African. can. 81. C4 yprian. Epist. 1 (Ed. Oxon.). 22 254 E XCOMM UNI CATION. been dead a hundred years.' Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, actually excommunicated Origen after the latter had been in his grave for two centuries,2 showing how little dead sinners could rely upon perpetual immunity, and that no statute of limitations ran against the rights of the church, when defended by fearless and persevering ministers. Such excommunications, indeed, must have been of common occurrence, for St. John Chrysostom, about 382, denounces them as an intolerable abuse. He entreats his hearers not to undertake to decide on that which God had already reserved for His own judgment, and assures themn that they are preparing for themselves the fires of hell.3 The question evidently was a debatable one, with little prospect of positive proof on either side, but the case of Theodore of Mopsuestia settled it, at least for a time, in favor of the largest prerogatives of the church militant. Theodore had been a bishop of the strictest orthodoxy, a supporter of St. CJyril of Alexandria, and a zealous persecutor of the Nestorians both in his writings and his actions. The council of Chalcedon had not doubted his doctrinal correctness, but the progress of theology, in the course of a century or more after his death, developed some heretical tendencies latent in his writings, and the Emperor Justinian resolved on his condemnation. Pope Vigilius did not attempt to defend the heretic, but stoutly maintained that the church hacl inherited from the Apostles no power to condemn any one whom God had taken to his own judgmenlt.4 When a pope and an emperor differed in those days, it was the pope who had to succumb. The fifth general council, held in Constantinople in 553, formally Augustin. Epist. 185, cap. 1, ~ 4.-Epist. 141, ~ 6 (Ed. Benedict.). Socrat. Ilist. Eccles. Lib. vII. cap. 45. Chrysost. Iomil. de Anathemate. 4 Vigilii Constit. de Tribus Capitulis, —Cf. Ftecundi Episc. Ilermanicns. Elpist. in Defens. Trium Capit. PRT.ITIVE DTISCTPLINE. 255 anathematized not only Theodore of Mopsuestia, but also all those who should not join in the anathema;l and by personal ill-treatment Vigilius was forced to subscribe his hand to the condemnation.2 To the Roman mind, these proceedings were somewhat irregular, as conducted in spite of the earnest protests of the Apostolic See, yet Gregory the Great did not hesitate to acknowledge the acts of the council as equal in validity and authority to those of its cecumenic predecessors,3 and it has always been received as such by the Catholic church. Still, the question of excommunicating the dead was not completely set at rest, but its further discussion belongs to a period later than that which we are at present considering. The power to inflict a penalty so tremendous in its consequences as excommunication was one not lightly to be exercised by conscientious men; and, in the earlier ages of the church, it was guarded and limited by certain prerequisite formalities. The Apostolic Constitutions strenuously urge upon the bishops the utmost moderation and self-command in their dealings with offenders. Every resource of fatherly exhortation and brotherly love and kindness is to be exhausted in the effort to bring the sinner to repentance before recourse is had to the censures of the church.4 Even then there is to be no condemnation without the ffullest investigation and the evidence of two or three witnesses, irreproachable in character and not suspected of animosity towards the accused. The bishop is to have his priests and deacons as assessors; the evidence is to be carefully sifted, and, if the charge is not sustained, the accuser is to be punished as a calumniator. After a careful and formal trial, the guilty man is to be again entreated in secret to repent, and if he still hardens his heart, I Concil. Constantinop. II. cap. 12.-Cf Collat. viii. bid. Collat. vii. Gregor. PP. I. Regist. Lib. I. Epist. 25. Constit. Apostol. Lib. LI. cap. 23. 256 EX CO MMUNICATION. the sentence is at length to be reluctantly pronounced in the presence of two or three witnesses. The punishment to be inflicted is proportioned to the magnitude of the offence, and only in extreme cases is excommunication allowed. Even then, if the offender repents, he is to be welcomed back with as much eagerness as a new convert would be sought for among the heathen.l In theory, at least, this continued to be the rule of the church. A trial with not less than two witnesses was held to be necessary. The third council of Carthage, in 397, decreed that no ecclesiastic should be suspended friom communion unless he disobeyed for two months a summons to trial before his superior. If he neither appeared there nor before the annual synod to have his cause investigated, he was held to be self-condemned.2 The fifth council, in 401, modified this to some extent, in deference to a custom by which churchmen were sometimes suspended for causes klept secret, either for their own reputation or for that of the church, and in such cases thev could demand a trial within a year, failing in which they forfeited their right to be heardcl.3 About the same period, St. Augustine declares that no one could be excommunicated except for crime, either voluntarily confessed or proved in a secular or ecclesiastical court;4 and this confession had to be public. for in 419 the seventh council of Carthage declared that if a bishop refused communion on account of a crime revealed to him in confession, and the excommunicate denied it, the other bishops should not regard *the sentence, but should withhold communion from him who had pronounced it, to teach him not to punish for that which he could not 1 Constit. Apostol. Lib. II. cap. 24, 41, 42, 47, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 50. 2 Concil. Carthag. III. can. 7, 8. 3 Concil. Carthag. V. can. 12. Agustin. Serm. 351, ~ 10 (Ed. Benedict.) Cf. Innocent. PP. I. Epist. VI. ~ 10. PRIMITIVE DXSCIPLINE. 257 prove by evidence.l The council of Vaison, in 442, was not quite so strict, and permitted, in such cases, the bishop to decline joining in comulunion with the sinner, but allowed the latter to enjoy communion with all the rest of the faithful.2 The council of Niclea, moreover, had provided an additional safeguard, by ordering a semi-annual synod of all the bishops of each province, where all cases of excommunication were to be examined and confirimed, if found justifiable-thus giving to the condemned a court of appeal and revision.3 As the proceeding thus assumed the form of a regular judicial process, other limitations and formalities necessarily arose which protected the accused. Both the fourth council of Carthage and St. Augustine declare that no sentence could be pronounced in the absence of the culprit, and the judge or bishop violating this rule was threatened with prosecution4-though of course, as we have just seen, this did not hold good in cases of contumacy, when the accused refused to appear. This rule was emphatically enforced by the council of Chalcedon, when Ibas, Metropolitan of Edessa, complained that he had been excomnmunicated in his absence by the Robber Synod of Ephesus, and the assembled fathers promptly exclaimed that all plroceedings in the absence of the accused were void.5 They had already proclaimed this general principle with still more force when Eustatius of Berytus informed them that hle had been excomnlmunicated by a synod recently held in Constantinople, for resisting the division of his province attempted in favor of Photius of Tyre. "' No one can condemn the absent," they shouted, and Eustatius was reinstated forthwith.6 Cod. Eccles. African., can. 132, 133. 2 Concil. Vasensis I. ann. 442 can. 8. C3 oncil. Nicen. I. can. 5. 4 Concil. Carthag. IV. ann. 398, can. 30.-Augustin. Epist. 43, cap. 3, ~ 11. 5 Concil. Chalcedon. act. x. (Harduin. II. 507). 6 Ejusd. act. Iv. (Ibid. p. 439). 22* 2.58 EX C O EMMUN ICATIO N. Another approximation to established legal proceedings, of much value to the accused, was the adoption of the lex talionis, which provided for an unsuccessful accuser the same penalty as that to which he had exposed the accused. Under the Roman law, any one bringing an accusation was required to inscribe himself, and run the risk, in case of failure, of undergoing the punishment of the crime charged in his indictment. This naturally found its way into ecclesiastical jurisprudence. Already, in the Apostolic Constitutions, it is provided that an accuser failing to prove his case shall be punished as a calumniator; he is to be ejected from the congregation as a homicide; if repentant, he may be readmitted after long fasting, and pledging himself not to repeat the offence; and if guilty a second time, he is to be cut off without mercy.' The spirit thus imanifested came naturally, in process of time, to assume the legal form of the talio, and though this does not seem to have been often enforced, it was nevertheless kept in view in formal prosecutions. Thus, in 448, when Eutyches was first accused of heresy in the synod of Constantinople, the prosecutor, Eusebius of Doryvleum, manifested great anxiety in the debate lest the charge should fail, and he be involved in the fate which he expected for Eutychesdeposition and banishment to the great oasis of Egypt, which was the customary place of relegation for troublesome ecclesiastics. So, in the next year, at the Robber Synod of Ephesus, the monks of Eutyches make formal complaint of their sufferings arising from the condemnation of their archimandrite, and demand that the talio he enforced against the Patriarch Flavianus for bringing it about.2 It is true that Flavianus and Eusebius were condemned not for this but for presumed Nestorianism, yet at the council of Chalcedon we see the process rigorously adopted, when the accusers of Dioscorus of Alexandclia I Constit. Apostol. Lib. iI. cap. 47, 54. 2 Concil. Chalced. Act. I. MHarduin. II. 234-5). PRIMITIVE DISCIPLINE. 259 were not admitted to a hearing until they had formally inscribed themselves.' Rules like these could be enforced in the political warfare between great sections of the church, where the prize at stake was supremacy, and a defeated aggressor was exposed to all that could increase or confirm the triumph of his opponent. In the innumerable details of daily life, however, such equitable provisions proved flimsy protection against the showers of excommunications by which personal interests were to be gratified, or the purity of faith preserved. It is true that those efficient instruments of priestly tyranny in mediaval and modern times-the ex certa scientia, the ex informata conscientia, and more than all, the excommunication ipso facto, or lata sententia -had not yet been invented; but their advent was foreshadowed by a remark of St. Augustine, that the discipline of the church could always be administered when a crime was notorious, and the criminal not powerful enough to cause risk of dissension or schism.2 To admit such a practice was an ominous abandonment of all the principles which insured impartial justice to the friendless and the wretched; and there is evidence enough that those who claimed to be the delegates of Christ in binding and loosing were already beginning to abuse theii power for the gratification of worldly passions. In the disgraceful. contests for supremacy between the leading churches the anathema was employed as a sort of heavenly artillery for mutual destruction, reckless of the devastation wrought in whole provinces of the church, and the spirit in which it was used is unfortunately often only too evident. When the Apostles urged the Saviour to destroy the Samaritan village which refused to receive them, He rebuked the revengeful spirit, saying, " For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them,'" and meekly Concil. Chalced. Act. III. (Ibid. pp. 322-6). o Augustin. contra Epist. Parmenion. Lib. III. cap. 2, ~ 13. 260 E XCO M IMU NI CATIO No turned to seek another resting-place. The church, which believed itself to speak in the name and by the authority of Him whom no insult or ill usage could move to anger, sometimes found that the ordinary process of damnation was too weak to satisfy its passions, and sought to give a keener zest to the destruction of anll antagonist. Thus, during the Monothelite quarrel, when, in 646, a political revolution had banished Pyrrhus, the Patriarch of Constantinople, firom his see, and he took refuge in Rome, he recanted his heresy, but relapsed on proceeding to Ravenna. The holy rage of Pope Theodore at this apostasy could not be quenched by the usual formula of excommlunication. He assembled his clergy at the tomb of St. Peter, and there launched the thunders of the church at the unhappy heretic. Then, calling for the sacred cup, he mingled some of the precious blood of the Lamb of God with the ink wherewith he signed the sentence which consigned Pyrrhus to degradation and perdition. In 869 the same hideous device was adopted at the council of Constantinople in the quarrel between Photius and Ignatius. -Ignatius was reinstated in the patriarchate for a time? and Photius deposed and excommunicated. The sentence which condemned Photius and degraded all whom he had ordained was signed by the assembled bishops with ink containing the blood of the sacrifice.' Knowing the veneration felt at the time for the elements of the Eucharist, we might hesitate to believe that such profanation was possible. if it were not that nothing is sacred from the wrath of an angry churchman. It was not, however, only in the strifes which shook the Christian world that the power to bind and to loose was shockingly abused. In the minuter ambitions and conflicts of daily life the control of the Eucharist was employed as an efficient weapon, and was degraded until there was Chr. Lupi Dissert. de Sexta Synodo cap. v. (Opp. III. 25.) PRIMITIVE DISCIPLINE. 261 danger that its power of exciting reverence might be exhausted. In his homily on the subject, which is an eloquent plea for charity and love, Chrysostom sadly declares that the anathema was distributed around so copiously and so ignorantly that the very Pagans made of it a mockery for the Christian faith; and its use had become so general that to say that such a one had been excommunicated for a certain act excited no more attention than if it had been said that he had paid his devotions to God. Chrysostom himself does not appear to doubt the power to damn without appeal, however much that power might be abused, but St. Augustine was more independent when he declared that if the name of a Christian was written in the book of life, it mattered little whether human ignorance struck it off from the diptychs of the church.2 This was not orthodox, as may be seen by an epistle of Leo the Great reproving in the West the same abuses which Chrysostom denounced in the East. Writing to the bishops of Gaul in 445 he asserts that he has known men deprived of communion for light and careless words, and the souls for which Christ had shed His precious blood delivered helpless to Satan by a penalty which should be reserved for the gravest sins, and should only be applied with grief and unwillingness, not recklessly administered at the pleasure of an angry priest.s Well meant exhortations such as these, however, only recognized the evil without curing it; and there seemed a risk that the misuse of the power of excommunication might at length deaden the souls of men to its influence. It was about this period that St. Arsenius was forced to adopt the policy of separating from the church only old men whose lively dread of perdition rendered tlhem amen~able to the censure, for he had found by experience that in the flush of youth sinners were only hardened by it and' Chrysost. Homil. de Anathemate, cap. 1, 2. S. Augustin. Epist. 78, ~ 4 (Ed. Benedict.). Leon. PP. I. Epist. 10, cap. 8. 262 E XO MMU NCAT T O No rendered less susceptible to repentance.l Few ecclesiastics were so cautious as Arsenius, and the continued growth of the evil at length called for the interposition of the civil authority. Human nature could not be expected to wield with moderation the irresponsible powers claimed by the church, and the state, in self-defence, was obliged to interfere and assume the control of the sacraments of which the church had always boasted the exclusive guardianship. In 541, Justinian accordingly promulgated an edict forbidding all bishops and priests from excommunicating any one without a regular trial in accordance with the ancient rules. In cases of contravention of this law the excommunicate was to be restored to communion by superior ecclesiastical authority, and the excommunicator was himself to be suspended, under the operation of the lex talionis, for the same length of time as that to which he had condemned his victim.2 Under a prince so powerful as Justinian, this might be attempted, but in the West, as has been seen in a preceding essay, the revolution which eventually left the church supreme had commenced long before. Exclusion firom communion was not a mere local disability, which could be evaded by emigration from one diocese to another. The sinner was under the ban of a Divine law, which operated everywhere, and at an early period measures of police were adopted by which the sentence of a bishop in further Spain had as much force on the banks of the Euphrates as at home. No stranger, whether coming to reside or passing on his way as a traveller, could be admitted to communion without exhibiting litterw formalta or commnendatitia friom his bishop, showing him to be in full communion at home. All bishops were strictly Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. iv. cap. 23. N lovell. 1223, cap. xi. PRIMITIVE DISCIPLINE. 263 interdicted from absolving the excommunicates of their brethren, and the rule was universal that the sentence could be reversed only by him who had plonoutnced itj except where superior authority existed, as in the synods created by the council of Niciea for the purpose. As early as the Apostolic Canons and Constitutions, we find that -these commendatory letters were fully in vogue, but also that shameless reprobates had already begun to take advantage of the system, rendering extreme caution requisite to avoid imrposition in receiving those which were forged, or improperly obtainedl-a fact confirmed by the council of Elvira in 302.3 The council of Antioch repeats the rule in 341, showing that it was not properly observed, and adds that only bishops and chorepiscopi could give general letters, priests being restricted to recommending their communicants to the bishops of the neighboring dioceses.4 Notwithstanding the antiquity of these regulations, the first council of Carthage in 348 insists on the production of such letters in terms which seem to show that the custom had not been generally observed in the African churches, and that its enforcement was necessary to render the sentence of excommunication respected.5 The prohibition of the reception of excomimunicates by other bishops was repeated with a frequency and vigor Canon. Apostol. can. xxxiii.-Concil. Eliberit. can. 53.-Concil. Arelatens. I. ann. 314, can. 16. 2 Canon. Apostol. can. xiii. xxxiv.-Constit. Apostol. Lib. II. cap. 62. 3 Concil. Eliberit. ca.n. 58. In the appendix to Marculfus (Formul. No. 12Baluz. II. 304) and in Gratian (P. I. Dist. lxxiii.) will be found the devices adopted to prevent fraud. The letter was to be headed with the Greek letters wr, v, zc, cc, being the initials of the Trinity, in whose name it was written. These were repeated at the foot, followed by the initials, also in Greek, of the writer, the party addressed, the bearer, the city whence written, and the indiction. If the trouble existed in an age of civilization, it of course must have increased enormously in the ignorance of the dark ages, when excommunication had become as common as education was rare. Concil. Antioch. can. 7, 8. 5 Concil. Carthag. I. can. 7. 264 E Xx o MMU N I C AT I O N. which show how difficult its enforcement was found.1 Various penalties were devised for the prevention of the abuse. As early as the third century, Cyprian declared that those who thus joined themselves to the guilty should not be separated in the punishment.2 The general expression was that they should share in the excommunication;3 though the second council of Carthage is more precise in specifying for them the penalty of the crime for which the excommunicate had been condemned.4 In the form of excommunication used by Synesius we find that after warning all ecclesiastics to hold no intercourse with Andronicus and Thoas, he winds up by threatening-"- And if any one contemns the church of our little city, as though it were needless to respect the poor, let him know that he divides the church which Christ made one. And whether he be deacon, or priest, or bishop, we will hold him as we hold Andronicus, for never will we take the hand or sit at the same table-much less partake of the sacred mysteries-with any one who has aught to do with Andronicus or Thoas."'5 This is mildness, however, compared with the ferocity manifested by Gelasius I. in his quarrel with the church of Constantinople over the excommunication of the Patriarch Acacius. Acacius had been orthodox, though tolerant, and as the Emperor Zeno was laboring earnestly to heal the dissensions arising fiom the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies, he had not refused to join in communion with those who professed these heterodox dogmas. For this he had been excommunicated by Rome; and when his successor, Euphemrius, entreated Gelasius to remove' Concil. Nicoen. I. can. 5.-Concil. Sardicens. can. 16.-Synod. Roman. ann. 384 ad Gallic Episcopos, can. 14, 15.-Concil. Taurinens. ann. 401, can. 7.-Innocent. PP. I. Epist. II. cap. 7.-Concil. Arausican. I. ann. 441, can. 11.-Felicis PP. III. Epist. vII. etc. 2 Cyprian. Epist. 67 (Ed. Oxon.). 3 Concil. Antioch. can. 2.-Statut. Eccles. Antiq. can. 73.' Concil. Carthag. II. can. 7. 5 Synesii Epist. 58. PRI I T IVE D I S C I LINE. 265 the separation which existed between the churches, the latter angrily replied: "This would not be stooping to support the church, but manifestly to plunge into hell.. Was he not, by communing with the successors of Eutyches, liable to the same fate? And of such it is written,' Living they descend into hell!',,1 These regulations established an efficient system of police throughout the church, and organized it as a body independent of the state. Notwithstandinlgg their occasional, or even frequent, infraction, ill the vast majority of cases they rendered the impenitent excommunicate an outcast, who could associate only with Pagans or heretics. After the conversion of Constantine the former rapidly dwindled in numbers, while the latter were soon reduced to a position endurable only by men who felt that they were suffering for conscience' sake. As the church was coterminous with the empire, and as the empire embraced all that was then considered the civilized world, there was thus no rest for the disobedient Christian save in recourse to the tender mercies of the Barbarian. Even this fearful alternative, however, was often preferred to the endless torments of existence under the ban of the church; and this may perhaps explain why nearly all conversions to Christianity among those not subject to the imperial authority were conversions not to orthodoxy but to heresy —why the Goths and Vandals and Burgundians were Arians, why the Christians of Central Asia were Nestorians, and those of Abyssinia Eutychians. It was easy under such a code of discipline to break down the resistance of individual offenders, and to reduce to obedience the most recalcitrant of believers who were accessible either to the hopes of ambition in this world or the fears of perdition in the next. But a different problem 1 elasii PP. I. Epist. 1 (IIarduin. II. 881) 23 266 E XCOOM MUNICATTON. was presented in the case of those who conscientiously differed from the majority on some point of faith or observance; who courted excommunication as martyrdom in the cause of truth, or who themnselves withdrew from communion as from contamination; and who were sufficiently numerous to establish congregations of their own, with priests and bishops, where they administered the Eucharist among themselves with a satisfaction peculiarly exasperating to the orthodox. In such cases the ordinary ecclesiastical censures were of course powerless, but the church was not therefore obliged to abandon the flock to the ravages of the wolves. Constituted as it was under the care and protection of the state, the latter was bound, as the supreme authority, to supplement its powers when required for the maintenance of discipline or the purity of faith. Constantine controlled the sacraments, as he showed when, deceived by the cunning of Arius into the belief that that archll-heretic was orthodox, he ordered Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, to admit him to comm union, and the scandal was only prevented by the sudden and fearful death of the heresiarch while on his way in triumph to the church where the trembling bishop, not daring to refuse, awaited his advent.l It was therefore the duty of the sovereign to preserve the purity of the sacrament and the unity of the church, and the church found little difficulty in procuring from the orthodox emperors whatever legislation seemed requisite to effect this purpose. The history of persecution is too vast a subject to be treated here in detail. Suffice it to say that, with the exception of Constantius, who was an Arian, and J ulian, who was a Pagan, every Emperor, from Constantine to Valentinian III., has left endcluring evidence of his zeal for the suppression of heterodoxy. The Theodosian code alone has preserved sixty-six edicts, promulgated in little Socrat. lIist. Eccles. Lib. I. cap. 25. PRIMITIVE DISCIPLINE. 267 more than a hundred years, which inflict on those who hold aloof from the communion of the church every variety of disability and penalty, fiom the suppression of their religious assemblies to the last resort of capital punishment.1 This alone was wanting to place in the hands of the hierarchy absolute command over the souls and bodies of men. Within their communion there was obedience, without it persecution; and the Christian had but the choice between submission and outlawry. In theory, their power knew no limit, for they spoke in the name of the Most High, and practically it was only limited by the autocratic constitution of the empire, the supremacy of which they were not as yet prepared to seriously contest. In a sphere continually widening, they combined the legislative, the judicial, and the executive functions, for they were at once the framers, the expounders, and the ministers of the law. As the church was essentially theocratic, and its discipline was based upon the idea that the supernatural prerogatives conferred upon its ministers preserved them from abusing their sacred functions, its organization was of necessity despotic, excommunication being the weapon ever at hand to enforce subordination. As early as the Apostolic Constitutions we find the bishops, priests, and deacons all intrusted with the power of excommunicating, the only limitation being that they could not exercise it upon those higher than themselves in ecclesiastical rank.2 As the organization of the hierarchy grew more complex, and additional grades were established, the bonds were, if anything, drawn more tightly. There is extant a curious set of canons in Arabic, passing under the name of those of NTicea, and dating probably from the first half of the fifth century, which embodies a detailed statement of the relations existing between the various grades of the hierarchy and the laity. The patriarch was supreme within his own' Lib. xvI. Cod. Theod. Tit. v. 2 Constit. Apostol. Lib. vIII. cap. 24. 268 EXOOMMUNICATION. boundaries, with authority to judge all the faithful, from metropolitans to laymen, the council of the whole patriarchate being the only tribunal to which he was amenable. No bishop could excommunicate a brother bishop, all controversies between them being referred to the patriarch. No wrong could justify a priest in excommunicating a bishop, and any priest or deacon resisting his superior was cut off without mercy. Of course no layman could undertake to excommunicate an ecclesiastic; and if he made the attempt, he was promptly removed from communion, and not restored until he had satisfied his adversary by lengthened penitence and by embracing a monastic life. He who was excommunicated, no matter how unjustly or improperly, was obliged to endure it patiently until absolved, for excommunication lasted either until the death of the sinner, or until he had confessed his fault and made due submission.' These arbitrary and irresponsible powers were never to be allowed to rust for want of use. As the church assumed that it had to answer for the souls intrusted to its charge, it directed its officials to exercise over them the most mninute and watchful supervision. The bishop was not to wait for complaints to be brought before him of lapses in faith or morals of his flock, but was to search out the infected sheep, and either cure or eject them, lest they should spread the disease to others; lie was to see that the righteous preserved their righteousness, and that the evil were brought to acknowledge and repent their transgressions.2 Thus, when Gregory Thaumaturgus heard of the ill-deeds of the I'ontic Christians during an inroad of the Barbarians, he at once ordered commissioners to be dispatched thither, armed with ample powers to search out the guilty and inflict on them condign spiritual penalties.3' Sanctum Patrum CCCXVIII. Const. xv. (Harduin. I. 503-4.) 2 Constit. Apostol. Lib. II. cap. 20, 21.-Cf. Sanct. Pat. CCCXVIII. ubi sup. 3 Greg. Thaumaturb. Epist. can. vi. (lHarduin. I. 196.) PRIMITIVE DISCIPLINE. 269 How effective and how untranmmelled by form was this authority is seen in a canon of the first council of Toledo, held in 400, which provides that if a powerful man shall despoil the poor, or the clergy, or monks, and when summoned by his bishop shall disdain to answer, notice shall be sent to all the bishops of the province, who shall thenceforth hold him excommunicate until he shall submit and make restoration.l The minuteness of this supervision, moreover, is shown by the list of occupations which Chris-. tians were forbidden to follow under pain of expulsion, embracing not only pimps, procuresses, and prostitutes, but also actors, charioteers, gladiators, racers, minstrels, musicians, dancers, tavern-keepers, astrologers, and soothsayers, while soldiers were to promise to be content with their pay, and abstain from plunderfing or inflictinll un-! necessary injury.2 But one thing was required to render this system complete in the control which the church acquired over the individual, and that was found when the practice of confession was introduced and enforced, which occurred at a period comparatively early.3 Nor was it only by regulating the conduct of daily life among the faithful that the church wielded power so immense. To him who represented the living God, and who spoke in His name to enforce His laws, the ordinary distinctions of human rank were as naught. Compared with the majesty of the Almighty, the infinite littleness of humanity placed all men on the same level, and the proudest potentate was as much subject to the behests of the minister of Christ as the meanest slave. Before the ineffable mystery 1 Concil. Toletan. I. can. xi. 2 Constit. Apostol. Lib. VIII. cap. 28. 3 I have not investigated the question as to the probable date in which confession to priests became customary, but already in the year 400 the council of Toledo (can. vi.) alludes to one of its evils which even then was making itself felt; and in 416 an epistle of Innocent I. (Epist. I. can. vii.) shows the system fully developed, the confessor having the power of absolution when satisfied of the contrition of the penitent. 23* 2 70 EX C O M MUNICATION. of the Eucharist there could be no acceptance of persons, and the poorest priest held in his hands the salvation of the ruler of men. This opened to the church a sphere of influence of which it was not slow to avail itself. Hardly had Constantine proclaimed his faith by decreeing toleration for Christianity, when we find the council of Arles, in 314, arranging to bring under the direct control of the church all those whose station gave them importance. It orders that whenever any Christian is appointed governor of a province, he shall take with him the customary letters of communion to the bishop of his seat of government, who shall exercise supervision over him, and promptly suspend him from communion in case he shall contravene in any respect the discipline of the church.l As Constantine, after his conversion, would naturally seek to strengthen himself against the Pagan party by intrusting, as far as possible, all offices of influence to those who were united with him in the faith, it is easy to see what enormous political influence was thus acquired by ecclesiastics, to be used for good or ill, for the benefit of humanity or for their own aggrandizement and that of the church. An instance of the practical power thus accruing to the church is aflorded by the quarrel already referred to between Synesius of Ptolemnais and Andronicus, Governor of the Pentapolis.. The latter, a cruel and sanguinary tyrant, distinguished his rule by savage and lawless oppression. Synesius dared to interpose between the despot and his victims, but his entreaties and exhortations were alike unheeded. Finally Andronicus grew restive under the reproaches of the one man who dared to resist him; he posted on the church door of Ptolemais an edict closing it to the faithful, and sacrilegiously boasted that his victims should not escape him, even if they were clinging to the feet of Christ Hiimself. Whatever doubts Synesius Concil. Arelatens. I. can. vii. PRIMITIVE D I S CIPLINE. 271 may have felt as to his power to punish the crimes of the governor vanished when the man thus dared openly to beard the church; he hesitated no longer, and promulgated the full sentence of excommunication against the impious wretch. At once the haughty defiance of Andronicus gave way; his friends interceded for him with Synesius, and it was with difficulty that the latter consented to suspend the sentence upon pledges of repentance and amendment.1 In this, Synesius had an illustrious precedent of an excommunication launched not very long before by St. Athanasius against a wicked governor of Libya. The culprit was a native of Cappadocia, and St. Basil, the metropolitan of that province, on receiving the circular notification of excommunication, wrote to Athanasius that no one in that region should extend to the excommunicate the hospitality of fire, water, or shelter.2 Even the supremacy of the imperial dignity, approachable by no other power, was not exempt from the jurisdiction of the church. St. John Chrysostom declares that a manl who approaches the Eucharist while unabsolved from sinl is worse than one possessed by the devil, and as there can be no exception to so general a rule he urges the ministers of God to refuse it to all who seek it unworthily-" be he a leader of armies, or a prefect, or even he who wears the crown, for thou hast a power superior to his."3 This control over the master of the world, however, was rather theoretical than practical. Constantius the Arian, baptized like his father only on his death-bed, was beyond the reach of the anathema, as was likewise the pagan Julian, and the orthodox emperors were surrounded by those who were rather courtiers than ardent members of the church militant. At length, however, a man arose whose commanding talents, unbending firmness, and unconquerable 1 Synesii Epist. 57, 58, 72, 89. 2 Basil. Epist. 57 (Ap. Baron. Annal. ann. 370, No. 92). 3 Chrysost. IIomil. 82 in Matt. cap. 6 [Migne's Ed. V. 964-5). 272 EXCOOMMUNICATION. zeal fitted him to give the world a memorable example of the superiority of spiritual authority over temporal power. This was St. Ambrose, the noblest of the Latin fathers. When the Emperor Gratian, in 383, was put to death by order of the tyrant Maximus, Ambrose was sent as an envoy to procure the body of the murdered sovereign. To most men the mission would have seemed a delicate one, but the prelate was not disposed to humble himself before the emperor. Rising to the full height of his supremacy as the vindicator of the prerogatives of the Most High, he boldly reproached Maximnus with the crime which stained him with his sovereign's blood; he excommunicated him, and ordered him to undergo a due course of penitence if he desired, for the future, the favor of God; and the pious biographer and secretary of Ambrose assumes that the defeat and death of Maximus, which, however, did not occur until 388, were the direct result of his disregard of the commands of the mall of God.1 Ambrose had already manifestecl the same contempt for earthly dignity, when the cause of religion was at stake, in refiusing to the Empress Justina and her son Valentinian II., on account of their Arianism, the use of a church in Milan wherein to offer their impious devotions. The city was orthodox, and blindly attached to its bishop. It was not difficult to persuade the people that the bare toleration of heresy was persecution of the true faith; and Ambrose, when threatened for this contumacious resistance to the imperial commands, responded by tumults which speedily caused the courtiers and their masters to abandon the unholy design.2 With equal firmness he rebuked the youthful Valentinian II., when the latter gave signs of yielding to the Pagan party in Rome, and of allowing them to restore some of their Pa.ulini Vit. S. Ambros. cap. 19.-On a second mission to Maximus, in 387, Ambrose states that he refused to enter into communion with the bishops of the tyrant's court.-Ambrose. Epist. xxIv. cap. 12. 2 Paulini op. cit. cap. 12-18. PRIMITIVE DISCIPLINE. 273 altars. Valentinian was as yet only a catechumen, and, not being admitted to communion, could not be threatened with excommunication, but Ambrose warned him that he should be excluded froml the church itself. " You may enter the church, it is true, yet there you will find either no priests or those who will withstand you; and what call you reply to him who shall say,' The church wishes no gifts from hands like thine, which have aided in adorning the temples of the false gods?',1 In the hands of a man of dauntless fervor like^Ambrose, the power conferred by the control of the sacraments was almost boundless, and the crowning proof of this was given when he dared to suspend fiorn communion the Emperor Theodosius the Great; and the world saw with wonder its imperial master, in the full flush of his splendid victories, bend submissively before the moral greatness of an unarmed priest. The spectacle was indeed an impressive one, and seemed to promise that thenceforth the gospel truths of mercy and charity should reign supreme, and be at last acknowledged as the rule of life. The same hasty temperamelit which led Theodosius to permit the slaulghter of Thessalonica, rendered him equally prompt to deplore it, and earnest in his remorse. Ambrose was swift to take advantage of the situation, and he addressed the emperor in language which must have sounded strangely in ears accustomed to the slavish adulation of the imperial court. " Thou art a man, and temptation comes to thee. Conquer it. Sin is washed away only by tears and repentance. Angels and archangels can do no more." The time was not yet, nor was Ambrose the man to suggest it, when the church's treasures of salvation were to be bought by splendid'gifts to found monasteries and endow cathedrals.'" The living God, who alone can say I am with you, stays his hand when we have sinned, only if we truly repent"1 Ambrosii Epist. xvII. cap. 13, 14.-Ejusd. de Obitu Valentin. Consol. cap. 51. 24 E C O iECOMMUNI C A TION. and he proceeds, not indeed formally to excommunlicate, but in a deprecating way to intimate that he cannot admit the emperor to communion. " I have no reason to be contumacious, but I have reason to fear, and I dare not offer the sacrifice if you are present." Even this he seems to feel it necessary to justify. by recounting a recent visiona vision which the character of the man forbids us from stigmatizing as supposititious, and which was probably a dream suggested to his ardent mind by pondering over thle perplexities of the situation.' However deferential Ambrose may have been in communicating his determination to the emperor, he was none the less firm in maintaining it. He refused to allow Theodosius to enter the church until he should have performed a public penance, and when the imperial culprit urged that David had been guilty of adultery and homicide, he was met with the reply that if he chose to imitate the Jewish monarch in sin, he must likewise imitate him in repentance.2 In the splendid panegyric which Ambrose pronounced on the death of his friend, he does not omit to recount how " He laid aside all the imperial insignia. He publicly bewailed in the church the crime to which he had been beguiled by the fraud of others, and prayed with sighs and tears for pardon. The emperor was not ashamed, as so many private citizens are, to undergo a public penance; and until his death there was never a day in which he did not bewail his fault."3 The somewhat theatrical account of the affair by Theodoret may reasonably be supposed to represent rather the fancy of the historian than the sober outlines of truth, but 1 Ambrosii Epist. LI. cap. 11-14.'3 Paulini Vit. S. Ambros. cap. 24. 3 Ambros. de Obitu Theodos. Orat. cap. 34.-So delicate was the conscientiousness of Theodosius, that, as Ambrose relates (loc. cit.), when he had defeated the tyrant Eugenius, he abstained from communion on account of the slaughter of his enemies, until assured of the favor of God by the arrival of his sons. PRIMITIVE DISCIPLINE. 275 both he and the cooler Sozomen assert that one of the conditions imposed on Theodosius was the promulgation of a law prescribing an interval of thirty days between the rendering of a capital sentence and the signing of the deathwarrant, so as to allow time for revision and reflection; and there is reason tojbelieve that such was the case.' HIad the hierarchy been filled with men such as Ambrose, and the secular power been always in the hands of conscientious Christians like Theodosius, the moral development of mankind might ere now have almost realized the ideal of the Gospel. Unfortunately neither condition could be fulfilled, and the splendid example was lost to mankind, or at most only served as a precedent when Gregory VII. or Innocent III. desired to break down royal resistance to papal theocratic supremacy. At the same time it must be observed that even Ambrose did not dare to enforce the rules of the church against the imperial criminal. There was no formal excommunication, no segregation of the sinner from human society, no prolonged penitence, which the canons of Ancyra order to continue for five or seven years for involuntary homicide, and for life in cases of voluntary slaughter.2 The emperor merely held himself aloof for a few months, and then on making application was restored to communion after undergoing a single act of public penitence. Such as it was, however, the firmness of Ambrose had no imitators for centuries, and the highest dignitaries of the church recognized too well their subordination to their temporal masters to ildulge in any experiments of the Theodoreti Hist. Eccles. Lib. v. cap. 18. —Sozomen. Hist. Eccles. Lib. vII. cap. 24.-The law in question is found in both the imperial codes (Lib. ix. Cod. Theod. Tit. xl. 1. 13, and Const. 20 Cod. Ix. 47), but it is attributed to Gratian, under date of 382. Godefroi, however, after weighing the conflicting evidence, is inclined to believe that the date is erroneous, and that the ecclesiastical historians are correct in attributing it to the influence of St. Ambrose, at the time of the penance, in 390. Concil. Ancyrens. can. 21, 22. 2Y6 EXCOMMUNICATION. kind.1 So thoroughly was this established that even when the imperial rule was subverted in Italy by the Barbarians, the awe inspired by the diadem of Constantinople was still too great to permit the popes to call the emperors to account for even the most flagrant misdeeds. Thus, when the Eirperor Zeno endeavored to put an end to the quarrels between Eutychianism and orthodoxy by the Henoticon which enjoined mutual toleration, Felix III. in 484 promptly assembled a synod and pronounced the most extreme sentence of excommunication against the Patriarch Acacius for obeying the edict and joining in corn- munion with heretics, but Zeno, the real autlhor of the impiety, was wisely spared.2 Felix, Acacius, and Zeno passed away, but the quarrel continued between their successors as bitter as ever. Gelasius I. asserted the papal prerogative more haughtily than any of his predecessors, and when Euphemius of Constantinople applied for restoration of communion between the churches, he was repulsed with curses unless he would consent to join in the excommunication of Acacius. This he was unable to do, as the new emperor, Anastasius, was resolved to maintain the toleration established by Zeno; but when Gelasius heard that Anastasius deemed himself included in the anathema, he hastened to write to his envoy Faustus that nothing had been further from his thoughts or from those of his predecessor, and he referred in proof to the letters of congratulation which had been promptly sent to the emperor on his accession to the throne by Felix, and to those which he had himself written on his installation in the chair of St. Peter.3 The sovereignty of Italy was then fiercely disThere are extant epistles in which Innocent I. excommunicates Areadius and Eudoxia, for the persecution of St. John Chrysostom, and the emperor humbly solicits restoration (Migne's Patrol. T. xx. pp. 629-34), but they are admitted on all hands to be forgeries-one of the innumerable pious attempts to manufacture evidence that the church from the beginning enjoyed all that it subsequently claimed. 2 Feiicis PP. III. Epist. vi. 3 Gelasii PP. I. Epist. iv. PRIMITIVE DISCIPLINE. 277 puted between Theodoric the Goth and Odoacer the Heruliana and the siege of Ravenna was about to terminate in favor of the former; but the distant power of Constantinople was still near enough to make Gelasius feel that even this disclaimer to his legate was not sufficient, and he addressed an humble and adulatory letter to exculpate himself in the eyes of one who was maintaining the schism by supporting and communing with excomimunicates. While not yielding a jot in consigning Acacius and Euphemnius to perdition, and not denying the risk incurred by the emperor of sharing their fate, he cannot do more than implore him to beware of the divine judcgment: " I pray, and entreat, and exhort you not to spurn my petition, which is that you should rather listen to my entreaties in this world than be exposed to my accusations in the next. Be not, I pray you, angry with me if I so love you that I would wish to assure you the perpetuation of your temporal sovereignty, and that you who govern in this world may also reign with Christ. But I leave it to your own conscience whether it is better that we should all acquire certain life as I desire, or should be devoted to inevitable death as they propose."' The courage of Ambrose found more admirers than imitators. The fate of Vigilius was not reassuring; and it was not until the eighth century, when Leo the Isaurian committed the unpardonable sin of image-breaking, that a Ioman pontiffl' could summon energy to blast the imperial purple with the withering censures of the church, Gelasii PP.. I. Epist. viii. 24 278 EX COMM U NIC JCATION. THE PAPACY. In the practical development of the principles thus detailed, the church insensibly acquired an enormous power over its individual members, and an almost dominant influence even in political affairs. Although the supremacy of the state was still admitted, yet the foundation was laid for that mighty theocratic structuire which in after ages was to overshadow all secular institutions with a superiority as assured as that of heaven over earth. In a religion of which the essence was the regulation of every thought, every feeling, and every act of the believer, it was impossible to clefine rigidly the bounds of spiritual authority, which were capable of indefinite extension as policy or ambition might dictate. Wre have seen that in the earlier times the church was so careful to confine itself to spiritual concerns that it was an unpardonable offence to nominate an ecclesiastic as executor of a will or as guardian of children, because it withdrew him to some extent from his proper sphere of action. When such principles prevailed there was comlparatively little danger that the spiritual power conceded to the ecclesiastical body would be abused for purposes of agg randizement, individual or general; but when the adoption of Christianity as a state religion opened to the churchman a career of worldly ambition, and when the gradual abasement of the civil authority seemed to invite its replacement by a theocracy, the primitive conscientious abstention from secular affairs was forgotten~ Insensibly the spiritual jurisdiction widened, and the reconstruction of society under the Barbarians found the church in possession of prerogatives so elastic that, as opportunity offered, it was easy to justify the appropriation of any desirable fragment of power. Among believers, a very simple correlation of THE PAPACY. 279 forces miglht transmute the authority to condemn or to save into any other authority that might be wanted. As early as the close of the fifth century, Gelasius could declare that " there is no sin so great but that the church can pray for its remission; and, through the power granted to her by God, absolve him who desists and repents."'l Who, then, could presume to set bounds to the aspirations of a body which might withhold the praver or dictate the penance? To render this awful power completely effective, however, required its concentration. As long as the autonomy of the bishops or of the metropolitans was imaintained, there were constantly clashing interests and a lack of inteiligent direction of the united power of the ecclesiastical body towards a definite purpose. If the church was to obtain the temporal supremacy which her prerogatives placed within reach, it was necessary that her efforts should be directed by unity of purpose and concerted action, and this could be accomplished only by the subordination of all to one recognized head. It was the gracldual assumption of this commanding position by the Holy See that enabled the church to realize the full benefits derivable from her control over the sacraments. There were two principal instrumentalities through which the supremacy of the representatives of St. Peter was secured-the appellate power authorizing the Bishop of Rome to revise the sentences of other bishops by absolving their excommunicates, and the original jurisdiction by which they could expel from communion those who differed from them on points of faith or discipline, or who resisted their pretensions to domlination. The growth of the appellate power has already been examined with some minuteness in a preceding essay, and need not now be adverted to except by reminding the reader how it became established, after a strug'gle which lasted for centuries. As reg'ards the G elasii PP. T. Tomus de Analthernaltis Vin cilo, 280 EX COMMMUNICATION. use of excommunication in asserting the supreme originll jurisdiction of the Holy See, a few words, however, may not be out of place. In the organization of the early church there was nothing to prevent any bishop from refusing comlmunion to any of his brethren whom he might deem to err in faith or morals. If this action was sustained by the majority of the churches, the victim was cut off, and if he persisted, he might be held as a schismatic; while, if the excommunicator was felt to be in the wrong, he incurred the same risk. For the first three hundred years all the evidence points to this complete equality between the churches as represented by their several primates. For instance, in the quarto-deciman controversy, respecting the computation of Easter, the Asian bishops, under the lead of Polycrates of Ephesus, maintained their right to celebrate the festival on the fourteenth day of the moon instead of on Sunday. Victor of Rome, becoming gradually heated and finding his arguments fruitless, at length, about the year 190, endeavored to cut off the Asian churches, and denounced them as excommunicate on account of their heterodoxy. For this he was rebukled by many leaders of the faithful, notably by Irenueus.l His decree of excommunication was disregarded, and the controversy was not decided until authoritatively settled against the Asians by the council of Nicama in 325, followed by that of Antioch in 341.2 A half-century later, Cyprian, in his controversy with Stephen I. on the subject of the rebaptisim of heretics, formally asserts this episcopal independence in his opening address at the council of Carthage, held in 256 —' It remains for each of us to declare his opinion, judging no one nor presuming to deprive any one of communion for difference of belief. None of us has constituted himself a bishop of bishops, or has sought by the terror of tyranny Euseb. Iist. Eccles. Lib. v. cap. 24-26. Coneil. Antioch. can. 1. TH -E PAPACY.? 81 to force his colleagues to subjection. In the exercise of his free authority every bishop has the right of judg'ment, and he can no more be judged by anothler than he can judge another. Let us await the universal judgment of Christ, who alone has the power of placing us over His church and of judgilg our actions."' While Cyprian was thus modestly firm, St. Firmilian, Archbishop of Cappadocian Cesarea, could scarcely find words to express his contemptuous indignation at the presumption of Stephen in excommunicatilng the Eastern bishops for differing with him on this question. "I am justly indignant at this open and manifest folly of Stephen, who, puffed up by the location of his bishopric, presents himself as the successor of St. Peter, on whom are built the foundations of tile church, and brings in many other stones and builds nmany additions to the church." Then, addressing Stephen himself, he proceeds: " Truly you are the worst of all the heretics, for when they, acknowledging their errors, come to you for the true light of the church, you add to their errors and increase the darkness of the night of heresy by hiding the light of religious truth. AiCnd, great as is your sin, you have still more exaggerated it by cutting yourself off from so many churches. You, I repeat, have cut yourself off. Do not deceive yourself, for if he is a schismatic who apostatizes from the communion of ecclesiastical unity, you, while you think to excommunicate others, only succeed in excommunicating yourself."'2 This vehemlent and uncourtly assertion of equality with Rome not only did not forfeit Firmilian's distinguished Cypriani Opp. pp. 229-30 (Ed. Oxon.). s Cypriani Epist. LXXV. cap. 17, 24, 25. Orthodox catholics have asserted that this epistle is a forgery, interpolated by some Donatist of the fourth century, and it was omitted in the Roman edition of Cyprian's works printed by P. Manutins in 1563. It is given in a1 subsequent editions, however, and Baluze states that it is contained in twenty-seven ancient MSS. collated by himrself and previous editors. See his note, T. I. p. 1201, of Migne's reprint. 24~J* 282 IEXC OMMUNICATI O N position and influence in the Eastern church, but did not prevent his enrolment in the catalogue of saints, and to this day his feast holds its place of October 28th in the Greek calendar. The causes which led to tthe gradually increasing power of the papacy, through its influence over the emperors and the skilful use made of the dissensions of the Eastern churches, need not be recapitulated here. As that power grew, the artillery of excommunication increased in range and efficiency, and, while it gave expression to the claims made by Rome for supremacy, it aided largely in establishing those claims. Thus, when in the internecine strife between Alexandria and Constantinople the former gained a temporary ascendency by procuring the degradation and banishment of St. John Chrysostom, the West stood boldly forth in defence of the persecuted saint, excommunicated the Eastern churches, and resolutely refused for eight years to allow the restoration of unity, until Chrysostom should be restored to his place on the diptychs, and be acknowledged as having been the legitimate Bishop of Constantinople until his death.' As representative spokesman for the West, Innocent I. found ample opportunity during this long quarrel to magnify the importance of his office. Thus, in receiving back the church of Antioch, in 415, he speaks with the caln supremacy of a master-" I have carefully inquired whether all the conditions have been fulfilled with respect to the case of the blessed John, that bishop worthy of God, and on finding them, according to the statement of the envoys, all met to my satisfaction, I have received the communion of your church."2 The successive victories of Theophilus over Chrysostom, of Cyril over Nestorius, and of Dioscorus over Flavianus, gave to the see of Alexandria so great a preponderance that it threatened to overshadow Rome herself, and even Theodoreti Hist. Eccles. Lib. v. cap. 34. T Innocent. PP. T. Epist. 19: Cf. Epist. 21, 22. TIHE PAPACY. 283 to become independent of the imperial power. Rome took the alarm, and endeavored to strengthen Constantinople as her least dangerous competitor; but her legates were treated with contumely at the Robber Synod of Ephesus, and were utterly powerless to save the Patriarch Flavianus. Leo I., who then wielded the authority of St. Peter, was not disposed to brook these insults; but when he solemnly excommunicated Dioscorus as the author of the troubles, the latter, secure in his overwhelming influence, and strengthened by his relations with the imperial court, boldly retorted the excommunication. A sudden change of dynasty, however, transferred the sceptre from the hands of the feeble Theodosius II. to Marcian, who, as orthodox and emperor, was not disposed to encourage either Eutychianism or Alexandrian insubordination. The council of Chalcedon found no difficulty in condemning Dioscorus. As the council was nominally presided over by the legates of Leo, and as one of them, Paschasinus, Bishop of Lilybceum, summed up the accusations against Dioscorus prior to the vote condemning him, it is no wonder that his audacity in excommunicating the Apostolic Bishop is enumerated among his crimes, though no mention is made of it in the sentence itself.' This defeat broke the power of Alexandria, and left Rome and Constantinople face to face. The strife between these rivals was bitter and prolonged, but to enter into its details would lead us too far from our subject, and I need only take note of the rupture which for thirty-five years separated the communions of the East and the West on the subject of the excommunication of the Patriarch Acacius. When the Emperor Zeno, in his desire to still the dissensions arising from the monophysite heresy, which the council of Chalcedon had utterly failed to suppress, issued his Henoticon commandcing toleration, the orthodoxy of ConciI. Chalced. Act. TI. (l-Iarduin. II. 343-78.) 9284 EX C OMM UNIATION lRome was sadly disturbed. When, however, Peter Moggns of Alexandria, presuminig upon the imperial indifference, dared to anathematize the sacred decrees of Chalcedon and the orthodox epistle of Leo, and to restore to the diptychs of his church the names of Dioscorus and of Timothy.A lurus, and when Acacius was found to remain in communion with so bold a heretic, Rome felt that her patience was no longer -a virtue. In 484, Felix III. assembled around him a synod of sixty-seven bishops, and fulminated against Acacius a decree depriving him of his patriarchal office and consigoning him to hopeless perdition-; Know that thou art set apart from all priestly honors, from Catholic comm-union, and from the flock of the fiaithful; that thou art deprived of the name and finctions of the ministry of God, and damned by the judgment of the Holy Ghost and the authority of the Apostle, never to be released from the bonds of the curse!"' As Acacius was supported by the favor of the emperor and.the good-will of the Constantinopolitans, it was not easy to serve a notice of this sentence upon him; but at last an ardent monk of the sleepless monastery of Dios, noted for the violence of its orthodoxy, was found to undertalke the dangerous office, but even he only dared to accomplish it by an artifice, which, when compared with the gravity of the missive, savored strongly of the ludicrous. Mingling -with the crowd whlich surrounded the patriarch as he entered his church, the monk succeeded in pining to his bacl the dangerous document. Even thus, however, the audacious volunteer was not successful in escaping detection, andi his monastery suffered, in the slaughter of many of its inmates, for its share in the transaction; while Acacius promptly retorted by excommunicating Felix and his accomplices.2 Rome stood firm, for she had at stake not only the purity of the faith, but all her own clainms to supremacy. Felicis PP. III. Epist. vi. Liberat. Breviar. cap. 18.-iNiceph. Callist. TI. E. Lib. xVI. cap. 17. TIE PAPACY. 285 Felix and Acaciuss both passed away, but when Euphemihus, the successor of Acacius, applied to Gelasius Io for a restoration of communion between their churches, it was haughtily refused, unless he would consent to join in the condemnation of his predecessor by striking his name from the diptychs. Acacius had been of unquestioned orthodoxy, but he had not refused to join in communion with heretics, and his sin admitted neither of extenuation nor pardon. " Of such it is written,' They are plunged alive into hell;' for while they seem to live the true and Catholic life of the just, they suddenly seek the depths of depravity or the hell of heretical communion.... Dying in his treachery and damnation, his name can no more be included in the services of the church than could the contagion of his living communion."' The quarrel went drearily on, depending for its issue much more on the political relations of the imperial court than on ecclesiastical considerations. Gelasius died in 496, but his successors, Anastasius II., Symmachus, and Hormisdas, were equally inexorable. The Emperor Anastasius, whose long reign extended to 518, sturdily supported the policy of his predecessor. Though himself a believer inl the council of Chalcedon, and though at times, when sorely pressed by political complications, he eagerly sought a reconciliation which would have been of the greatest value to him, still he persistently refused the only terms which Rome would listen to-the condemnation of the memory of Acacius. At length he, too, died, and his throne was seized by the fiercely orthodox Justin, who hastened to make his submission to Hormisdas. The triumph of Rome was complete. The authors and leaders of the schism, orthodox and heretic alike, Acacius and Euphemius, Timothy _Alurus, Dioscorus II., and Peter of Alexandria, were promptly excommunicated by having their names erased firom the sacred diptychs, and John the' Gelasii PP. I. Epist. i., vIII. 286 ElXOWI XCOMMUNICATIONe Patriarch macde his peace by degrading himself in huml)le obedience to the Apostolic See — I promise for the future not to recite amid the holy mysteries the names of those ejected fromn the communion of the Catholic churchthat is. those not agreeing in all things with the Apostolic See. And if in anything I shall endeavor to render this my profession doubtful, I agree to submit to the fate of those whom. I thus condemlno')" John did not long survive this humiliation, and his successor, Epiphanlius, was obliged to admit the supremacy of Rome in the mnost abject manner. He submitted for the approval of Hiormisdas a declaration of faith; he solemnly declared that he did not allow to'be read from the diptychls the names of those whom Rome had condemned; and, as if this was not enough, he had to call as witnesses of his' sincerity the papal legates who had zealously enforced the cominands of their master.2 This would seem to be sufficient, but a further triumph was reserved for the policy or the fortune of Hormisdas. Under Zeno or Anastasius, Rome would have been content with the simple removal of the name of Acacius fi'om the diptychs. Now she demanded that all who had remainecd in communion with him and his successors, and had thus contracted the contagion of Eutychianism, should be dcleclared excommunicate by the samle process. This was: strictly logical, but difficult of execution, as it involved the whole Eastern Empire. Justin vainly endeavored to enforce it, but the innumerable churches of his dcominions resisted the attempt to make them coinsign to perdition such multitudes of venerable prelates whom they had reverenced while living. With his nephew Justinian, then consul, he wrote beseechingly to Hormisdas to spare them 1 Libell. Joannis inter Ilormisdmc Epist. (Migne's Patrol. T. LXIII. p. 444). The signing of this pledge 7was Illmade a condition precedent to adlnission to communion of all the Eastern bishops (I-Iomisdnm Epist. 51, Ibid. p. 460). J Relntio Epiphanii (Ibid. pp. 494-5). THE PAPACY. 281 the necessity of devastating their empire, as neither fire nor sword, the certainty of torment, nor the fear of death, could force the congregations, orthodox as they were, thus to declare their pastors excommunicate.e Letter after letter was sent, and one envoy after another, but Hormisdas long remained silent. At length he addressed to Justin an epistle, full of unctuous professions of Christianity, in which the emperor was reminded that he had set his hand to the plough, and that if he now looked back lie was not fit for the kingdom. of God; and, not content with kindling his orthodox zeal, Hormisdas stimulated the ilmperial pride by adroitly suggesting that those who would not follow the examnple of their sovereign should be forced to bend to his power. Still, even the pleasure of decimating the fairest provinces of the East in vindication of a punctilio might be forborne in view of a substantial benefit, and Hormisdas eluded the difficulty by appointing the Patriarch Epiphanius his vicar to readmit to communion those who had forfeited their right. The elaborate instructions with which he accompanied this grant of delegated power were, if not intended, at least well adapted, to demonstrate that Rome held the keys of heaLven, and that she alone could point out the path to salvation.' For the Lime, Constantinople was thoroughly humbled. Her sacrarents were administered at the dictation of the Holy See; her Patriarch was but the local representative of the Pope, tnd Rome alone controlled the communion which was the Christian's only hope of grace. The proud boast of Gelasius, made thirty years before,,eemed to have received its fulfilment-" Everything is,ommitted to the decision of the Apostolic See. What the lpostolic See affirms in its synods is to be received.; what t rejects is to be rejected; and by itself it rescinds whatSee the letters among the Epistles of Hormisdas. Hormaisdw Epist. 78, 80. 288 E XCOMMUNICATION. ever is wrongfully decided by any synodical assembly."1 Yet Rome could not foresee how humbly, in little more than a quarter of a century, she would submit to the denial of all her claims by the second general council of Constantinople, after the prosperous reign of Justinian had restored the imperial power; nor that the lonog silent church of Africa would dare in 550 to excommunicate Pope Vigilius for his cowardice in the affair of the Three Chapters.2 The relations of the papacy with the East were thus chequered until the latter half of the ninth century saw the rivals separated in permanent schism. In the West, meanwhile, the church was beginning to rally, after the shock of successive barbarian invasions, and. gradually to acquire control over its new proselytes. The ecclesiastical organization participated largely in the dislocation of all the relations of political and civil society, and the supremacy which Rome had established with infinite pains became well nigh overthrown. In the protracted effort to reconquer its power, the Holy See found, as before, its most valuable instrument in its claim of supreme control over the communion. The process is well illustrated by the m anner in which Gregory the Great reduced to submission Maximus, Archbishop of Salona. On the death of Natalis, Archbishop of Salona (afterwards Spalatro), there was a quarrel over the succession. Honoratus the archdeacon was elected and approved by Gregory; but the imperial power, represented by the troops, preferred Maximus, and a faction was easily formed to place him in the vacant seat. According to the papal writers, his reputation was not good —at all events, his rival was recognized, and Gregory wrote to the bishops of Dalmatia and Zara, prohibiting them from consecrating him. Large bribes, it is said, induced them to disregardc Gelasii Tomus de Anathernatis Vinculo. 2 Victor. Tunenens. Chron. ann. 550. TIHE PAPACY. 289 this co-mmand, and Maximus was duly installed. Gregory thenl summoned him to Rome for trial on the charge of bribery. To this he demurred, asking that a commission should be sent to Salona to examine into the affair upon the spot; but to agree to this would have been to risk the integrity of his envoys, and Gregory refused. Finding that Maximus was nnyielding, Gregory forbade him to celebrate mass, and then excommunicated him; but, supported by the imperial power, the contumacious archbishop disregarded the papal censures, and for seven years maintained his independent position. During this time, Gregory was not idle. At first, but two of the clergy of Salona obeyed the sentence, and abstained from communion with their prelate, but Gregory attacked them with threats and exhortations; and he likewise threatened the bishops of Zara andl Dalmatia with excoimmunication unless they should withdraw from the communion of Maximus, and erase his name from their diptychs. Terrified at this, they succumbed abandoned Maxilnus, and begged for pardon. The only support of the recalcitrant archbishop now was TMIarcellus, the proconsul of Dalmatia, to whom Gregory then addressed himself, holding him responsible for the continuance of the strife, and significantly warning him to make his peftce with God. At length MaJarcellus, too, gave way, and Maximus was reduced, in the year 600, to ask the intercession of Callinicus, the Exarch of Ravenna. The terms granted were- hard, yet Gregory represented them as a special favor to the Exarch. Marinianus of Ravenna, and Constantine of Milan, were appointed judges to examine whether Maximus had acquired his see simoniacally, and whether he had persisted in saying mass when he knew himself to be excommunicate. The investigation was a pre-arranged comedy, to the effect that if Miaximnus should deny, under oath, the guilt of simony, and should clear hiniself on the relics of St. Apollinaris of the other crinmes imputed to him, then Marinianus should prescribe 290 E X CO MMU NICATIO N. the penance for his contulacy —and the understanding in advance was shown by Castorius the notary bearing from Gregory the instructions to Marinianus, along with a letter of reconciliation to be delivered to Maximus after the performance of his allotted part. The penance inflicted was not prolongedcl, but it was exquisitely humiliating. For three hours Maximnus prostrated himself in the dust, exclaiminog, " I have sinned before God and the blessed Pope Gregory," until raised by Marinianus and Castorius; and then, in their presence, lie performec still greater penance. HIe retained his see, but Rome had sharply vindicated her supremlacy.' THE CHURCH AND THE BARBARIANS. Under Barbarian rule, the church found itself confronted by a new series of problems. In the Pagan Empire, the church consisted of pastors and people, with common interests and sympathies, exposed to the same evils, a,-nd forming an indivisible whole. Under the Christian Emperors, the clergy, endowed with certain privileges, gradually found their personal interests diverging from those of the populations who had been converted in masses. Though technically the church of Christ might still be held to comprehend the laity, yet practically it consisted of the ecclesiastics, with whom naturally the advancement of their order and the preservation and extension of its immunities became the first consideration. This divergence between the clergy and the people was rapidly developed by the incursions and conversion of the Barbarians. There could Joann. Diac. Vit. S. Gregor. Lib. IV. cap. 9-15. —Gregor. PP.. Regist. Lib. v. Epist. 21. —Lib. vI. Epist. 25, 26, 27.-Lib. vII. Epist. 17.-Lib. VIII.j Epist. 10, 24.-Lib. ix. Epist. 5, 10, 41, 67, 79, 80, 81. THIE CHURCH AND TEIE BARBARIANS. 291 be little in common between the established clergy of Gaul, for instance, and the untamed German hordes which presented themselves for Christianization and civilization; and the antagonism naturally existing under such circumstances left its indelible impress on the character and policy of the church. The priest who undertook parish duty amid a clan of wild Frankish converts, however conscientiously he imight labor for their salvation, could not but feel that in the flesh they were possible enemies who might at any moment drive him away or slay him; and the supernatural prerogatives which, un der Roman civilization, were scarcely required to enforce respect for his authority, became the only weapons of self-defence upon which he could rely. The Barbarian was a man of deeds rather than of words. His laws were few and simple, and for the most part resolved themselves, in their ultimate analysis, into provisions for the payment of damages, which could be eluded by an appeal to brute force. RIude as they were, the history of the times shows that these laws could easily be brushed aside by any one with power and audacity sufficient to disregard them; and it can readily be imagined how hopeless would be the application to the malluhm, or court of freemen, by a clerk who wotld be regarded with double contempt, as a Roman by his conquerors, and as a man of peace by warriors emulous only of martial renown. The attempt to escape this danger introduced a further cause of separation between the clergy and their new converts. As all law under the Barbarians was personal and not territorial, the church found little difficeulty at an early period in obtaining for its ministers the advantage of living under the Roman law, thus securing, nominally at least, the privileges and immunities granted by the Christian Emperors;' and in addition to this the safety of the orSecundum Legem Romanan qua ecclesia vivit. —i1. Ripuar. Tit. lviii. ~ 1. This privilege was extended to the Italian church as late as the ninth century, by Louis-le-DNbonnaire —apit. ex Lege Longobard. (Baluz. I. 292 EXCO I MMUN IC ATION. dained clergy was provided for by increased wehr-gilds, or blood-money.L Yet, notwithstanding these favors, the church was sorely oppressed by the lawless warriors who found it easier to pass enact-ments than to observe them or to enforce their observance. In a previous essay we have seen some of the means adopted to meet the necessities of this position, in procuring special privileges with regard to tribunals, and exemptions from ordinary processes of law. But, while these concessions served to separate more than ever the clergy from the laity, they afforded little practical protection from wrong and outrage. What was wanted was some speedy process that should be prepared for every emergency. Every fireeman relied on his sword and right hand for selfprotection. If the priest were not to be reduced into hopeless servitude, he too must have some ever ready weapon like the freeman's sword, which would either prevent oppression by inspiring salutary fear, or avenge it on the spot. The only weapon available for these purposes was to be found in excommunication. By heightening the supernatural attributes of the priest and of the sacrament which he made and controlled, he was invested with a vague 690). About the same period Florids Diaconus alludes to the enjoyment by the church of the prerogatives granted by the Christian [Emperors, in his address to Modoin of Autun, complaining of the oppression of the church of Lyons — "le Constantilus reverehdeo munit ab ore;!Me qcuoque Theodosius protegit ore pie, Arcadio dulci perdulcis IIonorius hIerens, MBe d alci eloquio laudat, honorat, amnat." (i:1ge's Patrol. T. CXIX. p. 255.) I L. Salic. Tit. LXVIII. LxxVII. (Fourth Text of Pardessus). LI. Ripuar. Tit. xxxvI. —LI. Alaman. Tit. x.-xvi.-For the murder of a bishop, the ]Baioarian laws provide a remarkable penalty. A tunic of lead, suitable for the murdered prelate, was made, and its weight had to be counterpoised in gold by the criminal. If he were unable to make good the amount, then he, his wife, and his children, were delivered to the church in servitude until the fine was paid.-L1. 13aioar. Tit. I. cap. xi. ~ 1. THE CHURCH AND THE BARBARIANS. 293 and awe-inspiring sanetity, most conducive to his personal safety; and if, when no other means of rigllting himself were to be found, he had recourse to his power over the Eucharist on every trivial occasion, and distributed damnation freely in avenging every petty insult, we should remember the precariousness of his position, and the restrictions which debarred him from recourse to the only other arguments which his untamed flock was likely to respect. An illustration of this is to be found in the fearful curses which, about this time, came to be attached to the;charters and privileges granted to monasteries and other religious foundations. The papal chancery had an ample store of formulas for these occasions, in which we see how the audacious violator of the rights of the churchl was condemned with an anathema which consigned him to hopeless and eternal hell-fire along with the devil and Judas Iscariot.' Cursing was the only arm of the defenceless churchman, and if lie cursed with heart and soul, we can only measure the apparent intensity of his malignity by the real intensity of his fear. Even so temperate and sagacious a pontiff as Gregory the Great yielded to the irresistible necessities of the times, and was seen to fulminate the Apostolical anathema afgainst unkniown persons, without a trial, and for a very venial offence. In 597, Castorius, the papal notary at Ravenna, was annoyed by an anonymous satirical libel, and Gregory hastened to his assistance by addressing letters to the Elavennatese summoning the author to reveal himself and justify his accusations, in default of which lie, and all privy to his act, were, in the name of God and Jesus Christ, deprived of communion. In the event of their remaining concealed and continuing to receive the prohibited body Sciat se.... anathematis vinculo innodatum, et crum diabolo et ejus atrocissimis pompis atque cum Juda traditore... in toternum igne concremandum, simulque in chaos demersus curn impiis deficiat.-Lib. Diurn. Rollllan. Pontif. cap. viI. tit. 22.- Cf. tit. 2, 5, 1, 18, 19. 25* 294 E x co M AM u N I C A T I O N. and blood of the Lord, they were anathematized and cut off from the church, and any papal letters of good wishes ignorantly addressed to them were declared null and void.1 Yet Gregory could rebuke in others the prostitution of the power which he himself was ready thus to abuse. On a previous occasion he had told a priest who had been excommunicated by his bishop without cause that the sentence was void and need not be respected; and at another time he sternly reproved Januarius, Archbishop of Cagliari, for excommunicatingl and anathematizing a layman for some insulting4 words, assuring him that the rules of the church forbade the use of its censures to avenge personal injuries.2 If Gregory colcl not restrain himself within the limits which he thus prescribed for others, it is easy to see how formidable was the power of every priest who could thus summon at will the omnipotence of God to overwhelm his adversary; and it cannot be a matter of surprise if the majority of ecclesiastics considered it to be their special office to inspire the laity with a salutary dread of their supernatural powers, whether exercised justly or unjustly, for worthy purposes or for considerations purely selfish. Under these circumstances it was perfectly natural that there should spring up a luxuriant growth of miraculous interpositions of Providence to vindicate the respect clue to the church and to punish the spoiler of her goods. In fact, the manufiacture of these miracles became a recognized armory to which for centuries the ecclesiastical body was accustomned to resort. They formed part of the education of the people, who were thus trained to look with awe upon the priest and his church, with its assortment of relics; upon the monastery with its tempting vineyards and orchards, and apiaries, and fields of grain; upon the episcopal plalace and cathedral, with their treasures accumu.-' Gregor. PP. I. Regist. Lib. vI. Epist. 31. - Ejusd. Lib. III. Epist. 2(i; Lib, n. Epist. 49. THE ChURCII AND THE BARBARIANS. 295 lated from the piety of generations. The unarmed churchman could ill ouard b)y force the rich and widely-extended possessions intrusted to his care, and if he busied himself with imagining and disseminating the marvels which proved that his person and his property were the peculiar care of God, we should not too sternly judge and condemn him. What he repeated of the stories of othiers, lie doubtless believed, for his training taught him to expect the active interference of God in behalf of the church. What he invented he no doubt regarded in the light of wholesome parables, like those in Holy Writ, to teach the wayward sons of men the path of righlteousness.' Thus it is interesting to observe that in Italy, where the barbarian oppressor with whom the priest had to deal was generally a heathen or an Arian, and therefore incapable of excomnmunication, the vengeance of heaven generally overtakes the spoiler either by direct interposition or through a simple execration. When, for instance, Darida the Goth overran Samnnium, some of his troops chanced to overtake Libertinus, prior of the monastery of Fondi, threw him fiom his horse, and took the animal with them. The holy man not only offered no resistance, but even handed them his whip with which to drive the beast, and resumed his interrupted prayer. The river Voltorno crossed their road at a short distance, and when they reached the f'ord they found that no amount of spurring and beating could force their horses to enter the water. Exhausted by fruitless efforts, they remembered the priest whom they had just It is worthy of remark that miracles are very rarely recorded as wrought by men living at the time of the chronicler. No matter what his age may be his miracle-workers are almost all of the past generation. In the vast collection of those instructive stories related by Gregory the Great in his Dialogues, his interlocutor is made to wonder why men able to perform these marvels are no longer to be found, to which Gregory replies that though there are none who do them there are plenty quite equal to those who hd.ll done them (Greg. Dialog. Lib. I. cap. 12). Each generation thus attributed its wonders to its predecessor. 296 EXCOMMUNICATION. despoiled, and taking his horse back, found him still absorbed in prayer. He refused to receive the horse again, and they were obliged to lift hiin by force upon the animal's back, after which they had no difficulty inl fording the river.' A more pregnant warning was given at Todi, under the episcopate of Fortunatus, when some Goths stopping there on their way to Ravenna requited the hospitality shown them by seizing two boys from a farm of the church of Todi. Fortunatus sent for the leader and offered to redeem them at a liberal price, but was refused, when he quietly assured the barbarian that it would prove the worse for him. Disregarding the threat, the Goths set Olut with their captives, but before they had cleared the town, while passing the church of St. Peter, the horse of the chief fell, and his rider was disabled with a broken thigh. Recognizing the cause of his mishap to be the curse of the bishop, he at once sent him the two boys with a prayer for mercy. The placable Fortunatus responded with some holy water, a single application of which restored the Goth to perfect soundness, and' he went on his way rejoicing.2 But it was not the Barbarians alone who had cause to dread the anger of these holy men, so peculiarly befiiended of heaven, as was shown by Boniface, Bishop of Ferentino, when, after saying mass, he had gone to dine at the house of a noble. As he sat down at the table, a strolling minstrel with a monkey came to the door and began striking his cymbals. "Alas, alas I" exclaimed the prelate, "that miserable wretch is dead. Here have I seated myself at table, and have not yet opened my mouth in the praise of God, and he comes with his monkey and plays with his cymbals. For mercy's sake give him meat and drink, but I tell you he is dead." The servants hastened to the vagrant with bread and wine, but, as he turned to leave the court-yard, a heavy stone fell on him firom the gateway, inflicting on him a mortal injury of Gregor. Dialog. Lib. I. cap. 2. 2 Ejusd. Lib. i. cap. 10. THE CHURCH AND THE BARBARIANS. 29~ which he died the next day-giving, as Gregory remarks, a fearful warning of the dread with which the saints, the temples of God, are to be regardedl.l These specimens will probably suffice as examples of innumerable similar teachings, by which the priest was exalted above the limits of humanity, and his weakness was rendered a tower of strength by the direct favor of God.2 Turning to the France of the same period, we find there no lack of miracles of the same kind, the very homeliness of which shows the character of the classes whom they -were intended to influence, and how thoroughly these marvels entered into the daily life of the people.3 That the lesson was sometimes effective is indicated by an incident in the life of St. Sulpicius of Bourges. King Dagobert levied an unlawful tax on the people and churches of Bourges, and deputed a certain Lull to collect it. Great excitement followed, and St. Sulpicius sent a hermit to the king to remonstrate and to threaten him withl speedy death if he did not recall his impious edict. Dagobert was duly frightened, repealed the tax, and underwent penance for the attempt; while the narrowness of his escape was shown by the fate of Lull who persisted in endeavoring to exact the tribute, and who consequently died suddenly and rmiserably.4 In addition to the possession of this formidable power, the clergy were for the most part the custodians of the holy relics of martyrs, which, besides curing the blind, the halt, and the possessed of devils, could protect the devout believer from the malignity of evil spirits, the 1 Gregor. Dialoo. Lib. I. cap. 9. The reader who is curious to trace the development of this miraculous power, which was so efficient during the middle ages, will find an ample store of these legends in the Dialognes of Gregory. See, for instance, Lib. I. cap. 3, 4, 9.-Lib. III. cap. 12, 15, 26, 29, 37.-Lib. IV. cap. 21, 23. " Gregor. Turon. Miracular. Lib. I. cap. 59, 61, 66, 72, 78, 79, 80, 92, 97, 1.05.' Vit. S. Sulpic. Bituric, cap. 24, 25 (Migne's Patrol. T. LXXX. pp. 582-3). 298 EX COIMMUNICATION. enmity of man, and the unforeseen accidents of nature. Gregory of Tours gravely relates that when his father, then a young man, was carried off from Auvergne as a hostage by Theodebert I., he procured from a friendly priest some unknown relics, which he thenceforth always carried about him, and which protected him through life against the perils of flood and field, the assaults of his enemies, and the temptations of the flesh. After his death they passed into the hands of Gregory's mother, and their value may be estimated by a single one of the numerous marvels related of them by the historian. The crops had been gathered and the laborers were at work threshing out the grain. One day, while all were at dinner, a pile of chaff left burning by the men communicated to the stacks of grain; a high north wind was blowing; in a moment the stacks were ablaze, and the industry of the year seemed doomed to inevitable destruction, when his mother rushed from the dinner-table and held up the relics in the face of the flames. Instantly the fire extinguished itself, and not a grain of corn was found darnaged, even though the chaff was burnt off.' If such was the power of relics, we can readily understand the reverence inculcated for the Eucharist, the body and blood of the Lord, and for all that was concerned in its ministry. A count of Britanny, crippled with gout, and exhausting his revenues ineffectually in physicians and medicaments, bethought him that if he could lave his feet in one of the sacred vessels of the altar, he could not fail of a cure. His rank and influence procured the favor. The holy vessel was brought, but the strength of his faith which prompted the act could not palliate the prostitution to such base uses of the vase dedicated to the service of God. The malady suddenly increased, and the sick man never again was able to use his feet. The belief recorded in this story Greg. Turon. Mirac. Lib. i. cap. 84. THE CHIURCH AND THE BARBARIANS. 299 must have been wide-spread, for Gregory adds that a similar incident occurred to a chief of the Lombards.' The reverence enjoined for the Host itself is illustrated in a judgment which befell Epachius, a priest of Riomn. On the high festival of Christmas eve, though about to celebrate the holy mysteries, he could not refrain from drinking deeply, and, full of wine, he dared to approach the Lord's Table which is spread only for the fasting. Breaking the Eucharist and distributing it as usual among the faithful, he took a fragment. No sooner had it touched his lips than he fell, shrieking, and foaming at the mouth, in a fit of epilepsy from which he never recovered.2. When the sacred mysteries and those who controlled them were invested with these supernatural attributes, we can readily anticipate the fate of those who, professing the Catholic faith, refused obedience to the walrnings or the sentence of the minister of God. It was a lawless time, and the most terrible examples were scarce sufficient to influence the indomitable ferocity of the age. When Maracharius, Count of Angouleme resigned his dignity and entered the church, he was speedily elevated to the episcopate of the city, while his temporal position was filled by his nephew LNantinus. Maracharius was soon after poisoned by some of his clerks, one of whom succeeded him in the bishopric, but in about a year he too died, and Heraclius was consecrated in the perilous dignity. Nantinus accused }Ieraclius of being privy to the death of his uncle, and proceeded to exercise his right of faidc by spoiling the church and maltreating the ecclesiastics, one of whom he tortured to death. Heraclius duly excommlunicated him, and a synod being held at Saintes in 579, INantinus made his peace and was absolved on promise of amendment. Still incorrigible, however, before he restored to the bishop the lands and houses which he had Greg. Turon. Mirac. Lib. I. cap. 85. 2 Ibid cap. S7. 300 EX COMMUNICATION. seized, he devastated and ruined them, for whichi he was again deprived of communion. IHeraclius dying, however, he purchased restoration fi'0om some venal bishops, but this simoniacal transaction availed not for the impenitent sinner. In a few months he was prostrated with a fearful disease, in which he continually exclaimed that his vitals were tortured and burned by Heraclius, who was calling him to judgment; and after his death his body, burned to blackness as though with living coals, was a terrible witness to all that the vengeance of the church, however long delayed, was inevitable.1 Equally signal was the warning when Charibert, King' of Paris, a year or two before, had set aside his queen Ingloberga, and had married first AMerofledis and then her sister Marcovefa. This latter union was peculiarly abominable, for M'areovefa was a nun. St. Germainl Bishop of Paris, could no longer disseimble his indignation, and he excomlmullicated the guilty pair. Disregarding the awful sentence, they soon felt the result. M arcovefBa died almost immediately, and Charibert was not long in following' her.2 It will be seen from this that the untamed Merovingians as yet reeked little of the censures of the church, and at the same time that there were prelates hardy enough to brave their unbridled anger, and to seek to curb in the name of God those whom no human laws could restrain. St. Nicetius of Treves was one of these. When Thierry I. King of 3Mletz was succeeded by his son Theodebert, who surrounded, himself with licentious and lawless parasites, Nicetius strove to reform the disorders of the state by excommunicating the wicked courtiers. The king, however, still kept them about his person, till one day, when they attended him in church, the courageous bishlop refused to consecrate the host in their presence. The king insisted, when suddenly a youth possessed by the devil commlenced crying Greg. Turon. Hist. Franc. Lib. v. cap. 37. 2Ejusd, Lib. Iv, cap. 26 THE CIHURCII AND THE BARBARIANS. 301 out in a loud voice, reciting the crimnes of the king and his followers, and lauding the virtues of' the bishop. After some further strife, the king dismissed his retinue, and thenl the youth, whom the stlength of a dozen men had not sufficed to draog from the pillar which he had embraced, suddenly loosed his hold at the sign of the cross from the bishop, andi disappeared to be seen of men no more. This warning produced some amendment in the court; but when the kingdom passed into the hands of Clotair I., and the fearless bishop dared to excommunicate that terrible monarch, he was banished and was not permitted to return fiom exile until after the death of his persecutor.' The church evidently had no easy task in thus endeavoring to extend its prerogative and to obtain control over the ungovernable passions of its new converts; and to its perplexities may probably be attributed the introduction of a new practice, which widened the influence and increased the force of excommunication. We have seen that St. Augusttine deprecated the punishment of the innocent who might chance to be connected with the guilty, and sharply reproved a brother prelate for depriving of communion a whole family of which the head had incurred his censure;2 and Leo the Great had forbidden that the penalty should be enforced on any who were not partners in the crime.-' Yet when the church came to deal with those who too often mocked her thunders and only responded by a defiant 1 Greg. Turon. Vit. Patrum, cap. 17, Q~ 2, 3. About the same period a reference to excommunication shows the influence which the church hadl acquired in the older Christianity of the Spanish Wisigoths. The fourth council of Toledo in 633 (can. 75) denounces excommunication against those who should oppose rebellious resistance to the king, and against the king who should oppress the people. These councils were the parliaments of the nation, and this canon was evidently an agreement between the monarch and his subjects by which the sanction of the church was invoked for the enforcement of their respective duties. Augustin. Epist. 250, ~ 1.-Cf. Contra Epist. Parmenion. Lib. III. cap. 2 3 Leon. PP. I. Epist. x. cap. 8. 26 302 EXCOMMUNICATION. aggravation of wickedness, or by persecuting those who sought to restrain them, it is no wonder if recourse should be had to a device by which public indignation might be brought to bear against them, and the community at large be interested in compelling their submission. This would, moreover, be suggested by the structure of society among thle Barbarian tribes, in which the responsibility of the family and the sept for the offences of its individual members was the foundation of legal procedure. Under such a system, the injustice which was reproved by St. Augustine and St. Leo was no longer apparent, and accordingly we lind the Interdict beginning to make its appearance among those who little thought how irresistible a weapon they were fOrging for the overthrow of monarchs. Thus when in 586 Fredegonda caused Pretextatus, Bishop of Rouen, to be assassinated at the altar, and a nol)le Frank who reproached her with the crime to be poisoned, it was evidently useless to assail the royal Jezabel and to stimulate her to fresh outrages. Accordingly Leudovald, Bishop of Bayeux, after consultation with his brother prelates, ordered all the churches of Rouen to be closed, and the population to be deprived of the consolations of religion, until a general search should result in the discovery of the guilty instruments of the crime.l 1IThe church thus with little effect exhausted the resources, of her authority in the effort to maintain order and to preserve the inviolability of the persons and property of her ministers. In the early period of the Frankish conquest, so little could she rely upon the control of the sacraments 1 Gregor. Turon. Hist. Franc. Lib. VIII. cap. 31.-St. Basil of Cmsarea is sometimes quoted as the inventor of the interdict, towards the close of the fourth century, because in a case wherein a young girl was carried off, he not only excommunicated the immediate actors but also the inhabitants of a town where they had taken refuge (Basil Epist. 144, ap. IIericourt, Loix Eccles. E. 178). In this case, however, all were guilty, directly or indirectly, though the transaction was not in strict accordance with the ecclesiastica]l law of the period. TIHE CHURCH AND THE BARBARIANS. 303 to insure even the safety of the hierarchy that in 517 the first council of Lyons adopted a canon providing that whenever the king should withdraw himself from comrnunion all the bishops of the province should at once take refuge in monasteries, where they should remain ensconced until it might please the monarch to promise peace to all.l Christianity, it is evident, had as yet been able to instil but little reverence in the Merovingian heart for the sacraments of the altar or for the venerable men who administered them, and the process of educating the wild Teutonic races was slow. Still, the assiduous teachings to which I have alluded gradually produced their effect, and the kings came to understand that, however they might hold themselves above the obedience claimed by the church, still the traditions of Roman subordination which she cherished might render her a useful ally in establishing their own supremacy over the native independence of their subjects. In the scanty fragments which remain to us of the legislation of that age we may therefore find some indications of a disposition to support the censures of the church by the secular power. Slight as these are, they possess interest as the first indications of the long-existing alliance between kingcraft and priestcraft, which exercised so powerful an influence over the development of European civilization, and which eventually enabled the church to triumph over both king and people. Thus, in 585 the second council of Macon adopted various canons threatening excommunication for sundry offences, such as the refusal to pay tithes and the oppression of the poor by the rich; and, more significant still, it commanded under penalty of suspension from communion that no mounted layman should meet an ecclesiastic without dismounting and humbly saluting lhim.2 In the same year Concil. Lugdun. T. ann. 517, can. 3. 2 Concil. Matiscon. I[. ann. 585, can. 4, 5, 14, 15. 304 E X CO MM UN IC AT IO N. TKing Gontran issued an edict confirming the acts of this council, which he asserts to have been drawn up at his suggestion. In a manner somewhat vague he threatens that those who could not be corrected by priestly exhortations should be coerced by legal proceedings, and he confers by implication great power on his bishops when he declares that they share in the sins of those whose evil deeds they dissemble in silence.' Ten years later, Childebert II. manifested a similar disposition. In a decree forbidding marriages within the prohibitecd degrees, and ordering his subjects to obey the directions of their bishops with regard to them, he adds that if any one should be excommunicated for disobedience, he would not only be forever condemned in the sight of God, but should be banished from the royal palace and his property be divided among his heirs as a punishment for refusing to submit to the remedial measures enjoined by the church.2 Among the Spanish Wisigoths the same tendency is observable, for about this period St. Isidor of Seville lays it down as a general rule that where the ecclesiastical authority is insufficient to command 6bedience it is the duty of the civil power to interfere and enforce the discipline of the chulrch? These declarations, however, derive their only importance from their significance in foreshadowing the distant future. They could not, at the tile, save the church froma the evils to which it wvas daily exposed, and though for awhile it might seem to gain in power and influence, the development of events speedily showed the unstable foundations upon which its authority was based. As the house of Clovis tore itself to pieces and gradually passed away in Praecept. Guntramni, ann. 585 (Baluz. I. 7. Ed. Venet.). D Decret. Childebert. circa ann. 595 (Baluz. I. 11). The text as given both by Baluze and Canciani (II. 116) by the use of the word " crinosis"' would seem to restrict to the royal line the application of this decree; but Canciani mentions the reading "criminosis" as given by another MS. which would render its application general. 3 Isidor. Hispaleus. Sentent. Lib. III. cnp. 51, ~~ 4, 5. CARLOVINGIAN RECONSTRUCTION. 305 the long revolution which ended in establishing the family of Pepin on the throne, the church almost disappeared in the dismal anarchy of the period. The episcopates became filled with warlike Franks who regarded them merely as offices of secular dignity and power, while the character of the clergy may be imagined from the denunciations of Pope Zachary in 743. when he describes them as being laymen in all but the right to administer the sacraments.' He especially rebukes the martial ardor which they universally displayed; and so deeply rooted had their warlike habits become that when, after many attempts to eradicate them, Charlemagne in 803 made a most solemn and impressive effort in conjunction with Pope Leo to restrain the unclerical military aspirations of the church, he felt obliged to accompany the prohibition of bearing arms with an assurance to the people that this measure was not intended as preliminary to despoiling the clergy of their possessions —a rumor to this effect having apparently found ready believers.2 CARLOVINGIAN RECONSTRUCTION. In a state of society so lawless, and with a church so profaned, ecclesiastical censures could have been little employed and less regarded. When, however, the sons of Charles Martel endeavored to establish the new dynasty on a firm foundation, the piety of Carloman soon recognizedl that the reformation and rebuilding of the church 1 Bonifacii Epist. 137. 2 Capit. Carol. Mag. VIII. ann. 803. Cf. Capit. incerti anni cap. 1 (Baluz. I. 288, 357). How little this accomplished in repressing the martial tendencies of the clergy is seen by a similar prohibition as late as 846.-Capit. Carol. Calvi Tit. VII. cap. 37 (Baluz. II. 24). 92f'* 306 E X COMMUNICA T IO N was the surest basis on which to establish power; while Pepin-le-Bref, as soon as he had seized the crown under papal authority, felt that the fortunes of his house were indissolubly united with those of the hierarchy. The sagacity of Charlemagne recognized not only this, but also that the church was the most efficient instrument that he could use in civilizing the motley aggregation of races which constituted his empire. Thus the first practical step taken by Carloman in the reconstruction of society was the assembling of a council in 742, where he appointed Archbishop Boniface to the primacy of his church, and ordered the convention of a yearly synod to reform the ecclesiastical disorders wllich seenmed to defy all hope of improvement.' The same spirit is shown throughout all the legislation of Charlemagne, as, for instance, in the organization of his Saxon conquests in 7 89. His first act is to divide his newly-acquired territory into eight dioceses, for which he at once appoints bishops; and while he declares his new subjects to be free and not liable to taxation, he orders the strict payment of tithes for the support of the churches. So, while he decrees the penalty of death for a number of offences, from conspiring to rebel or refusing baptism, down to eating meat in Lent without a dispensation, he adds that in all these cases, if the offender shall voluntarily confess to a priest and submit to penance, the evidence of the ecclesiastic shall save his life.2 As Charlemagne never for a moment abandoned the control which he exercised over every ecclesiastic, from the pope to the monk, he might thus safely make use of the clergy in the task of reduLcing his rugged subjects to order. When he could command them never to refuse the viaticum to the dying sinner,3 he could safely delegate to them a 1 Karolomanni Capit. I. ann. 742, cap. I (Baluz. I. 103). 2 Carol. Mag. Praecept. de Episc. per Saxon. —Prwcept. pro Trutmanno Comite. —Capit. de Part. Saxon. cap. iii.-xiv. (Baluz. I. 179T-83.) Carol. Mag. Canpit. Episcopor. ann. 801. (BLlnz. I. 258.) CARLOVINGIAN RECONSTRUCTION. 307 part of his authority; and to render that authority nmore efficient, that he might use them to greater advantage, he could enjoin implicit obedience to them on the part of his subjects, from the lowest to the highest.'" In truth, he is more to be feared who can plunge body and soul into Hell than he who can merely torture the body," and as these spiritual and distant terrors were not likely to be efficient, he adds that those who prove incorrigibly disobedient, even if they be his own sons, shall be proclaimed infamous, their property be confiscated, and themselves be driven.into exile.' When such was the recognized CarlovingianM policy, it is not surprising that the assistance of the state was lent to the enforcement of ecclesiastical censures, and that those who were not to be daunted with threats of spiritual punishment should be brought to reason with more substantial penalties. The policy doubtless served its purpose for the moment, nor could the early Carlovingians, struggling with the gigantic barbarism of the age, see, into the future when the secular inflictions affixed to excommunication should become the most efficient weapon of oppression in the armory of the hierarchy; or that the alliance which they now formed between the church and state would enable the former throulgh centuries to dominate the latter with a despotism unparallelled. It is these results in the far distant future, of tremendous import in the history of civilization, that impart interest to the obscure and ap)parently trivial details of the legislation by which the church gradually acquired the right to call upon the civil power to execute her decrees without appeal and without examination. I Carol. Mang. Capit. ap. Theodonis Villam (Baluz. I. 305). The terms in which this capitulary is drawn are so extreme that I ami strongly inclined to suspect its genuineness. Its general spirit, however, is amply confirmed by others. Cf. Edict. Domin. c. ann. 800; Capitul. Add. III. cap. 97 (Baluz. I. 23:6, 587). Also, Concil. Arelatens. VI ann. 813, can. 13. (Ilarduin. IV. 10(t,). 308 EXCO'MMUNICATION So completely had ecclesiastical discipline been relaxed during the later Merovingian period that even the meaning and purport of excommunication had become well-nigh forgotten. In 755, Pepin-le-Bref, at the assembly of Verneuil, was obliged to explain to the people what were the rules to be enforced on exconamunicates, and even in 802 Charlemagne felt called upon to proclaim that the kingdom of God was reserved for those who lived and died in the communion of the church. By successive edicts thus the old canons of the church were revived —the strict segregation of the impenitent from all intercourse with Christians, the prohibition to receive him until reconciled by the one who had ejected him, and the necessity of commendatory letters for those who travelled or changed their residence.' Yet the forgotten discipline thus resuscitated was changed in character, for it was no longer the simple expression of the internal regulations of the church, but as proclaimed by the monarch it became the law of the land. Formerly it could only be enforced by the moral power of the church; aow it could call upon the irresistible authority of the state, and the canons of Nicsea, of Sardica, of Antioch, of Carthage, and of Chalceclon, when quoted and explained in the capitularies of the sovereign of Western Europe, acquired a new significance of which the ultimate development was not to be realized for five hundred years. There were two subjects which attracted particular attention in the civilizing efforts of the Carlovingians, and which afforded the special incitement in urging the revival of excommunication and in enforcing its penalties by the secular power. These were the marriage of persons within the prohibited degrees, and the spoliation to which the church was exposed in the general lawlessness of society. Synod. Vernens. ann. 755, cap. 9.-Capit. Aquisgranens. ann. 789, cap. 1, 3. —Carol. Mag. Capit. I. ann. 802,-cap. 41 (Baluz. I. 122, 155-6, 268). Also Capitul. Lib. v. ca'p. 62.-Carol. Mag. Capit. in LI. Longobard. In. 26, 1 (Baluz. I. 254.-Canciani I. 166). CARLOVINGIAN RECONSTRUCTION. 309 WTithout entering into the polemical questions respecting the sacramental nature of the marriage ceremony, it is easy to understand why the early Christians, in their horror of the laxity prevailing among the Gentiles, invested the marriage rite with peculiar sanctity, and confided its performance to the priest. Those who endeavored to render every act of life an expression of pious fervor were not likely to allow so solemn an occasion to be divested of religious ceremony, and accordingly the sacerdotal benediction was esteemed an essential part of the nuptial celebration at a comparatively early period.' Not only this, but the supervision exercised by the church over the morality of the faithful aided in giving it especial control over the delicate questions connected with matrimony, and accordingly some of the earliest canons which have reached us relate to regulations adopted to prevent what were regarded as improper marriages;2 while the prohibition of incest in the Mosaic law seemed to render this a matter of which the church ought to assume the special guardianship. Therefore when, in 601, St. Augustine of Canterbury applied to Gregory I. for instructions regarding the prohibited degrees, the latter, while deprecating, on account of its effect on posterity, the marriages of first cousins permitted by the Roman law, had no hesitation in prescribing for the Barbarians rules which he had no power to enforce at home. He accordingly directed that among the Saxon converts marriage should not be permitted between parties related more closely than the third or fourth degree.3 By this ~ Innocent. PP. I. Epist. ii. cap. 6.-Synesius (Epist. 105) speaks of receiving his wife from the holy hands of Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria.. Concil. Eliberit. ann. 305, can. 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17. 3 Gregor. PP. I. Regist. Lib. xI. Epist. 64. Interrog. 6.-This decree was of course a stumbling-block to the zealous churchmen who subsequently extended the prohibition so much further, and it was neutralized by the usual expedient of forgery. Two epistles were fsbricated-one from Felix, Bishop of Messina, to Gregory, expressing his surprise at a deciFion so con 310 EXCOMMUNICATION. time also the church was acquiring fresh authority in these mnatters by the doctrine of spiritual affinity, preventing or rendering null the imarriage of those who had connected themselves as sponsors in baptism, and the shrewd device is well known by which Fredegonda succeeded in getting rid of Audovera, the queen of Chilperic, when she desired to marry him for the second time. A daughter was born to Audovera during the king's absence on. a military expedition, and the cunning Fredegonda persuaded her that it would be an agreeable surprise to Chilperic to find on his return the infant baptized, and that their union would be rendered dearer and more sacred if she herself would hold. the child at the font. Audovera consented, and thus contracted a spiritual affinity with her husband which rendered separation obligatory; she was promptly relegated to a convent, and Fredegonda triumphed in the success of her audacious scheme.l lWe have seen how Gregoory the Great prescribed for the ignorance of the Saxons restrictions which were not submitted to in Rome; and however difficult it might be to enforce such regulations, it was easy to decree them. Gregory's example, therefore, did not lack imitators, and in the eighth century we find his successor Gregory III. instructing Boniface to prohibit all marriages as far as the seventh degree.2 By this time the right of the church to control such matters was acknowledged, but these instructrary to all the customs of the fathers from the time of the Nicene Council, and the other a reply from Gregory explaining that he had relaxed the rules temporarily for the benefit of the rude and barbarous converts of Augustine, without any intention of introducing this laxity into the church at large.1Regist. Lib. xiv. Epist. 16, 17. 1 Aimoini Hist. Francor. Lib. iII. cap. vi.-In the Icelandic church, which differed in so many respects from that of the rest of Europe, this rule seems to have been disregarded. The code of ecclesiastical law in force from 1122 to 1275 expressly declares that a father who under stress of necessity baptizes his own child is not therefore required to separate from his wife.-Kristinrettr Thorlaks oc Kletils, cap. III. (Havuniai 1776, p. 13). G1regor" J~P. III. Epist. 1, cap. 5. CARLOVINGIAN RECONSTRUCTION. 311 tions fell upon a hardened and stiff-necked generation. Even the thunders of the church had not prevented the Merovingians from surrounding themselves with harems, and it nmattered little whether the inmates bore the title of concubines or wives. Charlemagne's laxity with respect to the marriage tie is notorious, and so late as the ninth century we find the Emperor Lothair issuing a law which formally forbids any one to have two wives at once.l M[en who cared so little for the plainest precepts of the law regulating matrimony, were not likely to regard a rule which was so difficult of observance, and which required so nice an acquaintance with genealogy as was necessary to ascertain the shadow of relationship expressed by the seventh degree of kinship; and accordingly the enforcement of the restriction was tacitly admitted to be impossible. Strenuous efforts, however, were made unceasingly to bring under some sort of control the rebellious natures of the Franks, and in these we find the earliest traces of the aid lent by the State to cause the censures of the church to be respected. These efforts, moreover, are of interest, as they are the source of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction over all questions connected with marriage which subsequently enured so much to the power and profit of the church. Tlhus already, in 752, Pepin-le-Bref issued a cal)itulary forbidding marriages as far as the fourth gl'ade, although parties related in the fourth degoree, if married, were not to be separated. Even in this modified form, obedience, apparently, was not expected, for the bishops were instructed to look sharply after such incestuous unions; if the sinners were obdurate, they were to be expelled from the church, and if this did not succeed in bringing them to submission, there was a vague intimation that secular force would be employed.2 How little success attended' LI. Longobard. II. 13, 7. Synod. Verimeriens. ann. 752, cap. 1, 9 (;Baluz. I. 118). Cf. Capitul. Lib. v. c. 165. 312 EX CO MIM NI CATION. this legislation is shown by decrees of 755 and 7579 in which persons guilty of these incestuous marriages were threatened with purely temporal penalties, such as fines, imprisonment, etc.;1 while another of 755, after denouncing excommunication as the punishment, adds that if any one disregards it, and proves too stubborn for his bishop, he shall be exiled by the royal power.2 One of the earliest laws of Charlemnagne enjoins on the priesthood especial watchfulness with respect to these prohibited marriages; and ten years later, in 779, he specifically conferred upon the bishops the power to coerce all incestuous persons.3 These efforts were ineffectual, and in 802 he commanded that no marriage should be celebrated until the bishop, priests, and elders had carefully examined into the possible consanguinity of the spouses. If, in spite of these precautions, such unions took place, the bishop was directed to separate the parties, and those who should refuse obedience were to be brought before the emperor himself, as in the case of a certain Fricco, who had not long before committed incest by marrying a nun.4 It was an evil generation, and hard to bring into subjection. As Charlemagne's career as a lawgiver had opened, so it may be said to have closed, with an attempt to enforce the canon. In 813 the bishops assembled at Tours deplored the multitude of incestuous marriages which no ecclesiastical censures could prevent, as the sinners made light of excommunication, and could only be coerced by the secular power.5 A council held at the same time at M\Iainz renewed the prohibition of marriage to the fourth Capit. Metens. ann. 755, cap. 1.-Capit. Compendiens. ann. 757, cap. 1, 2, 19 (Baluz. I. 125, 129). Synod Vernens. ann. 755, cap. 9.-Cf. Capitul. Lib. v. cap. 62. Carol. Mag. Capit. ann. 769, cap. 10. Ejusd. ann. 779, cap. 5 (Baluz. I. 137, 141). 4 Carol. Mag. Capit. i. ann. 802, cap. 33, 35, 38 (Baiuz. I. 265-66). Cf. Capitul. Lib. vII. cap. 432. 5 Concil. Turon. III. ann. 813, can. 41 (-larduin. IV. 1028).-Capiti. Lib. Hi. cap. 43. CARLOVINGIAN RECONSTRUCTION. 313 degree, and ordered all persons so united to be separated; due penance was also enjoined, with a threat of expulsion from the church for those who refused to undergo it.' Charlemagne responded but feebly to these appeals. He contented himself with ordering increased watchfulness on the subject, and the expulsion from the church of those who refused the performance of due penitence.2 It is not to be supposed that the manufacturers of the False Decretals neglected this matter. An epistle attributed to Calixtus I. argues at much length against the legality of marriages between kindred, slowing how little had been accomplished by previous efforts.3 The correspondence forged between Gregory the Great and Felix of Messina extended the prlohibition to the seventh degree;4 and a canon attributed to Pope Julius gave increased antiquity to this rule.' At the same time another, to which the name of Pope Fabian was attached, shows the confusion which existed, by reducing the prohibition to the fourth degree, and forbidding the separation of those already married, being substantially a repetition of the Carlovingian rule.6 Benedict the Levite was bolder, and in transferring to his collection of capitularies the canon of the council of Mainz of 81.3, he adroitly extended the prohibition from the fourth degree to the fifth and sixth;7 and subsequently he fabricated others which carried it to the seventh.' These being copied by Hilinclar, BurConcil. Mogunt. cnn. 813, can. 54 (Harduin. IV. 1016). Carol. Mag. Capit. I. ann. 813, cap. 8 (Baluz. I. 343). Pseudo-Calixt. Epist. II.-quoted in Gratian, P. iI, caus. 35, q. ii. can. 2. 4 Pseudo Felicis et Pseudo-Gregor. Epist. (Regist. Lib. xIv. Epist. 16, 17). 5 Pseudo-Julian. in Gratian. P. II. cans. 35, q. ii. can. 7. 6 Pseudo-Fabian. in Gratian. P. II. cans. 35, q. ii. can. 3. Capitul. Lib. v. cap. 166. 8 Ibid. Lib. vI. cap. 209. The importance attached to this subject, and the difficulty of enforcing the rule, are attested by Benedict's endless recur27 31 4 EX C OI UNI C A TI ON. chardt, Ivo, and Gratian, it was rendered difficult for any man to know whether he was properly married or not, and, as we shall see hereafter, there was afforded to the church the opportunity of intervening effectually in the affairs of princes and kingdoms. The other subject which seemed to call especially for the intervention of the secular power in support of spiritual censures was the oppression and spoliation to which the church was exposed as soon as its ministers had been deprived of the opportunity of self-defence by prohibiting them from bearing arms. At the same assembly of Worilms in 803 which asked for this restriction, the nobles petitioned the emperor to imprison all who might invade the rights of the church until they should perform public and canonical penance. As all such offenders were excommunicate, the petitioners pledged themselves to hold them as infainous, and not to associate with them in war or in peace, in the church, in the court, or on the road; to forbid their retainers from consorting with those of the sinners thus proscribed, and even to keep their horses and cattle separate, for fear of contamination. To this request the emperor assented, and, with the approval of the estates of his empire, he issued a decree, which the judges were specially ordered to enforce, denouncing all invasion of church property as liable to the punishments of sacrilege, theft, and murder. He also ordered the bishops to anathematize the guilty, so that they might lack Christian burial and be deprived of the prayers andl sacrifices of the church.l In another capitulary he denounced the spoilers of the church as men anathematized, deprived of legal protection and rence to it. See, for instance, Canpitul. Lib. v. cap. 9, 91, 165, 304; Lib. vI. cap. 76, 106, 410; Lib. vII. cap. 257, 356, 377, 432, 433, 434, 435; Addit. III. cap. 124, etc. Carol. Maig. Capit. viii. ann. 803 (Baluz. I. 285-90).-Cf. Capitul. Lib. vI. cap. 370; Lib. vII. cap. 142, 143. CARLOVINGIAN RECONSTRUCTION. 315 of association with the faithful-who were forbidden to give them bread or water — and, moreover, cut off from the kingcldom of God if they should die without rendering full satisfaction to the church which they had wronged.' Inl all this Charlemagne never abl:ated a jot of his control over the church, which he strengthened that it might be a more useful instrument in his hands. In this same year, 803, in a capitulary addressed to his Missi, or Imperial Commissioners, containing a brief summary of matters requiring their attention, he orders them to check the abuse of the powers thus confided to ecclesiastics, by preventing excommunications from being resorted to everywhere and without cause.2 In 811 he issued another capitulary, which is a series of sharp and searching questions, probing. to the quick the excesses and crimes of the church, and among them. we find that the delegated power over heaven and hell was already used with effect on the minds of dying and despairing sinners for the purpose of swelling the possessions and revenues of the establishment. He asks whether the world is relinquished by those who seek wealth through every cunning art, by promising happiness in heaven and threatening eternal torture in hell, thus playing on the ignorance of rich and poor alike to gain possession of their estates, to the exclusion of the rightful heirs, causing a notable increase of crime by forcing to a life of robbery and plundcler those who were thus disinherited.3 I Carol. Mag. Capit. III. incerti anni cap. 3, 4, 5 (Baluz. I. 359). Carol. Mag. Capit. III. ann. 803, cap. 2 (Baluz. I. 277). Carol. Mag. Capit. II. ann. 811, cap. 5 (Baluz. I. 329-30). This inquisition of the emperor into the shortcomings of the church led to the assembling of five councils in 813. Two of these (Concil. Arelatens. VI., Remens. II.) pay no attention to this special question. That of Tours (C. Turonens. III. can. 51, Harduin. IV. 1030) states that it has made inquiry, and can find no one complaining of being disinherited. That of Chalons (C. Cabillonels. 3I. can. 6, Ibid. p. 1033) contents itself with a generial reproof of such practices, without indicating any special penalty for them; and that of Mainz 316 E X CO M'M UNICA TT ON. This was not the only way in which the money value of the Eucharist was speculated on, for other modes were speedily discovered and industriously exploited. By this time, in the stricter kinds of penitence enjoined, the penitent was obliged to live on bread and water.1 A regulation accordingly was introduced by which no one was allowed to invite a penitent to eat flesh or to drink wine without immediately paying a fine of one or two deniers, according to the severity of the penitence thus infringedl-which was, apparently, an indirect way of allowing a rich penitent to purchase exemption from the rules. A similar abuse is revealed by the complaint of the council of Chalons, in 813, that a spurious charity was encouraged in those who desired to sin without incurring the penalty of their transgressions.a CHURCH AND STATE. The death of Charlemagne marks a new era in the history of the church. His support had awakened its ambition, and had armed it with new weapons; while the piety of Louis-le-D6bonnaire rendered him apt to yield to the pretensions which it was prompt to put forward. Charlemagone controlled the thunders of the church; Louis was their slave, and it is hard to overestimate the effect of the spectacle which he offered to an astonished world when, (C. Mogunt. can. 6, Ibid. p. 1010) promises to amend anything of the kind that might come to the knowledge of its members. The church evidently was not disposed to relax its pious efforts to increase the patrimony of Christ. Calpitul. Add. IV. cap. 83. In 813 the second council of Chalons complains that penitents evaded the prohibition of wine and flesh by contriving dainties agreeable to the palate.-Concil. Cabillonens. II. can. 35 (Harduin. IV. 1037); Cf. Capitul. Add. III. cap. 60. s Capitul. Lib. I. cap. 151.-Reginon. Eccles. Discip. Lib. I. cap. 259. C3 oncil. Cabillonens. II. ann. 813, can. 36 (lIarduin. IV. 1038).-Capitul. Add. III. cap. 61. CHURCIt AND STATE. 317 in remorse for the severity with which he had crushed the rebellion of his nephew, Bernard, King of Italy, the master of Europe in 822 appeared before the prelates assembled at the council of Attigny, confessed his sins, asked for absolution through penance, and duly fulfilled the judgment rendered by appearing in public as a penitent.' The triumph of the spiritual power was thus foreshadowed, and under the auspices of such a monarch its progress towards domination was rapid. In 819 Louis had sought to lead his subjects to submit to episcopal sentences by guarding with a triple fine the life of a man during' the performance of penitence'-evidently because durinlo that period of probation lie was prohibited from bearing' arms, and could not protect himself. In 826, also, he published a capitulary which greatly extended the sphere of spiritual jurisdiction, aind pledged to it the support of the secular power. For rapine and robbery he decreed not only the temporal punishment of heavy fines and restitution, but added the enforcement of canonical penitence to be publicly performed; while the act, if it had been committed on church property, was pronounced to be sacrilege, and the offender was outlawed until he should have made amends to the satisfaction of the injured church. For blasphemy, the penalty threatened was imprisonment by the secular judge, and public penitence until, by the intercession of the bishop, the offender should be publicly reconciled and readmitted to the church. The lives of ecclesiastics, moreover, were protected by a provision that for a homicide committed on a clerk the criminal was to undergo penitence of tile severest character, for life, in a monastery.3 The same confusion of civil and ecclesiastical Thegan. de Gest. Ludewici Imp. cap. 23.-Eginhart. Vit. Ludov. Pii, ann. 822.-Ast.ron. Vit. Ludov. Pii, cap. xi. Ludov. Pii Capit. I. ann. 819, cap. 5 (Baluz. I. 406). Ludov. Pii Capit. Ingilenheim. ann. 826, cap. 1, 2, 5 (Baluz. 439-40).To show the change thus wrought, it may be worth while to allude to a 2 >k 318 EXCOMMUNICATION. jurisdiction is shown in a law of 829, by which a man putting away or killing his wife without cause was condemned to undergo public penance, for refusal of which the count of his district was ordered to imprison him in chains until the imperial pleasure could be ascertained.1 About this time, also, Lothair I., Louis's eldest son, gave a fresh impulsion to the progress of priestly control over the secular power. Sent in 823 to Italy by his father, he went to Rome, and there Paschal I. solemnly crowned him as emperor, without the knowledge or assent of Louis. This, we may assume, threw him to some extent into the hands of the clerical party, and we therefore need not be surprised to find him, in 824, issuing the first general command to the counts and ministers of justice to enforce by secular proceedings all sentences of excommunication. This decree provides that if any one, for any crimes or offenbes, shall disregardl admonition until he incurs the liability of excommunication, then the bishop shall call to his aid the count of the district, and in their joint names the offender shall be summoned to submit to the bishop. If this is ineffectual, then the royal ban or fine shall be inflicted on him; and if still contumacious, he shall at last be excommunicated. In case the hardened criminal defies this, the count slhall seize him and throw him in chains in a dungeon, where he shall lie until he receives the imperial sentence; while, if the offender is the count himself, the bishop shall report him for judgment to the emperor.2 judgment of Pope Gelasius (492-496), by which a priest who had killed his bishop was only excommunicated for a year and deprived of the ministry of the altar. Ile persisted in performing his priestly functions, however, and was thereupon degraded for disobedience.-Gelasii PP. I. Epist. Philippo et Cassiodoro; Ejusd. Majorico et Joanni. Capit. pro lege habenda, ann. 829, cap. 3 (Baluz. I. 452).-Capitul. Addit. Iv. cap. 118, 161. 9 Lothar. I. Capit. Tit. In. caLp. 15 (Baluz. II. 219).-L. Longobard. II. 54, 1, s. Lothar. xv. (Georgisch, 1218-19; Canciani, I. 196). This was, in another section, applied especially to usurers (Cap. 19 —LI. Longobard. ii. 54, 2). Abuses, apparently, were not long in mlarkig themselves felt, fo)r another CHURCH AND STATE. 319 Thus the thunders of the church were adopted by the state as part of its ordinary criminal machinery, and all the powers of the state were pledged to support the sentence of the spiritual tribunals. The scope and the danger of the authority thus successively conferred upon the church were most impressively manifested when Louis was deposed by his sons. after the fatal Field of Falsehood in 833, and Lothair desired to render impossible the restoration of his father to the throne. The sins imputable to Louis were not such as the secular law of that turbulent age could take cognizance of, but the spiritual tribunal could impose penitence for any infraction of moral obligation; the people had been invited by Louis himself, eleven years before, at Attigny, to see the bishops sit in judgment on their monarch; and the decretals of Siricius and Leo I., forbidding secular employment and the bearing of arms to any one who had undergone public penance, were not so entirely forgotten but that they might be revived.1 Accordingly, when Lothair returned to France, dragging his captive father in his train, he halted at Compiegne, and summoned a council of his prelates to accomplish the work from which his savage nobles shrank. With unfaltering willingness they undertook the odious task, declaring their competency throughI the power to bind and to loose conferred upon their order as the vicars of Christ and the turnkeys of heaven. They held the wretched prisoner accountable for all the evils lwhich the empire had suffered since the death of Charlemagne, and summoned him at least to save his soul by capitulary of Lothair alludes to bishops and counts who were in the habit of taking bail from persons accused of incest or of withholding their tithes, and then dividing the spoils between themn.-Lothar. I. Capit. Tit. v. cap. 41 (Bnluz. II. 232). —LI. Longobard. Iv. 3, 10, s. Lothar. II. cap. I (Georgischo 1247-S). Capitul. Lib. vi. cap..938; Lib. viI. cap. 61, 62. 320 EXCOMMUNICATION. prompt confession and penitence, now that his earthly dignity was lost beyond redemption. Louis submittedhe could not do otherwise-and accepted and signed the confession which they thrust into his hands, the articles of which show the dangerous confusion between moral offences and temporal crimes, so sedulously inculcated by the mediseval casuists, to the immense extension of spiritual jurisdiction. He was guilty of sacrilege because he had not fulfilled the promise of his coronation oath; he was a perjurer and a suborner of perjury because, after having parcelled out his empire between his three sons, he had, after the birth of a fourth, made another allotment; he had violated his vows and despised religion because he had once undertaken a military expedition during Lent, and had held a council on Maundy Thursday; and he was morally accountable for all the crimes and devastation committed throughout the empire in the civil dissensions excited by his turbulent sons. With that overflowing hypocritical unction which is the most disgusting exhibition of clerical craft, the bishops labored with him for his own salvation, until, overcome by their eloquent exhortations, he threw himself at their feet, begged the pardon of his sins, implored their players in his behalf, and eagerly diemanded the imposition of such penance as would merit absolution. The request was not denied. In the church of St. Mary, before the tombs of the holy St. Medard and St. Sebastian, the discrowned monarch was brought into the presence of his son, and surrounded by a gaping crowd. There he threw himself upon a sackcloth and four times confessed his sins with abundant tears, accusing himself of offending God, scandalizing the church, and bringing destruction upon his people, for the expiation of which he demanded penance and absolution by the imposition of those holy hands to which had been confided the power to bind and to loose. Then, handing his written confession to the bishops, he took off sword and belt and laid them CHIURCI- AND STATE. 321 at the foot of the altar, where his confession had already been placed. Throwing off his secular garments, he put on the white robe of the penitent, and accepted fiom his ghostly advisers a penance which should inhibit him during life from again bearing arms.1 The world, however, was not as yet quite prepared for this spectacle of priestly arrogance and royal degradation. The disgust which it excited hastened a counter-revolution, and when Louis was restored to the throne, Ebbo of Rheims and St. Agobard of Lyons, the leaders in the solemn pantomime, were promptly punished and degraded. Yet the piety of Louis held that the very sentence for the imposition of which they incurred this penalty was valid until abrogated by equal authority, and accordingly he caused himself to be formally reconciled to the church before the altar of St. Denis, and abstained fioim resuming his sword until it was again belted on him by the hand of a bishop.2 During the dreary period of anarchy which filled the remaining years of Louis's disastrous reign, and which was prolonged by the ceaseless dissensions of his descendants, aggravated by the ravages of the Northmen and Saracens, the church had to endure evils uncounted and indescribable. It is no wonder, therefore, that in her defenceless state she sought protection in exaggerating her claims to spiritual dominion, and that she endeavored to awe the lawless nobles, who scoffed at her censures, by claiming more and more the right to invoke the temporal power for their enforcement. Already, in 789, the canons of Ingilrain had proclaimed that any monarch or potentate was anathema and accursed in the sight of God who permitted the censures of the canons to be disregardced;3 and those' Episc. Relat. de Exauctor. Iludow. (Migne's Patrolog. T. XCVII. pp. 659-64). —Agobardi Opp. pp. 319-23 (Ed. Migne). Astron. Vit. Ludov. Pii, ann. 834. I3 ngilrlsmni cap. 80 (HIartzheim Concil. German. I. 258).-Cf. Capitul. Lib. vi. c. 321. 322;EXCOMMUNICATION. who were so busy in fabricating the Isidorian forgeries were not litlely to lose sight of the importance of thus strengthening themselves by what was left of the central authority. In the capitularies of Benedict the Levite, we therefore find abundant traces of the evils of the time and of the means by which a remedy was sought. As might be expected, the most prominent position is accorded to the wrongs inflicted on the church when her rich and extensive possessions lay exposed defenceless to the cupidity of every petty chieftain who might choose to occupy her lands or gather her harvests. Accordingly this sacrilege is denounced with. an endless iteration which shows at once the extent of the evil and the inefficacy of the remedy; and the manner in which the royal power is constantly invoked to enforce respect for the anathema which was the church's only weapon of defence, proves how little it was regarded by the rude warriors trained in the bloody civil wars of the period, when any lingering reverence for holy things nust have been sadly shaken by witnessing the success of the pagan and infidel invaders, whose blows ever fell heaviest on monastery and cathedral.' The less the church was respected, therefore, the more clamorous became her demands for respect. All who refused canonical obedience to their bishops were declared excommunicate;2 no one while under the ban was to be allowed to appear before a secular tribunal either as witness or party to a suit; and if he made light of the anathema he was to be exiled, that he might be powerless to harass the ministers of God.3 Another passage de-, See Capitul. Lib. vi. cap. 370, 381, 390, 392, 394, 395, 402, 404, 405, 406, 407, 427, 428, 431; Lib. vII. cap. 275, 409, 411, 420, 421; Addit. Iv. cap. 84, etc. For an account of the unbridled rapine to which the church was subjected, see the piteous supplication of the bishops to Charles-le-Chauve at the council of Verneuil, in 845.-Carol. Calvi Capit. Tit. III. cap. 12 (Baluz. II. 13-14). *2 Capitul. Lib. vI. cap. 78. 3 Capitul. Lib. vII. cap. 213.-Baluze cites Pope Stephen in support of this, but I can find no parallel passage in the Pseudo-Stephani Epist. CHIURCH AND STATE. 323 clares, in the name of the monarch, that if any criminal is contumacious or disobedient to the sentence of his bishop, or priest, or archdeacon, all his property shall be seized by the count and the agent of the bishop, until he submits to canonical penance. If still obstinate, the count shall throw him into a dungeon and keep him in the sternest imprisonment until the bishop orders his release; while if the count neglect or refuse this duty, he shall be excommunicated until he performs it; and if this is insufficient, ihe shall be deprived of both station and comunmnion, and be brought before the emperor, whose power, conjoined with the episcopal authority, shall inflict such exemplary chastisement that none shall hereafter dare to commit such offen ces.l It is evident, indeed, that something besides the terrors of mere spiritual censures was requisite, when even ecclesiastics came to disregard them, and they had to be supplemented or supplanted by punishments which appealed to the senses. Thus drunken clerks were ordered to be coerced either by excomlmunication for forty days or by corporal chastisement; those who wandered over the country without commendatory le.tters were to be excommunicated, and, if insensible to this, were to be whipped; and the lazy ones who were tardy in performing their sacred flnctions had the alternative of excommunication or a beating.2 A shrewder penalty for such contempt is to be found in a decree which apparently relates to a case in which a man produced a title to some lands claimed by the church. As he disregarded the excommunication launched at him it is declared that lie shall forfeit the deed under which lie holds, and that any ecclesiastic 1ay appear against him in court and reclaiimi the lands with all the mnesne profits.3 In Capitul. Lib. vii. cap. 432; Addit. III. cap. 123, Capitul. Lib. vII. cap. 218, 269.-Capit. Herard. Archiepisc. Turon. cap. 131 (Baluz. T. 685). 3Capitul. Addit. Iv. cap. 59.-This is attributed in the text to Gelasius, but such a passage may be looked for in vain amLong the epistles of that pope. 324 EXCOMMUNICATION. fact, amid the turbulence of the period, excomlmunicatioLns were becoming so common that they inevitably lost at least a portion of their moral influence. Thus John VIII., whose pontificate extended from 872 to 882. has left on record 382 epistles, and of these no less than one hundred and fifty allude with more or less directness to the anathema which they inflict, threaten, or refer to. Very few of these exertions of the supreme authority of the Vicar of Christ have any bearing on the interests of religion. The political intrigihes of the day, the temporal possessions of the church, or the subordination of the hierarchy are in almost all instances the objects of the anathema. How the awful authority over the souls of men was degraded to the level of the pettiest interests is seen when some audacious scoundrels stole the horses of the pope during his progress through France. He promptly excoimmunicates the unknown thieves unless the beasts shall be returned within three days, and he takes advantage of the opportunity to include in the curse some knaves who had previously pilfered his plate while staying at the abbey of Flavignyas he shrewdly suspects, with the connivance of the holy monks there.1 That bishops were not disinclined to follow the example of their chief and to use their control over salvation for their personal benefit is apparent from the treatment of royalty in Wales about this time. Tewdwr King of Brecknock profanely stole Bishop Libiau's dinner from the abbey of Llancore, when the angry prelate excoimmunicated him and exacted an enormous fine as the price of reconciliation; and when Brochmael, King of Gwent, and his family were anathematized by Bishop Cyfeiliawg for some personal offence, the fee for removing the censure was a plate of pure gold the size of the bishop's face.2 A power so persistently and so ignobly abused requires something more than merely moral force to insure respect and obedience. Johann. PP. VIII. Epist. 127. Haddan and Stubbs's Councils of Gr. Britain, I. 207-8. CH-CURCH AND STATrE. 325 While, in the Carlovingian Empire, the church clamored to the state for support and protection, the monarchy, in even worse plight, clung closer to the church, in the vain hope of preserving its rapidly ebbing strength by a union with the spiritual power. Its inevitable policy under the circumstances was to enhance that power as far as possible with a view to curb the rising independence of the nobles. In the wild struggle of contending forces the monarchy virtually disappeared to emerge again in the form of a feudal lord paramount. The church maintained its organization; the powers conferred on it, however useless at the moment, were jealously treasured in its archives and became its imprescriptible rights, so that when the reconstruction of society began they were its most efficient weapons in controlling feudal noble and feudal king —a result, unexpected by either party, which lends an interest to the apparently fruitless struggles of the descendants of Charlemagne. With the partition of the empire there arose a new necessitv which soon made itself felt, of guarding against the immunity of criminals who might escape from one kingdom to another. Accordingly the sons of Louis-leDe'bonnaire entered into conventions providing for the extradition of fugitive malefactors, and in these the spiritual tribunals were amply taken care of. If any one guilty of public crime took refuge in another state to avoid excommunication, or after excommunication to avoid penitence, his bishop was empowered to make direct application to the king of the refugee's new country, who was thereupon bound to diligently make search for him, and when foundl to deliver him to his bishop that the penitence might be enforced.' The bishops thus were recognized by interConventus apud Marsnam ann. 851, cap. 5 (Baluz. II. 32). —Conventus apud Confluentes ann. 860, cap. 5 (Ibid. p. 95). —Cf. Synod. Ravennat. ann. 877, can. xi. (Harduin. T. VI. P. I. p. 187). 28 326 EXCOMMU NICATION. national law as possessed of an independent jurisdiction, which was bounded only by the limits of Catholic Christendomr, and they were elevated to the position of public officers whose writs were to be respected abroad as well as at home, without the intervention of the representative of the state. The importance of such a concession to the independence of the hierarchical organization call hardly be overestimated in its results. When a serf refused to undergo penitence, the bishop was empowered to beat him with rods until he should submit, and his master, if he interfered, incurred not only excommunication but heavy fines to the royal fisc.l The counts and other public officers were directed everywhere to accompany the bishops in their diocesan visitations, and when the prelates were unable to correct offences by excommunication, the civil officials were ordered to exercise the plenitnde of the royal authority to reduce the offenders to penitence and satisfaction.2 So clearly did the duty of the state to enforce excommunication become recognized under the o07eration of these and similar enactments that, in the sharp letter addressed in 858 by the Neustrian Bishops to Louis-le-Germanique during his brief usurpation of France, they request him to order the nobles, who by their crimes have incurred excommunication, to render due satisfaction to the churches where they have sinned, so that the bishops may absolve them; and if he or his courtiers have been infected by communing with these criminals, due penitence is indicated for the monarch and his followers.3 Year by year the royal power grew less able to control the anarchical elements of society, and, as the strength to enforce the secular law declined, it relied more and more Carol. Calvi Capit. ann. 853, Tit. xI. cap. 9 (Baluz. II. 39).-Ejusd. ann. 868, Tit. xxxviiI. cap. 9 (Ibid. p. 141). 2 Loc. cit. cap. 10 (Baluz. II. 40, 142). Carol. Calvi Capit. ann. 858, Tit. xxvii. cap. 13 (Baluz. II. 78). CHURCH AND STATE. 327 on what little respect remained for the censures of the church. In the Capitulary of Pistes, issued in 862, Charlesle-Chauve draws a fearful picture of the rapine and clesolation which pervaded every quarter of his dominions, and, with a brave assertion of the authority which he knew was contemned by every petty chieftain, he ordered that by the first day of the following October all spoliation and robbery and murder should cease. Such malefactors as did not by that time reform and undergo the penitence clue for their past misdeeds he commanded to be brought before him, or their possessions to be seized and themselves to be excommunicated by the bishops. He recognized the rising strength of feudalism by holding the nobles responsible for the submission of their vassals and retainers to the penitence to be imposed on them, and if they did not bring their men to the bishops for that purpose they were themselves to be excommunicated. Moreover, if any should prove so hardened as to be insensible to the fear of God, contemning the authority of the church and the power of the crown, he proclaimed that they were by the sacred canons cut off from the society of Christians and from the church on earth and in heaven, and that, as enemies of God and the church, they should be persecuted by the royal authority and by all good subjects until driven from the kingdom.1 This curious commingling of secular and spiritual punishments, and the prominence accorded to the latter, show the fearful perplexities of the monarch and the desperation with which he sought the aid of the church in the impossible task of resisting the inevitable tendencies of the age. The crown and the mitre had alike proved false to the trust confided to them. They had been weighed and found wanting, and the closest alliance they might form could no 1 Carol. Calvi Capit. ann. 862, Tit. xxxiv. cap. 3, 4 (Baluz. II. 109-12). Cf. Capit. Tit. xxIII. cap. 7, ann. 857 (p. 61). 328 EXCOMMUNICAT ION. longer control the lawless ferocity which their selfishness and greed had allowed to become the dominant element of the time. Still they fought the losing battle as gallantly as though they could expect to win, and year by year Charles leaned more upon his clergy for the support which he could look for nowhere else. In the Edict of Pistes, for instance, in 864, in issuing a new coinage and threatening punishment for its rejection, he instructs his bishops to watch, through their priests, that the penalty is duly inflicted, and to report to him all cases of non-compliance. In renewing, also, the laws against the use of false measures, he adds that offenders, after undergoing the legal punishment, shall be subjected to the further sentence of their bishops, as it is a crime equivalent to usury and denounced by God and the church.l All this proves that the administration of the secular law was becoming so disorganized that Charles could rely upon it no longer, and that he vainly endeavored to supplement it by means of the clergy. This tendency continued to increase, and twenty years later an edict of his grandson, Carloman, indicates that the hierarchy had become almost the only instrument through which the nominal ruler could hope to influence his subjects. As a preventive of robbery it is ordered that all priests shall offer free hospitality to wayfarers, and shall instruct their parishioners to do likewise, and that supplies shall not be charged to travellers at more than the market price —the priests agoain being the inspectors to see that the law is obeyed, and to entertain all appeals from travellers complaining of extortion. The same edict contains an eloquent description of the all-pervading rapine and spoliation which devastated the country, and now at length the royal power confesses its utter impotence. The bishops alone are relied upon to cure the incurable by summoning the offenders to repentCarol. Calvi Capit. Tit. xxxvI. cap. 15, 20. (Baluz. II. 122-4)o CHURCH AND STATE. 329 ance and 1punishing the contumacious by excommunication. There is scarcely a pretence of threatening the incorrigible with the king's authority, but the laity and the public officials are conjured, by the love of God and their fidelity to the throne, to support the bishops when called upon.1 The rapid progress of decentralization had disintegrated the work of Charlemagne, and his. descendant was a king only in name. As the sovereign disappeared, feudalism and the church were left face to f-ace. Yet to the last the crown asserted its traditional control over the mitre. In 860 Charles-le-Chauve still undertook to regulate the use of excommunication by forbidding his bishops from employing it without first summoning the offender to repentance and amendment, and calling upon the civil power to enforce the summons. It was only after these formalities had been resorted to and found insufficient that the prelate was at liberty to eject the obdurate sinner firom the church.2 Nine years later he repeated these commands with additional details; ancl he ordered further that those who were unjustly condemned by their bishops should appeal to him, when, if injustice were proved, the prelate should be amerced according to the laws of Charlemagne anrd Louis-le-DebonnLaire.3 This right of appeal was the necessary consequence of the intervention of the secular power, for the church was as yet not so absolute as to be able to call upon the state for assistance without thereby authorizing the state to investigate the cases for which its aid was invoked. In a modified form, indeed, the royal prerogative had long been held to possess the power of annulling excomlmunication. In 681, the twelfth council of Toledo deprecates the incongruity of seeing those with whom the king was pleased to Carolomanni Capit. ann. 884, Tit. IIi. cap. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 (Baluz. II. 195-8). J Carol. Calvi Capit. ann. 860, Tit. xxxI. cap. 6 (Baluz. II. 95). 3 Carol. Calvi Capit. ann. 869, Tit. XL. cap. 7, 10 (Baluz. II. 144-5). 330 EX COMMUNIC ATION. associate remain under the ban of the church. It therefore orders that whoever is received and pardolled by the king, and admitted to his table, shall not be refused communion by the church.l This rule prevailed extensively and long remained in force. At the close of the eleventh century, Ivo of Chartres includes it in his Decretum as borrowed from the Capitularies (Lib. v. cap. 383), though it is not to be found there. He considers it good law, submits to it himself in one case, and counsels submission to it in another;2 and a century earlier Gerbert of Aurillac alludes to its being invoked by Arnoul of Rheims.3 If, during these civil dissensions and their attendant anarchy, the church suffered fearfully in person and property, it yet had ample opportunity of storing up precedents of the gravest moment for its future supremacy. Its alliance with the state was to enure solely to its own advantage, and its gifts, like the poisoned shirt of Nessus, were destined to plague the receiver. Thus, when in 876 John VTIII. assumed the prerogative of bestowing the imperial crown on Charles-le-Chauve, in return for the perilous and delusive honor which he bestowed, he received a most substantial advantage, for Charles proclaimed the supremacy of the See of Rome, acknowledged its right to exercise pastoral care over all the churches, and pledged himself that it should be obeyed by them in all things.4 John was not long in stretching to the utmost this indefinite authority, for in 878, when he presided over the synod of Troyes, Sigebod, Archbishop of Narbonne, called his attention to the Wisigothic code, which omitted to provide any Concil. Toletan. XII. ann. 681, can. 3. 2 Ivon. Decret. P. xvI. cap. 344.-Epist. 62, 171. That the custom should remain in force at this period shows that it could coexist with the wildest pretensions of theocratic supremacy.' Gerberti Epist. Supplem. Epist. 1. (Migne's Ptatrolog. T. 139, p. 265.) 4 Synod. Ticinens. ann. 876, cap. 1, 2. (Baluz. II. 163.) CHIURCH AND STATE. 331 special penalty for the sacrilege of spoiling the church, and which, mioreover, declared that no court should entertain a complaint for offences not therein enumerated, the consequence of which was that the church was left to the ordinary protection of the law. To remove this incongruity, the pope thereupon issued in his own name an order extending over the Gothic races in Aquitaine and Spain the Carlovingian penalty of thirty pounds of pure silver for all offences of the kind.l Yet the man who thus assumed this enormous power over Christendomn, had so little real independence at home, that in this same year, 878, we find Lambert, Duke of Spoleto, asserting that the papacy had no right to send envoys abroad without his permission.2 From the same transaction between Charles-le-Chauve and John VIII., there arose another novel precedent, which foreboded the ultimate triumph of the church over the state. Seven years before, when the miserable Lothair of Lotharingia died, in 869, without legitimate issue, his uncles Charles-le-Chauve and Louis-le-Germanique had made haste to divide his spoils. His brother, the Emperor Louis II., however, claimed that the kingdom had been bequeathed to him, and his power in Italy made it not difficult for him to secure for his pretensions the support of the papacy. Adrian II. accordingly interfered, threatened with excommunication all who should lay hands on the heritage, or should render allegiance to the usurpers, and wrote to Hincmar of Rheims, ordering him to excommunicate his sovereign if he should dare to disobey the mandate. Hincemar's reply to this assumption of supremacy is couched in terms of scantest courtesy. The kingdoms of earth, he reminds the pope, are obtained by battle, and not by the excommunications of pope or bishop; the Frankish warriors are not disposed to regard the successor' Confirmat. Legis Caroli (Baluz. II. 190). 2 Johann. PP. VIII. Epist. 104. 332 EXC O MMUNIATION. of St. Peter as both king and pontiff, or to admit that he has any control over their allegiance, nor do they believe that their chances of heaven depend upon their selecting their king at his bidding, for an illegal excommunication injures only him who utters it, and it is unseemly in a bishop to deprive a Christian of the sacraments for the purpose of transferring a kingdom from one monarch to another.' This was good canonical doctrine, but when Charles, at the death of Louis II., sought the imperial crown, which chanced to be virtually at the disposal of the pope, he was willing to admit all the claims of the church, in the vain hope of acquiring additional support for the precarious dignity; and with blind infatuation he sought and obtained the interference of the papacy in the relations between sovereign and subject. In the Roman synod of 877, which confirmed his election as Emlperor, Pope John VIII. gratified him by anathematizing with a per)etual curse all who should dare to resist his authority or dispute his title, and the synod unanimously responded "' So be it!"?' Charles gained nothing by thus inviting and acknowledging the supreme jurisdiction of the church over the allegiance of nations, but the precedent which he thus established held good. However much he may at the moment have rejoiced in the additional guarantee of the imperial crown, he found that in effect it availed him little, when the approach of his nephew Carloman at the head of a German army sent him flying homewards to perish miserably in a peasant's hut among the Alps, almost before the echoes of the clergy's 6 Fiat, fiat, fiat!" had died away. For five hundred years afterwards. however, succeeding emperors learned the full significance of the interference of the church between the monarch and his subjects, when they found that the allegiance which could be enforced by ex1 incmari Remuens. Epist. 27. 2 Sylnod. Roman. ann. 877 (HIarduin. T. VI. P. I. p. 184). THE CHURCH AND FEUDALISM. 333 communication could likewise be abrogated by the same means. What the church could give, the church could take away, and the heedless recipients of her gifts could only hold them on the tenure of obedience. THE CHURCH AND FEUDALISM. As the royal authority crumbled and was virtually lost in the anarchy which gave birth to feudalism, the church was left, without protection, to defend itself as best it could, from the endless and all-pervading assaults of the local tyrants whose power was the reward of lawless audacity. This life-and-death struggle and its influence on the character of the ecclesiastical body are fairly illustrated by the circumstances attending the murder of Fulk, Archbishop of Rheims, in the year 900. In 893, Baldwin-le-Chauve of Flanders had endeavored to get possession of the celebrated and wealthy abbey of St. Bertin, but Fulk manaoged to forestall him, caused himself to be elected, and refused to surrender it. For seven years Baldwin dissembled his disappointment, but at length, in the year 900, he dispatched a knight named Winemar to Fulk and Charles-le Simple to negotiate for the abbey, but Fulk refused to listen to any propositions, and Charles, who owed his crown to Fulk, declined to interfere. Winemar, stung by his ill success, lay in wait for Fulk on his return to Rheims, June 17th, and slew him. His successor Hervey was consecrated without loss of time on July 6th, and the bishops assembled at the ceremony thus excommunicated Winemar, with Everard, Ratfrid, and his other accomplices in the bloody sacrilege" In the name of God, and by the power of the Holy Ghost, and the authority divinely granted to bishops by Peter, chief of the 334 EXCOMMUINICATIONo Apostles, we separate them from the bosom of holy mother church, and condemn them with the anathema of the eternal curse, that they may have no help of man nor any converse with Christians. Let them be accursed in the city and accursed in the country. Accursed be their barns and accursed their bones; accursed be the seed of their loins and the seed of their lands, their flocks of sheep and their herds of cattle. Accursed be they in their entering and in their outgoing. Be they accursed at home and homeless elsewhere. Let them strain out their bowels and die the death of Arius. Upon their heads fall all the curses with which God through His servant Moses threatened the transgressors of the divine law. Let theml be anathema maranatha, and let them perish in the second coming of the Lord; and let them, moreover endure whatever of evil is provided in the sacred canons and the apostolic decrees for murder and sacrilege. Let the righteous sentence of divine condemnation consign them to eternal death. Let no Christian salute them. Let no priest say Mass for them, nor in sickness receive their confession, nor, unless they repent, grant them the sacrosanct colmulunion even on their death-bed. But let them be buried in the grave of an ass, and rot in a dunghill on the face of the earth, that their shame and malediction may be a warning to present and future generations. And, as these lights which we now cast from our hands are extinguishecd, so may their light be quenched in eternal darkness."' Before we utterly condemn the hideous ferocity of the curse thus belched forth in the name of the Redeemer, we should give fair consideration to the rage and fear which prompted it, and which justified it as fully as so foul an abuse of powers assumed from God could be justified. That the church was unarmed and defenceless except in so far as it could by means like this strike terror into the breasts of savages was shown by the result. The bishops, feeling the impotence of their own wrath, procured in addition for the murderers a special excommunication from the Holy See itself; but Winemar laughed both to scorn, boasted of his deed as a proof of his fidelity to his suzerain, and took no pains to procure absolution, which shows that his lord Baluz. II. 463-4. THE CHURCH AND FEUDALISM. 335 and his associates paid no heed to the injunctions of the anathema. Nay, more; Fulk had been the tried and trusted friend of Charles-le-Simple, who owed to him his throne; yet when Baldwin of Flanders claimed of him the coveted abbey, rendered vacant by this murderous deed, Charles dared not refuse it to his powerful vassal, and St. Bertin became hereditary in the House of Flanders, like any other fief.l Much may be forgiven to men whose profession forbade recourse to force in an age when force was the only law respected; and yet Charity herself might well stand aghast to see those who represented on earth the Gospel of love unpack their hearts with curses so heartily that they seem enamored of the opportunity to consign their fellow-beings to ruin in this world and to perdition in the next. In the following formula, for instance, there is a richness of imagination and a particularity of detail which show that its author fairly revelled in his power of malediction, and rolled as a sweet morsel under his tongue every torment which he invoked upon his victim. It was not called forth by the exigencies of a supreme occasion, such as the murder of Fulk, but was a general form of malediction for petty thieves and similar malefactors. " By the authority of God the omnipotent Father, and of tle Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and of the sacred canons, and of tl holy and unsullied Virgin Mary the Mother of God, and of all thf heavenly Virtues, Angels, Archangels, Thrones, DominationS Po.wers, Cherubim and Seraphim, and of the holy Patriarchs, Pro phets, and all the Apostles and Evangelists, and of the holy Inno Chron. S. Bertin. cap. xx. pp. 1, 3; cap. xxI. p. 1 Folquin. Cartul. S. Bertin. c. 68. It is true that Richerus (Lib. I. cap. 18) chronicles the terrible death of Winemar as a judgment from heaven to repair the injustice of man; but though he is a good authority for the events of the end of the tenth century, the silence of the special historians of the abbey is, I think, sufficient evidence that his story is merely one of the customary legends so numerous at that period when spiritual terrorism was the only substitute'or law. 336 EXCOMMUNICATION. cents who alone are worthy in the sight of the Lamb to sing the new song, and of the holy martyrs and the holy confessors and the holy virgins and of all the saints and elect of God, we excommunicate and anathematize this thief, or this malefactor, and we expel him from the holy church of God, that he may be delivered over to eternal torment with Dathan and Abiram and with those who cried to the Lord God,'Away from us, we wish not to know Thy ways.' And as fire is quenched with water, so may his light be quenched for ever and ever, unless he repent and render full satisfaction. Amen. Be he accursed of God the Father, who created man; accursed of God the Son, who suffered for man; accursed of the Holy Ghost which cometh in baptism; accursed of the Holy Cross which the triumphant Christ ascended for our salvation; accursed of the Holy Virgin Mary, the Mother of God; accursed of St. Michael, the receiver of blessed souls; accursed of the angels and archangels, the princes and powers, and all the hosts of heaven; accursed of the worthy legion of Prophets and Patriarchs; accursed of St. John, the forerunner and baptizer of Christ; accursed of St. Peter and St. Paul and St. Andrew, and all the apostles of Christ, and the other disciples, and the Four Evangelists who converted the world; accursed of the wonder-working band of martyrs and confessors whose good works have been pleasing to God; accursed of all the holy virgins who have shunned the world for the love of Christ; accursed of all the Saints, beloved of God, from the beginning even unto the end of the world; accursed of heaven and of earth and of all that is holy therein. Let him be accursed wherever he be, whether at home or abroad, in the road or in the path, or in the wood, or in the water, or in the church. Let hinm be accursed living and dying, eating, drinking, fasting or athirst, slumbering, sleeping, waking, walking, standing, sitting, lying, working, idling, —, -, and bleeding. Let him be accursed in all the forces of his body. Let him be accursed outside and inside; accursed in his hair and accursed in his brain; accursed in the crown of his head, in his temples, in his forehead, in his ears, in his brows, in his eyes, in his cheeks, in his jaws, in his nostrils, in his front teeth, in his back teeth, in his lips, in his throat, in his shoulders, in his upper arms, in his lower arms, in his hands, in his fingers, in his breast, in his heart, in his stomach and liver, in his kidneys, in his loins, in his hips, in his —, in his thighs, in his knees, in his shins, in his feet, in his toes, and in his nails. Let him be accursed in every joint of his body. Let there be no health in him, from the crown of his head to the sole of his foot. May THE CHIURCIH AND FEIUDALISiM. 337 Christ, the Son of the Living God, curse him throughout His kingdom, and may H-Ieaven with all its Virtues rise up against him to his dalmnation, unless lie repents and renders due satisfaction. Amen. So be it. So be it. Amnen!1 This would seem to exhaust every possible resource of malediction, and yet the infinite variety with which the church could invoke thle anger of heaven upon her oppressors is shown in another excomlmunicationlaunched about the year 1014, by Benedict VIII. against some reckless vassals of William II. Count of Provence, who were endcleaoring to-obtain from the latter the grant of certain lands claimed by the celebrated monastery of St. Gilles. aWithout being quite as formal and precise in its details of cursing as the foregoing, there is a bold comprehensiveness of imaginations about it which befits the supreme head of Christianity, while it is by no mleans lacking in hearty vigor of imprecation. After excommunicating in general terms and consigning to Satan the audacious men who thus sought to lay unhallowed hands upon the possessions of the church, the pope proceeds"Let them be accursed in their bodies, and let their souls be delivered to destruction and perdition and torture. Let them be damned with the damlned: let them be scourged with the ungrateful: let them perish with the proud. Let them be accursed wTith the Jews who, seeing the incarnate Christ, did not believe but sougoht to crucify Him. Let them be accursed with tile heretics who labored to destroy the church. Let theim be accursed with those who blaspheme the namle of God. Let theml be accursed with those who despair of the mercy of God. Let them be accursed with those who lie dalnecl in 1Hell. Let tliem be accursed with the impious and sinners unless they amnendc their ways, and confess themselves in fault towards St. Giles. Let them be accursed in the four quarters of the earth. In the East be they accursed, and in the West disinherited; in the North interclicted, and in the South excommunicate. Be they accursed in the day-time and exconlmu1 Baluz. II. 469-70.-This is the curse of Ernuliphus, well known to,l11 Shlhandeanns. Sterne probably obtained it fromn Spelna.n (Glossmar. s. v. ExconmnunicLtio). 29 338 EXCOMMXUN ICATION. nicate in the night-time. Accursed be they at home and excolimun nicate abroad; accursed in standing and excommunicate in sitting; accursed in eating, accursed in drinking, accursed in sleeping, and excommunicate in waking; accursed when they work and excommunicate when they rest. Let them be accursed in the spring-time and excommunicate in the summer; accursed in the autumn and excommunicate in the wvinter. Let tlhem be accursed in this world and excommunicate in the next. Let their lands pass into the hands of the stranger, their wives be given over to perdition, and their children fall before the edge of the sword. Let what they eat be accursed, and accursed be what they leave, so that he who eats it shall be accursed. Accursed and excommunicate be the priest who shall give them the body and blood of the Lord, or who shall visit them in sickness. Accursed and excommunicate be he who shall carry them to the grave and shall dare to bury them. Let theml be excommunicate and accursed with all curses if they do not make amends and render due satisfaction. AnLd know this for truth, that after our death no bishop nor count, nor any secular power shall usurp the seigniory of the blessed St. Giles. And if any presume to attempt it, borne down by all the foregoing curses, they never shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, for the blessed St. Giles comlittecd his monastery to the lordship of the blessed Peter."' Hardened sinners might make light of these impreca_ tions, but their effect on believers was necessarily unutterable, when, amid the gorgeous and impressive ceremonial of worship, the bishop, surrounded by twelve priests bearing flaming candles, solemnly recited the awful words which consigned the evil-doer and all his generation to eternal torment with such fearful amplitude and reduplication of malediction, and, as the sentence of perdition came to its climax, the attending priests simultaneously cast their candles to the ground and trod them. out as a symbol of the quenching of a human soul in the eternal night of hell. To this was added the expectation, amounting almost to a certainty, that I-Heaven would not wait for the natural course of events to confirm the judgment thus pronounced, but that the maledictions would be as effective in this world as in the next. Those whom spiritual terrors could not Benedict. PP. VIII. Epist. 32 (Migne's Patrol. T. 139, pp. 1630-2). TIHE COIURCIH AND FEUDALISM. 339 subdue thus were daunted by the fearful stories of the judlgment overtaking the hardened sinner who dared to despise the dread anathema. Long before Otho the Great had lain in his grave a hundred years, after a life and death of publicity inseparable from his position as the leading character of the teLth century, men related with horror how he had violated the laws of spiritual affinity by marryin g his gossip, Adelaide, Queen of Italy; how his natural sonl, William, Archbishop of MIainz, had boldly taken him to task for this incestuous union and had been thrown into a dungeon by the angrTy father; how wheln released the son had, in obedience to his duty, excommunicated that father at Easter, and solemnly warned him that by Pentecost God should judge between them; how the Emperor disregarded the sentence, and how, on the high feast of the appointed dclay, in his imperial robes and surrounded by his splendid court, he was assisting at nmass, when the avenging Deity summoned him to the judgment-seat, and prelate and noble stood aghast at finding their master clead without a sign.' The infallibility of a pope declared that the excommunicate could not obtain victory in battle or prosperity in this world;2 and if these temporal visitations were insufflcient to curl)b a hardened generation, there was the evidence of the holy virgin Herluca, to whom the secrets of this world and the next were freely revealed, and who learned in one of her visions that the nmost terrible fire in hell was reserved for those who died unreconciled of excommunication.3 It was not difficult, therefore, to add the spice of mliracle to the celebrated case of the excommunication of Robert the Pious of France, who committed, in 995, the indiscretion, attributed to Otho the Great, of transgressing the limits of affinity, spiritual and carnal, in marrying his second cousin Bertha, widow of Odo, Count of Blois, whose son he had held in baptism. Already he was regarded in 1 Pet. Damiani Opusc. xxxiv. cap. vii. 2 Gregor. PP. VII. Regist. Lib. vi. Epist. xvi. Paul. IBernried. Vit. 1lerlumc Virgin. cap. 25. 340 EXCOMMUNICATION..Rome with little favor, for one of the incidents of the Capetian revolution had been the deposition and incarceration, in 991, of Arnoul, Archbishop of Rheims, halfbrother of Louis-le-Faineant, the last Carlovingian, for assisting his uncle, Charles of Lorraine, in an unsuccessful attempt to resist the usurpation.' Although the proceedings of the council of St. Baseul had been nominally regular, they were somewhat violent in fact; the immunity of the ecclesiastical body had been violated, but the new dynasty was not as yet secure enough to be magnanimous, and Arnoul languished in prison for six years, while Gerbert of Aurillac occupied his priimatial seat in spite of remonstrance. The prelates concerned were summoned to the synod of Pavia to answer for their conduct, but they prudently held aloof; and when Gregory V. ascended the pontifical throne, one of his first acts, in 996, was to suspenl them, at a synod held in Rome, and to threaten an anathema on the whole of Prance. Alarmed at these demonstrations, and anxious about the objectioins made to his marriage with Bertha, Robert dispatched St. Abbo of Fleury to the pope, in the hope of obtaining terms. Gregory at that time had been driven out of R ome by Crescentins, and the excommunication which he had launched at his enemy had been met by the installation of an antipope; but the little consideration which he enjoyed at homne did not abate his tone of command abroad. 1H-e was inflexible, and Abbo returned without accomplishing the object of his mission. Hoping' to obtain the confirmation of his marriaoe, Robert yielded. The dreaded Carlovingian was transferred from the dungceon of Orleans to the archiepiscopal throne of lRheims, and Gerbert was ejected, to be gratified with the see of Ravenna, from which in a few years he was elevated to the papacy.' Robert's subiission gained him little. The pope who in Acta Concil. Basoliens. Udalr. ]3abenb. Cod. Lib. II. cap. 2.-Aimoini Vit.- S. Abbon. Floriac. cap. 11-12.-Muratori Annal. d'Italia ann. 997 —S. THE CHURCHI AND FEUDALISM. 341 exile found his thunders so effective was not likelv to be less aggressive when the arms of Otho III. had gratified him with the sight of Crescentius' headless trunk, and of his rival, the Antipope John, blinded, tongueless, and noseless, parading his misery through the streets of Rome, seated backwards on an ass, with its tail in his hands.l Hardly had he been restored to the Vatican when he summoned another synod, in 998, the first act of which ordered the separation of the incestuous couple, prescribed for them seven years of penitence, and threatened them with the dread anathema if they should dare to resist the decree. The bishop who had celebrated the marriage, and all the prelates who had consented to it, were, moreover, suspended firom communion until they should appear personally at Rome and render due satisfaction for their infraction of the canons. At the same time there was no pretence of* dethroning the obstinate king. It was reserved for another Gregory to develop such doctrines into practice; and a request from the synod that Robert should not aid Stephen of Puy, deposed for irregularity of election, shows that no interference was contemplated with the allegiance clue to him by his subjects.2 Robert's reverence for the church, his zealous performance of all his religious duties, and the humility and generosity of his charity gained for him, even during his lifetime, if we may believe his biographer Hielgaldus, the power of working miracles. Such a nature could not but be powerfully impressed with the awful sentence passed upon him by Rome, and the fearful alternative held out to him. Yet his love for Bertha held good against it all. EIe S. Pet. Dainiani Epist. 21, Lib. I. In these movements church and state were, as usual, inextricably mingled. Gregory's relationship to Otho III., and the audacious design of Crescentius to restore Italy to the domination of Constantinople, lent a sharper edge to the vengeance exacted by the spiritual and temporal heads of Christendom. 2 Concil. ulnman ann. 998, can. 1, 2, 8 (Harduin. T. VI. P. I. p. 756). 342 EXCOMMUNICATION. refused to part with her, and the dread excollmmunulicationl fell upon them both. Times ha(l changed since, a hundred years before, Inight ~Winenmar and his master Baldwin laughed to scorn the most elaborate cursing that France and Rome combined could pour upon them. IRobert's bishops hurried across the Alps and made their peace as best they might, and tradition relates that he and his queen, loving not wisely but too well, stood iforth as lepers Ipon whom the curse of Heaven had fallen. Gratitude for past favors, hopes of future benefits, were as nothing when the church had decreed the segregation of the hardened sinner; and courtier and parasite, friend and dependant, fell away from the infected presence of the exconimmiunicate. Two humble servants alone could be found to perform the most menial offices brinoingl them into contact with their master, and these were obliged to consign to the flames all the dishes used b y the royal pair, lest contamination should be conveyed to the other memlbers of the household.l It was impossible that Robert could remlain indefinitely under excommunication. Under the second of the I-louse of Capet the royal supremacy was too precarious to endure a violent and lolng-conti.nued strain and every nmotive of personal anmbition and state policy counselled submission. Resistance, indeed, would be fatal to all hopes of founding a dynasty; for when, to insure the fealty of the great barons, it was necessary for each king to crown his son durinog his own lifetime, there could be little hope of transmitting the throne to the offspring of a marriage thus condemoned as null and void; and, according to the manners of the age, the child of a concubine would have a better chance than the son of Queen Bertha. Yet Robert clung to his wife with wonderful pertinacity, and he remained for at least two years under the ban of the church befbre he 1 S. Pet. Daminni Opuse. xxxIv. cap. 6. It is of course impossible not to suspect Damiani of n, little righteous exaggeration in describing what ought to have been, rather than what really occurred. THE CIIURCHI AND FEUDALISM. 343 could resolve on a separation.' The unanswerable arguments of state policy, and the gradually increasing con-viction of the hopelessness of prolonged resistance, are armply sufficient to account for his final submission, though his biographer assures us that it was brought about by the reckless virtue of St. Abbo of Fleury, who, at the risk of his life, persisted in arraigning the wickedness of the king, in public and in private, until the sinner's resolution gave way, and he put aside the fair partner of his guilt.2 So simple an explanation, however, of a perfectly nat. ural result was not suited to the purposes of the church, and a miracle was invoked to manifest the anger of HIeaven at the incestuous u.nion1 and at the obstinacy of disobedience with which it was prolonged. Queen- Bertha gave birth to -a monster-a boy with the head and neck of a goose —and, appalled at this evidence of divine wrath, tlhe unhappy father and mother submitted to the decree of separation, underwent penance, and were reconciled to the triumphant church.3 The Eneimory of this prodigy was perpetuated ii the sight of the people by the statues of the Reine Pedauque-the queen with the goose's foot-w-hich einbellished the portals of so many of the churches of Fralnce. Even yet the watchful care of Heaven was not exhausted, and for many years it kept guard over the results of the victory. About fifteen years after marriage with his second wife, Constance of Provence, Robert made a pilgrimage to Rome, and was followed by Bertha, who still hoped that she mig'ht persuade the successor of St. Peter to restore her to her husband. When Constance heard of this desperate venture of her unhappy rival, she was consumed with' Some authorities have assumed that the divorce took place almost immediately, but the evidence collected. by Dom IMabillon (Bouquet, Rec. des lIist. X. 568-9) seems to me to justify the conclusion that it occurred not earlier than the year 1000, nor later than 1001. o Helgaldi Vit. Roberti Regis, cap. xvII. 3 S. Pet. Damiani loc. cit. —Frag. Eist. Franc, (Bouquet, X. 211), Dissert. sur la Ieine Pddauqcue (Bullet, Mythologie Francaise). 344 E:XCOMMUNICATION. anxiety lest it should prove successful, and at length in a vision she saw a man of venerable aspect, who assured her that she would soon be relieved of her grief, and, in answer to her inquiries, informed her that he was a bishop named Savinian. Before the third day was over, the king unexpectedly returned, as loving as ever; St. Savinian, a martyr till then lying unknown and unhonored in the cathedral of Sens, was gratified with a splendid shrine, and the lucky clerk who had been able to explain her dream, and direct her to the relics of her comforter, in due time became Bishop of Orleans.1 A cause which I-leaven thus manifestly made its own could not fail to prosper, and when the Franconian emperors had raised the papacy out of the mire into which it had been plunged by the House of Tusculum, the popes were prepared to exert their supremacy over princes and peoples with more energy than ever. For this they had full opportunity in the growing desire for law and order developed in the gradual reconstruction of European society as it emerged from the anarchy consequent upon the fall of the Carlovingian system. Christendom was no longer ravaged by the Hun, the Saracen, anid the Dane; feudalism was establishing a recognized code of jurisprudence, which, rude as it was, yet gave in theory to every main a place in the body politic, and rights which might be vindicated according to a settled form of procedure; and some limitations were even beginning to be placed on the perpetual scourlge of the petty seigniorial wars. As the elements of human society were thus painfully developing themselves into an organized system, the vast and indefinite claims of the church, presented in the False Decretals, and partially recognized in the expiring efforts of the later Carlovingian legislation, were pressed with lunfaltering' 1 Odortnni Chron. Continuat. (Bouquet, X. 166). THE CHUIJRC AND FEUDALISM. 345 vigor by the able men who occupied the pontifical throne after the middle of the eleventh century. It is no wonder that in such a state of things the trained and disciplined intellects of the church had a vast advantage over the rude intelligence of the feudal nobles. With a unity of purpose that made all its members work to a common end, and with a perseverance that no discouragement could baffle, the church pursued its aims undeviatingly. Where so many rival interests were ever seeking each other's destruction, it could always find an ally whenever it met with serious opposition; and that ally invariably found, sooner or later, that implicit obedience to its pretensions was rigorously exacted as the price of its assistance. Thus skilfully using the antagonism of conflicting interests to break down each in turn, it succeeded in moulding the plastic elements of civilization into a theocracy such as the world had never be-fore witnessed. This process is fairly illustrated by the vicissitudes of the protracted quarrel between Henry IVT. and the papacy, which show how the church carried on the apparently unequal contest, how it made use of the passions and ambitions of that turbulejlt time, and how terribly efficient was its single spiritual weapon -excommunication. The vigilant and resolute Emperor Henry III. had worn out his life in the effort to enforce order among his savage feucldatories. His early death left his son, Henry IV., an infant five years old, whom the wise caution of the father had crowned as his successor a year previous. Removed, a few years later, by a conspiracy between prelate and noble, from the tutelage of his mother Agnes to that of Albert the iMagnificentt, Archbishop of Bremen, the youth grew up with little trainingo in wisdom or self-control, even if his passions were not purposely led astray by those who found their account in rendering him unfit for his lofty station. The plot, moreover, which had displaced the Reg'ent Ag'nes, r1eived all the old ambitions which 346 EXCOMMUNICATION. HIenry III. had so sternly repressed; and when the young monarch's majority was declared, in his sixteenth year, lhe found himself without power or friends, confronted by a horde of turbulent princes who had sedulously taught him to regard them as his enemies. Forced by them to marry Bertha of Susa, he not unnaturally, in spite of her beauty and virtues, regarded her as the badge of his dependent position, and three years later he essayed to repudiate her. An assembly convened at Worms in 1069 received the suggestion with more than coldness, and postponed its discussion for six months. WVhen the adjourned Diet met again at Mainz, a legate of the pope was already there to prohibit the consummation of the project, and that legate was Peter Damiani, who was not likely to render his mission more acceptable by the imanner of its discharge. We have seen how the church acquired jurisdiction over the subject of marriage, and all history, from the time of Lothair and Teutberga to that of Henry VIII. and Katharine of Arragon, shows the immense influence which it thus obtained over the affairs of nations and of individuals. Damiani, accordingly, rebuked Henry without ceremony before the princes of the empile, and in a manner the most insulting to his pride as a man and his dignity as a mlonarch pronounced his project inadmissible, with the threat that if he persisted in it, he should vainly askl the imperial crown at the hands of the pope.l Thus humiliated and defeated in his dearest aspirations, Henry retired with rage in his heart, prepared to regard the church as an enemy to his person, as he had long since found it an enemy to his power. In 1073 the stern and vigorous Hildebrand succeeded to the pontifical throne, and lost no time in proclaiming war to the knife with the two pervading corruptions of the church-simony and the concubinage of the clergy. For Lambert. Hersfeld. ann. 1069. TItE CHURCH AND FEUDALISM. 347 some years Henry, who was maintaining a desperate struggle for life with his powerful and turbulent vassals, preserved the most friendly relations with the new pontiff, whose moral support was essential almost to his existence. At length, however, Gregory's reforming energy brought the two into unavoidable collision. Simonv was universal. From the highest to the lowest ecclesiastic, every piece of preferment, and almost every ministerial function, was bourght and sold more or less openly. Since the death of Henry III. this demoralizing traffic had been shamelessly prosecuted throughout Germany, for which Henry IV., as nlonarch, was nominally responsible, though in his utter powerlessness he had been helpless to prevent it, and the sordid gains had passed into other hands. Gregory VII., who for more than twenty years had been the leading spirit in the papal court, had had ample opportunity to note how impotent were the ordinary agencies of ecclesiastical discipline to eradicate this consuming evil, and he apparently arrived at the conclusion that, so long as the secular authorities enjoyed the privilege of conferring ecclesiastical benefices, it would be impossible to prevent their sale, direct or indirect. Having once reached this conviction he was not the iman to shrink from the means, however violent, that seemed likely to effect a radical cure. In a preceding essay we have seen how this right of investiture had for five hundred years been claimed and exercised by the sovereign with scarcely a question; and the immense extension of church property had by this time rendered the hierarchy an important portion of the feudal system, which could not be rendered independent of the lord l)aramount without striking an almost fatal blow at his power. Yet Gregory did not hesitate abruptly to abrogate the royal authority over the fiefs of the hierarchy without consultation or negotiation with those whose time-honored rights he abolished by a single word. That they did not submit without a contest was natural, and the portentous 348 EX COMM U NICAT TON. question of the investitures which he thus aroused filled Christendom with turmoil and bloodshed for many long and weary years. In February, 1075, Gregory assembled a synod in PRome, which adopted a canon forbidding for the future any ecclesiastic from receiving a bishopric, abbacy, or other preferment from the hands of a layman. All investitures thus conferred were declared null and void; the recipient was excomllmunicated, and the donor, whether emperor, duke, marquis, count, or other potentate, was involved in the same punishment.l By this one audacious stroke Gregory hoped to secure the independence of the church, so necessary to its unity and purity; and having once advanced the claim as an,mprescriptible right, he was prepared to stand by it with all his indomnitable pertinacity, regardless of opposition and careless of consequences. This defiance of the temporal power chanced to occur at a singularly inopportune moment. During the spring and summer of that year HIenry succeeded in uniting under his banner enough princes to unlertake a campaign against the chronic revolt of the Saxons, and the bloody victory of Hohenberg enabled him to feel for the first time that he was really a king. In the flush of his successes, with the Saxon princes, who had so long bearded him, confined in his dungeons, the support of the papacy seemed no longer necessary to save him firom destruction, and lie was little disposed to submit to these new pretensions, so arrogantly claiming to despoil himl of the rigllts uninterruptedly elnjoyed by all his predecessors. Still he shrank fi'om an1 open rupture, and contented himself with quietly disregarding the papal edict.;To gain the support of Gozelo, I)uke of Lower Lorraine, le gave the bishopric of Liege to Henry, a canon of Verdun, and a near relation to the I Hugon. Flaviniacens. Chron. Lib. II. ann. 1074. —Cf. Pagi Critica ann. 1075, No. 1. TIHE CHURCH AND FEUDALISM. 349 duke;' and his conduct with regard to the bishoprics of Italy was destructive to a cause dearer than perhaps any other to the heart of Gregory. For nearly twenty years the Milanese churchl had been distracted with. bloody factions arising from the papal efforts to deprive its clergy of the privilege of marriage; and at this moment Azzo, the archbishop recognized by the popes, was a refugee in Rome, while a rival archbishop, Gotefrido, also shut out fioml Milan, was carrying on a desultory warfare in the neighborhood. The city, moreover, lay under an interdict launched by Gregory himself in 1074. The effort to enforce this interdict at Easter, 1075, led to a bloody battle in the streets, in which the military leader of the papalists was slain; whereupon thle people, tired of the ceaseless broil, and disregoarding both their archbishops, sent a deputation to Henry, askingT him to appoint a third. This he promptly did, in the person of Tedaldo, who maintained possession of the see until his death, in 1085, exchangilng excommunications with Gregory, and proving the most dangerous opponent to his enterprises.' Henry could have clone nothing more aggravating than this to the personal pride or more damagingo to the politico-religious aspirations of the pontiff. The bishoprics of Fermo and Spoleto, moreover, becoming vacant, Henry filled them, as a matter of course, without even asking the assent of Rome; while bhe rich German abbeys and prelacies which fell in were >ccupied by his nominees, according to ancient usage. These irreconcilable pretensions could have but one result, and Gregory was not backward in provoking the hneritable conflict. Hardly able to maintain himself in Rome amid the agitations which pervaded the whole of [taly, he yet felt serenely secure in the protection of [leaven and the possession of irresistible power over the Lambert. TI-ersfeld. ann. 1075. o Arnulf. Gest. Episc. Mediol. Lib. III. cap. 23; Lib. iv. cap. 2, 3, 4, 5, 9.jandulf. Senior. Lib. 1II. cap. 29; Lib. Iv. cap. 2. 30 350 EXCO MM UNICATIO N. souls and consciences of men. Towards the close of the vear 1075 he therefore addressed an epistle to Henry which is a masterpiece of the peculiarly exasperating style in which the church was wont to inflict the cruelest blows in the guise of the most paternal care for the salvation of a sinner. Henry was informed that lie had incurred excommunication for not removing excomm-unicates from his court, but that he could still obtain pardon by obedience and by the performance of such penance as might be prescribed for him. His promises of filial respect for the church were contrasted with his action in the cases of Milan, Fermo, and Spoleto, which was pronounced illegal and void; the decree of the recent council respectinlo investitures was referred to and declared to be unalterable, but he was invited to send envoys to Rome, to see whether some device could be adopted to render its enforcement less unpalatable; and, finally, he was warned to compare his own transient glory with the infinite power of Heaven, and cautioned not to allow his pride at his victory over the Saxons to blind hinm to the duty which lhe owed to God, lest, like Saul, he might find it to cost him his throne.' Henry was holding his splendid Christmas court at Goslar, after the ancient fashion of the emperors, when Gregory's lecgates presented to him this portentous missive. It could only seem to hinm a piece of insane andI gratuitous insolence. In Germany he knew that thel clergy, from the lowest to the higohest, were in a state of almost open hostility to Rlome on account of Gregory's determined efforts to deprive thema of their wives and of the illicit gains of simony. In Italy he saw that, to the South, Robert Guiscard, being under excommunication, was apparently a mortal foe to the pope; in Rome itself Gregory's life had only been preserved as by a miracle fromn the audacious attempt of Cencio;2 while to the Northl Gregor. PP. VII. Regist. Lib. III. Epist. 10. 2 Paul. Bernried. Vit. Gregor. VT11 cap. 5. TIHE C —HURCH AND FEUDALISM. 351 tile Lombard clergy, headed by Tedaldo of Ailan, the second prelate of Christendom, were arrayed in open schism, and treated repeated excominunications with contempt. Himself, on the contrary, he believed to have at length overcome tile enemies who had so long baffled him. IHe was at last a king, not only in name but in reality, wirith all Glerlimany submissive at his feet. When therefore the legates pursued their mission by summoninpg hiim to trial at a council to be held in Rlome on the 22d of the approaching February, with the threat that if he failed to appear ihe should be cut off firoll the church with the dread aniathema: his indignation knew no bounds at so novel a pretension of supremacy. The legates were driven from the royal presence with insult and contumlely; and gIenry hastily summoned all the prelates of Germany to meet in council at WTornms on the 1st of February, to consult as to the deposition of a pope who could so mistake his position ancld exceed his powers.' The assembly met at thle appointed time and adopted a letter addressed to Gregory, stigmlatizing his election to the papacy as irregular and ille al, and recounmting the various ill-deeds and arbitrary usurpations by which he was endeavoring to reduce the church to slavery and had sucaceeded in filling it with confusion andl revolution. It is curious to observe thiat in thus formally withdrawing from his obedience, no niention is rmade of his attack upon the kingg, all the reasons alleged being purely the griefs of the church and the scandals iluputed to his daily life.2 This letter was sigined individually by all the prelates, although it is impossible to tell how many did so willing'ly, and how many under compulsion; certain it is that not a few lost no time in secretly commumnicating with the politiff, assturing him of their uinalterable fidelity and asserting that Lambert. Hersfeld. annn. 1076.-Goldast. Const. Imp. i. 235-6. Goidast. I. 2307. 352 EXCOMMUNICATION. tile fear of iimminent dea.th alone had forced their assent to a document so abominable.' Ignorant or unmindful of this hidden disaffection, Henry rushed forward to the conflict. In an angry letter to Gregory, he called upon the pope to come down from the sacred throne which he defiled, and promisecdthat shortly he would preside over the election of another pontiff who would fitly represent the church. Envoys were sent with copies of this to the schismatic prelates of Lombardy, who eagerly subscribed to theml; but the lnessenger sent in the name of all to lay these documents before the synod of Ilome and to summon the prelates there assembled to wait until Pentecost for the new pope to be nominated by Henry, barely escaped with his life, at the earnest interposition of Gregory himself.2 While Henry, in the fancied plenitude of his power, was thus disposing of the pontifical throne in anticipation, Gregory felt sure of his game. Far better than the king he knew the rmad ambitions and the sullen hate which devoured the princes of the empire, and which a word from him could rouse to destructive activity. That word was spoken. After excommunicating again all the schismatic bishops of Lombardy and significantly selecting Siegffiid of Miainz as the only German prelate to be assailed, tlhe Roman synod called upon the pope not only to cut off the impious Henry from the church, but also to deprive him of' Annalista Saxo ann. 1076. —Paul of Bernried (Vit. Gregor. cap. vii. No. 56) asserts positively that all who hesitated were threatened with death; while Limrbert of Hirschfeld (Annal. ann. 1076) asserts that all signed willingly, except Adalbero of Wurzburg and Hermann of Metz —whose names however are appended to the document as printed by Goldast. 2 Anna.lista Saxo ann. 1076.-At the council of Worms, Cardinal Hugo, then under papal excommunication, was present, as the representative of the Itaflian church, and assured the German prelates that all Italy was anxiously awaiting the expected signal to throw off Gregory's hateful yoke. -Paul. Bernried. Vit. Gregor. VII. cap. vii. No. 50-9. —La.mlbet. Iersfeld. ann. 1076. TIHE C-HIURCH AND FEUDALIS-M. 353 his kinngdom.n. Nothing loth, Gregory promptly fulminated the sentence which marks a new era in the relations between church and state. In its calm and self-reliant dignity it affords an instructive contrast to the ferocious maledictions of Hervey of IRheims and Benedict VII.'"0 blessed Peter, prince of Apostles, -we pray thee bend thy holy ears to us and hear me thy servant whom thou hast nourished fiom infancy and to tlhis day hast preserved fioom the wicked who have hated and hate me for my fidelity to thee. Thou art my witness, and my lady the Mother of God, and the blessed Paul thy brother, and all the saints, that thou diclst place the government of thy holy Ronman church in mny unwilling hands, and that I did not force myself into thy seat, but rather wished to end my days in pilghrimage than by worldly means to seize thy place. Therefore I believe that it has pleased and still pleases thee, through thy grace and not througll my works, that the Christian people specially comlllmitted. to thy care shall obey me in thy stead, and by thy grace the power is granted to me by God of binding and of loosing in heaven and on earth. Strengthened with this faith, for the honor and defence of thy church, in the nanle of the omnipotent God the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and by thy power and authority, I remlove from HI-enry the King, son of Henry the Emperor, who wTith unheard-of pride has risen against thy church, all the government of Germany and Italy, and I absolve all Christians from the oat'hl which they have taken or may take to him, and I prohibit them from obeying hill as king. For it is proper that lhe who seeks to diminish the honor of thy church should himself lose the honor which he seems to possess. And since lie, as a Christian, has disdained to obey the Lord and to return to Him, whomll lie has abandoned by communing with excommunicates and by despising the warnings which, as thou knowest, I have given him fo."r his own benefit, and by separating himself friom thy church in the vain attempt to divide it, in thy name I bind himn in the bonds of the anathema, that all the nations may know aind learn that thou art Peter, the cornerstone on which the Son of the living God llatll built His church, and that the gates of hell sllal not prevail against thee!"2 Paul. Bernried. op. cit. cap. vii. No. 62. Conci]. Rolnan. III. ann. 1076 (Tlarduin. T. VI. P. I. p. 1566). 30* 354 E XCOM MU NICATION. The power of dethroning a king, thus for the first timne assumed and exercise(i, was founded upon some conveniently interpolated epistles of Gregory the Great, apparently manufactured in the time of Chlarles-le-Chauve, in which, granting privileges to various religious and charitable foundations in France, he is made to threaten with the loss of dignity and power any monarch or potentate who may presume to infringe their rights.' And here another of the forgeries came in with. singular efficacy, for a capitulary of Louis-le-Dedbonnaire had been fabricated at some unknown period, decreeing that any one incurring excommuliticatioin should be placed under ban, and that if he remained unreconciled ior a year and a day, his possessions should all be confiscated and himself exiled or imprisoned.2 This the piety of succeeding ages had accepted and erected into a law imposing outlawry on any one remaining thus cut off from the church for a twelvemonth and a day.s The practical application of this rule gave enormous power to the church, and its bearing on the case of I-enry was not long in becoming manifest. In Italy, the effect of Gregory's fulminations was imperceptible. The bishops whom he anathematized quietly assembled at Pavia, soon after Easter, under the leadership of Wiberto, Archbishop of RPaveinna, and responded by a counter excommunication.4 Familiarity had bred contempt, and the Italians knew too much about the papacy to care much for its censures, unless they were supported by a secular power comipetent to extort respect. When even St. Peter iDamiani, not long before, had felt himself obliged to remonstrate with Alexander II., on the constant Gregor. PP. I. Regist. Lib. xiiI. Epist. 8, 9, 10; Append. Epist. 4 (Ed. Benedict.) Cf. Gregor. PP. VII. Regist. Lib. Iv. Epist. 23.-Berthold. Constant. Annal. ann. 1076.- Annalista Saxo ann. 1076. n Ludov. Pii Capit. Tribur. ann. 822, cap. 6 (Baluz. 1. 426-7). 3 Bonizo. Lib. ad Amnicmni Lib. viii. 4 Ionizo. Ioc. cit. TIIE CI-URCIH AND FEUDALISM. 355 abuse of the anathe-ma by the papal court,' it was not likely that the Lombard schismlatics would pay much heed to the new fulmination which only added another to its innumerable predecessors. In Germany, however, the case was widely different. The empire was a tinder-box, awaiting only a spark for an explosion, and that spark Gregory had resolutely applied. Twice before the powerful Rodolph of Suabia had deemed himself on the point of supplanting Henry, and now, at last, his time seemed to have comie. The honest German mind regarded a papal excommnunication with a horror very far removed from the indclifference of the Italians, and its effect throughout the empire was decided and immediate. Men repeated with blanched lips how William, iBishop of Utrecht, the trusted adviser of Henry, became at once an awful example of the punishmnent attendant oil the sacrilege of which he was guilty. Some related that when at Easter Henry had ordered himn to retort upon Gregory the excommunication, and he had obeyed, the Host which he took during the impious ceremony turned to fire within him, and he expired with a foretaste of the endless torments awaiting him. Others declared that he had only derided publicly the excommunication under which both he and Henry labored, but that this was sufficient to call down upon hilm a mortal disease, during which visions of devils extorted from him a confession of his unpardonable sin, and he miserably perished, unhouselled and hopeless of salvation. It chanced that a number of Henry's supporters died within a short time, and similarly exaggerated accounts of their deaths were industriously circulated." Stories such as these, however lacking in proof, exercised a powerful influence over the S. Pet. DaLmiani Lib. I. Epist. 12. 2 Hugo. Flaviniac. Chron. Lib. II. ann. 1080.-Lambelt. IIersfeld. ann. 1076.-Annalista Saxo, ann. 1076, 356 EXCOMiMUNICATION. popular feelings, of which Henry's enemies-and he had few friendsr —were not slow in taking advantage. Suddenly the Saxons arose in a fresh rebellion, and Henry found that the princes of Southern Germany, far from aiding him, were weaving new conspiracies. Udo of Treves, fresh from Italy, set the examnple of avoiding the contamnination of associating with an excommunicate, and his example was contagious. One after another the king's friends fell away, declaring that they could not risk their salvation by intercourse with him. His summons to the princes and prelates of the empire to meet him in council were disregarded, and threats and entreaties were alike powerless.1 A despairing and firuitless expedition against the Saxons broug'ht on him new humiliations, while the princes of the empire counselled together as to the speediest and most effectual plan for his removal. A diet was agreed upon to be held at Tribur, Oct. 16th, under the presidency of papal legates, to arrSange for his formal deposition and the election of a successor. When the assembly met, the legates produced a profound impression by refusing to commune with any one who had communicated with Henry, until they should undergo penance and receive absolution. Meanwhile Henry, from Oppenheim on the opposite bank of the Rhine, sent propositions of submission, each more selfazbasing than the other,/but they were coldly rejected, the princes replying thiat, bound by their oaths of allegiance, they had borne with his crimes until released by the action of the pope, and that now they no longer regarded him as their sovereign. Hastily collecting some troops, he meditated casting all on the haIzard of an attack, when terms were offered which he eagerly accepted. He was to abandon his few remaining friends and live privately at Speyer, al)staining from entering a church, until another asselmbly, 1 Laibert. I-Hersfelcd. ann. 1076. TIIE CHURCII AND FEUDALISM. 351 to be held at Atugsburgc, Feb. 2d, 1077, under the presidency of Gregory himself, should try him for the offences whereof he was accused. IHe was warned, moreover, to procure the removal of the excommunu-iication, for if he allowed the twelvemonth from February, 1076, to expire, he would fall under the operation of the law.1 Gregory, meanwhile, had admlirably played his part. In dignified silence he allowed the tempestuous elerments which lhe had let loose throug'hout Germany to do their inevitable work. I-e desired the abasement of Henry, but it was no paqrt of his plans that the monarch already powerless should be succeeded, without his intervention, by one who nillht be able to maintain the supremacy of the empire. With consummate art, therefore, on September 3d he had acddressed an epistle to the Germans, commanding them to show mercy rather than strict justice to the sinner. If he manifested sincere repentance and willingness to amend his ways, they3 were to smooth his path. If, on. the other hand, he proved obdurate, then mignht they proceed to elect another in his place, who, it was to be hoped, mlight prove worthy of recognition by the Apostolic See.2 Gregory thus, by a single step, placed himself as the judlge and arbiter of the two factions, assuming over both a supremacy which ulnder the circumstances neither dared dispute. Distasteful as this unquestionably was to the ambition of the revolted princes, they had no choice but submission, and it was doubtless owing to Gregory's instructions to his legates that the diet of Tribur, in place of electing an emperor, was forced to content itself w-ith a postponement which placed the final (lecision in the hands of Gregory him self. In accepting the conditions imposed on him, it became of the last importance to Henry to obtain absolution in advance of the assembly of Augsbur'g. After the date set Annal. Saxo. ann. 1070.-Lamlbert. -Iersfeld. ann. 1076. Gregor. PP. VII. Regist. Lib. Iv. Epist. 3. 358 EX CO MIJUN ICAT ION. for thle meeting, but three weeks would remlain to him of the year of grace, and it was manifestly within the power of the insurgent princes to protract the proceedings long beyond the fatal anniversary. His decision therefore was at once taken to hasten himself to Italy, where, face to face with his excommnnicator, he might hope to come to terms. His preparations were soon mnade. His wife, the faithfull Bertha whom he had sought to repudiate, with their infant Conrad, then scarcely in his third year, joined him at Speyer, and they started on their dangerous pilgrimage. In anticipation of such an enterprise, Roodolph of Suabia, AWelf of 13avaria, and Berthold of Carinthia had closed all the passes of the Alps through their territories, and he was forced to take the longer and more difficult route through Savoy by Maount Cenis. His Christmas, spent at Besangon, was in gloomy contrast with that of the previous year. Then, in his splendid court at Goslar, he imagined hlimself the unquestioned ruler of Germany, and meditated revendicatingl the rights of the empire over the hauglhty theocracy of lRome. Now, practically throneless, lhe was eagerly seeking, as a last chance of salvation, to move the pity of the man who had by a single word caused his downfall. But one noble, and he of obscure extraction, attended him on his weary pilgrimage, and with difficulty had he collected the moderate sum requisite for the expenses of the journey. Rfeaching the territory of his wife's mother, Acelaide, Marchioness of Ivrea, a nlewr diffic>ulty awaited him. HEe was received with clue honor, but was told that he would not be allowed to pass unless he ceded five contiguous bishoprics to the cupidity of his brotherin-law. Time pressed, January was already upon himi and after a hurried negotiation he abandoned a valuable territory as the toll of the inhospitable mountains. Nature, however, seemed to vie with man in closing the door of reconciliation on the unfortunate excommunicate. The winter was severe beyond the memory of man. From THE CI-IURCI AND FEUDALISM. 359 MAartinmas till April the fiozen Rhine could bear the weiglht of horse and rider, and the roots of the vines were killed in the solid groundc Blockaded with snow and ice, the pathless mountains seemed to offer an impenetrable barrier. As there was no footing for beasts, the feet of the horses were tied, and they were dragged over the snow, a process which few survived. The men of the party, supported by hardy Inmountaineers, clambered through snowdrifts and slipped and slid down fearful declivities, while the queen and her attendants were securely wrapped in oxhides, and were dragoged with ropes along the edge of precipices and over rugged peaks.l Arrived in Italy, all was changed as if by magic. To the Lombards, Henry was not the discrowned excommunicate, but the long-expected monarch under whose leadership they hoped for domination and revenge on Rome. Eagerly they flocked around him with a cordial welcome, and in a few days he found himself at the head of a formidable army. His misfortunes were too recent, however, for him to indulge in illusions, and if for a moment he dreamed of treating with Gregory as a sovereign, he promptly dismissed the idle notion. Meanwhile the pope had set out from Rome to be present in Augsbulrg at the appointed dcla, but hearing that Henry was adcvancing with a considerable force, he halted and threw himself into the stronghold of Canosa, with the friendly Countess Matilda. Thither flocked such of the excommunicated bishops and( nobles of Henry's party as had succeeded in penetrating through the guarded passes of the Alps, and were admitted to absolution after a somewhat severe trial of the sincerity of their repentance. Henry himself lost no time in sending to the pope such mediators as seemed likely to prove most efficient, but Gregory at first replied coldly that he would only adjudge the matter at Augsburg, as had been agreed upon. After Lanbert. IIersfeld. ann. 1077. Ibid. 360 EXCO MMU NI CATION. much persuasion. however, he relented so far as to permit the king to come to Canosa, with the promise that if he showed evidence of real contrition he mnight be admitted to expiate his sins by implicit obedience to the church. Eagerly clutching at this doubtful mercyS, Henry appeared before the triple walls of the castle on January 25. The next day he was admitted within the second wall, and there, barefoot and fasting as a penitent, he stood from morning to night. A second and a third day he was exposed to the same proof, humbly awaiting the message of the pontiff. Admitted to the presence on the fourth dayv, lie accepted without hesitation the terms dictated to him, rigorous as they were. The pope was to convene an assemlbly of the German princes, and there hear their accusations and Henry's defence, and the latter was to be restored to his kingdom, or be declared forever incapable of the crown, according as Gregory might decide by the laws of the church. Meanwhile he was not to wear the insignia, or to claim royal honors, or execute any functions whatever of government; lie was to dismiss the faithful followers whose evil counsel hlad led him into crime; and if he should justify himself sufficiently to be restored to the throne. he pledged himself to be thereafter in all things obedient to the Holy See. Finally, the absolution thus obtained was merely provisional, and a failure strictly to observe any of the conditions imposed would ip9so facto renew the excommunication.1 Such were the terms on which Henry at last was admitted to the sacrament. It would be wearving to follow out the details of the struggle which for thirty years longer Henry maintained with such varying fortune, nor would we learn therefrom the development of any new principles. At a single bound Gregory, with equal skill and audacity, had improvedc his opportunity to elevate himself to the position of the recognized suzerain of Christendom. The princiLambertt. IIersfeld. ann. 1077. THE CHIURCH AND FEUDALISM. 361 ples which he advanced, and which both parties were forced to admit, gave to the church the right to intervene between the monarch and his lieges, and placed at the mercy of a single man the corner-stone on Which was based the whole feudal system —the oath of allegiance and fidelity. The simple anathema thus had become as potential in this world as it was held to be in the next. It was the most formidable engine of tenmporal as well as spiritual power, and armed with it, no claim of domination would seem to be too extravaogant for him who was commissioned fromln on high to control it. It is true that these results were not practically enforced without further resistance. The vicissitudes of Henry's adventurous career afford ample evidence of the repugnance with which the savage feudal noble submitted to the unarmed pl'iest; but the precedent was made, and with the persistency of the church its final triumph was only a matter of time. In Marchl, 1077, Henry saw the Diet of Forchheim endeavor to supplant him by the election of his brother-in-law, Rodolph of Suabia, who had long been intriguing for the vain honor; and Gregory, whom -Ienry's relations with the Lombards could not fail to disgust, lent his countenance to the proceeding, without absolutely committing himself. Thus balancing between the two rivals, Gregory still endeavored to hold the fate of the empire in his hands, while Henry, returning across the Alps, found no difficulty in obtaining possession of all Southern Germnany, and driving his comlnpetitor into Saxony. The partisans of Rodolph were bitterly disappointed at this exhibition of papal policy, and addressed to Gregory a letter expressing, with scant respect, their surprise at his tergiversations, and holding him responsible, as in truth he was, for the ferocious war which ravaged every corner of their countrly. Saxonunml Epist. in Greg. PP. I. Epist. Extrlav. (Migne's Patrol, T. 148, p. 746). 31 362 EX C O M MU NICATION. For three years this state of horrors continued, until Gregory's position became no longer tenable. At the synod of Rome in 1080 he therefore formally renewed the excommunication of Henry, and graciously bestowed the empire on Roclolph, who had obediently renounced all claim to the investitures.l Henry had learned much during his sojourn in Italy, and the equivocal policy of Rome had developed the ideas of the Teutonic mind, so that for once the thunders of the church proved futile. Henry assembled at Mainz the bishops of his party, and, finding that he could rely upon them, let loose the passions of the Lombard prelates, who promptly assembled at B3rixen, deposed Gregory with a declaration that covered him with scandalous reproaches, and elected Wiberto of Ravenna to the. perilous dignity of Antipope.2 The death soon after of Rodolph, who fell in the victory of Volcksheim, seemed to render the verdict of heaven against Gregory, and Henry followed it up by an Italian expedition, which enabled him to receive the iniperial crown at the hands of a pope who owed everything to him, even to his installation in the Vatican. As for the unfortunate Romans, they were offered up as a holocaust for the greater glory of God. After enduring fiom HIenry the severity of starvation in their loyalty to Gregory, they were exposed to the extremlity of outrage-massacre, conflagration, and captivity — at the hands of Gregory's ally, Robert Guiscard. Probably to avoid dwellilg amid the misery and desolation which he had caused, Gregory followed Robert to Sllerno, and there in 1085 he died, refusing with the last beat of his indomitable heart to absolve Henry and Wiberto, with their followers.3 King Hermann, elected by the papalists as successor to Rodolph, personally gave Henry little trouble, though Concil. Roman. V. ann. 1080 (Harduin. T. VI. P. I. p. 1587). 2 Goldast. Const. Imp. I. 236. Paul. Bernried. Vit. Greg. VII. cap. xIi. qNo. 102. THE CHURCHI AND FEUDALISM. 363 the long-continued and desolating war reduced the flourishinag provinces of Germany almost to a desert, and retarded fearfully the progress of civilization. After an inglorious reign of six years, disgusted with the selfish disloyalty of his nominal supporters, Hermann in 1088 laid down his shadowy crown. Anarchy had progressed so far that his abdication made little practical difference, and Henry with varying success continued his struggle withl the disaffected princes and bishops. His gradually increasing strength, however, is shown by the fact that in 1089 but four of the German bishops remained in communion with the legitimate pope, Urban II.; and the Catholic chronicler plaintively remarks that it was almost impossible for the faithful to preserve themselves from the contamination of associating with excommunicates. Urban had lost no time in renewing the censures of the church on all imperialists, and, in fact, the anathematized were gradually becoming the majority; convinced of which fact, the Catholic leaders offered to return to their allegiance if Henry would abandon his antipope, Clemlent [II. (WViberto of iRavenna), and receive absolution fromn Urban; but Henry declined, apparently not caring to replace upon his neck the yoke which lie had at last succeeded in shaking off.' The increasing preponderance of the imperial cause received a serious check w-hen; in 1093, Henry's eldest son, Conradl Kingl of the Romans, was seduced or terrified into a rebellion against his father-seduced by the promises of the king'dom of Italy, or terrified by the prospects of eternal perdition if he persisted in adhering to one under ecclesiastical condemniation. The phantom crown bestowed upon him, however, proved illusory; after he had b)een employed to work, as far as in him lay, his father's ruin, he was contemptuously cast aside, and lihe died in 1101, in Florence, of a broken heart. Meanwhile iHenry, recovering from. the 1 Bernold. Constant. Chron. ann. 1089. 364 EX O M MUI I N I C A T I O N. shock which had nearly prostrated even his well-tried firmless, returned to Germany in 1097, where with skill and moderation he allayed the weakening passions of revolt. One after another his old enemies died or submitted to him, and at length, for the first time since his majority was proclaimed, he could truly call himself emperor of all Germnlany. The frightful abuse of the power of excommunication seemed at last to have produced its natural result of destroying the respect and fear entertained for the censures of the church —at least among' the Germans. Elsewhere, indeed, its prestige had been successfully maintained. When, for instance, in 1095, the crusade was resolved upon in a whirlwind of enthusiasm at the council of Clermont, the powerful Hugh, Count of Gapenlais, was so ill-advised as to hold aloof. Urban II. consequently excommunicated him, laid his territories under interdclict, and released his subjects from their allegiance; whereupon the Counts of Forcalquier attacked him, and succeeded in annexing the Gapenpais to their possessions, for so holy a cause could not fail to be successful.l The miserable PhilipII. of France had likewise no cause to plume himself on the result of his resistance to the church. In 1091 he repudiated his wife Bertha, under pretext of affinity, imprisoning her in the castle of Montreuil-sur-Mer, and replacing her with Bertacde, wife of Foulques-Rechin, Count of Anjou. The church, the only guardian of morality and protector of the weak, could not long pass unnoticed this double adultery, and, finding its monitions vain, Hugh of Lyons, the papal legate, excommunicated himl at the synod of Autun, in 1094. The next year Philip hulnbly sent envoys to the council of Piacenza, to excuse his non-attendance and to beg time for repentance, shortly after which Urban II., at the council of Clermont, repeated the excommunication, though Bertha by 1 Gautier, IIist. de Ia Ville de G-ap, p. 19. TIIE CIHURCH AND FEUDALISM. 365 this tiue was dead. In 1096 Philip yielded, and separated himself fromu Bertrade; but his passion was unconquerable, and the next year saw thenl again together, and Philip affected to despise the anathema which he had incurred. Wherever the guilty pair resided, all the churches were instantly closed and divine service ceased, to be resullmed only on their departure; and it is related tlhat when they were leaving a town, and the church-bells announced the resumption of religious rites by a joyous peal, Philip would laugh, and say to his paramour-" Sweet one, dlo you hear how they are ringing us out?" He was not abandoned to his iniquity, however, and in 1100 the council of Poitiers again placed him under the ban, for which the venerable fathers were- cruelly persecuted by William of Aquitaine. At length Philip succumbed, and at tile council of Baugency, in 1104, he appeared with his guilty partner before the papal legate, Richard of Albano, and they both swore on the Evangels to hold no further intercourse with each other; yet even this did not suffice to remove the suspicions of the church, and they were not absolved until the next year, at the council of Paris, by the direct colmmand of Paschal II. Two years later, when his wretched life drew to its end, Philip showed how hollow had been his former bravado, for lhe assumed on his death-bed the garments of a nmonk, in expiation of his sins; while Bertrade, still in the full flush of her beauty, hid her remorse in the rigid convent of Fontevraud, where the unaccustomed austerities soon destroyed her.1 Resistance might be prolonged, but the church eventually triumphed over the souls as well as the bodies of its enemries. Urbani PP. II. Epist. 68, 173, 187, 285.-Ivon. Carnotens. Epist. 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 23, 144, 173.-Grandes Chroniques, T. III. pp. 168, 204, 206.Concil. ifEduens. (Harduin. T. VI. P. II. p. 1711).-Synod. Placentin. (Itarduin. ibid.).-Gaufr. Grossi Vit. Bernard. Tiron. cap. Yv. ~ 48.-IIugon. Floriac. Lib. ii. ann. 1100. —Concil. Parisiens. inn. 1105 (1Harduin. T. VI. P. Ti. p. 1875). —Pascal. PP. II. Epist. 116. —Willeln. Malmesb. Gest. Reg. Angl. Lib. v. ~ 404. 31* 366 EX C O M U N I CATION. Meanwhile the increasing indifference manifested in Germany to the fearful sentence of exclusion from salvation beganl to excite the liveliest apprehension. The violence of Gregory and Urban met by the tireless energy of Henry, had resulted practically in a schism. Urban died in 1099, and was succeeded by Paschal II. His rival, the antipope Clement III., followed him in 1100, and was succeeded by Albert, and then by Theodoric. Germany was independent of Rome, and when Paschal II., in 1102, assembled an imposing council in the Lateran, renewed the imprecations against Henry, and caused all the attending bishops to subscribe a declaration anathematizing the lew heresy of disregarding the papal excommunication, lie merely proclaimed to the world his own weakness, without producing a ripple on the surface of events.l Yet the apparent acquiescence of the Germans in this unprecedented state of affairs was perhaps less the result of conviction than of the apathy and exhaustion consequent on the terrible war which for thirty years had wroughit desolation in every corner of the land. Germany was not as yet prepared for permanent isolation from the rest of Christendom, and as the ravages of war became gradually effaced in the years of comparative tranquillity which followed the recognition of Henry's supremacy, there arose a yearning for reunion. It would be curious to speculate as to the result on the progress of civilization had the schism been perpetuated. On the one hand, Germany would have become a consolidated hereditary empire, and the energies of the people, no longer distracted by the ceaseless commotions incident to the clumsy federation of independent princes, constantly at war amono themselves or with their nominal sovereign, would have doubtless achieved triumphs in the arts of peace and war whiich might have changed the aspect of Europe. On the other Concil. Lateran. ann. 11C2 (Harduin. T. VI. P. II. pp. 1861-2). THE CIURCI-I AND FEUDALISMI. 367 hand, the destruction of the unity of the church would have destroyed the only power able to neutralize the inherent barbaric violence of feudalism, and humanity would have been deprived of the countless benefits which the church, despite her faults and ambition, alone could bestow. In Germany, especially, the ecclesiastical body must shortly have become entirely secularized, for already her prelates were rather warlike barons than shepherds of men, and, released from the only spiritual power which could control them, religion itself, confided to such hands, might speedily have become discredited among a population sedulously imbru ted. The indisposition to remain disunited from the rest of the church, however, renders all such speculations futile, for it speedily intensified to the point of action. Reconciliation between the emperor and the pope was impossible, for the one could not forgive or forget the countless ills inflicted on him in the name of Roman supremacy, and the other was pledged, by tradition and by conviction, to the principle that blind obedience was due to the inmprescriptible rights of the Apostolic See, and that while the church mi ight pardon her rebellious children, it was only on condition of unconditional submission. No middle term was possible. Reunion could be purchased only by subjugation, and this was a truth patent to the eyes of all. To this increasing uneasiness was added a more energetic source of disturbance in the growing dissatisfaction of the nobles. The canker of a long peace was beginning to grow insupportable to men whose ambition could be gratified only by war; and the emperor's policy, which looked to the elevation and protection of the burghers and serfs-of the people, in fact-was peculiarly distasteful to the feudal tyrants whose very existence was based on the maintenance of class-privileges. There can be no doubt that the existence of this spreading (lissatisfaction was 368 EX C O MMUNICATION. known to Paschal II., and that he spared no labor to foster a sentiment which promised advantages so incalculable to BRome; nor was it difficult to find an instrument by which these pious intrigues could be developed into action with the most effective result. There are some crimes over which, for the sake of humanity, it would be well to draw the veil of oblivion, even though they may have been perpetrlatedl in the name of Christ, and under the direct supervision of His vicar. Of these is the rebellion of Henry V. against his unhappy father, and we will therefore dwell upon it as cursorily as may be compatible with its bearing on our theme. Henry V., then a youth of twenty-three years, had been crowned some time previous as King of the PRomans; and his father, with that mistrust which had been eaten into his soul by his countless experiences of treachery, had exacted of him a solemn oath never to conspire against him. The way to his succession seemed open and assured, yet he might well listen to the suggestion that, should his father die under the ban of the church, the heritage was liable to confiscation, and any able and powerful prince of the empire might prove a dangerous competitor for the throne. Bold, ambitious, and unscrupulous, he lent buh too ready an ear to such promptings; nor was it difficult to find, anlong the turbulent nobles, chafing under the steady rule of the emperor, enough to organize a mo,/t formidable conspiracy. Towards the close of 1104, therefore, the son secretly left his father, and hastened into Bavaria, where his friends rapidly gathered around him. His first care was to dispatch envoys to Rome to demand whether, without injury to his soul, he could break the oath sworn to his fatlher. The blessed Urban II., a few years before, had proclaimed to the world that oaths of fidelity given to an excommunicate were not to be kept,'' Ubani PP. II. Epist. 256. THE CHIURCH AND FEUDALISIM. 369 so there was smnall scruple at Rome in sending to the young parricide all the assurances of which his tender conscience stood in need; and he was speedily comforted with the presence of papal legates, who gave to his unnatural enterprise all the sanctity requisite to shield it from popular abhorrence. From first to last the grovelling ambitions and pervading selfishness which inspired it were carefully kept in the background, and zeal for religion was ostentatiously put forward as its sole and only motive. Funds were raised by inflicting heavy fines on cathedral chapters for their intercourse with excommunicated bishops. The first care of the young king was to expel his father's bishops, and to replace them with his own creatures; he sedulously dug up the bodies of those who had died and cast them out of consecrated ground; and he lost no opportunity of proclaiming that his object was, not to dethrone his father, but to lead him to the reconciliation with the Apostolic See, necessary to his own salvation and to that of the empire. His effrontery of hypocrisy even went so far as to repeat this to the face of his wretched parent when the latter, abandoned by his friends, was forced to surrender, and clasped the knees of his son in agonized pleadings for his life. So the assembly which was convened at Nordhclasen, in June, 1105, ostensibly confined itself to regulating the religious affairs of Germany, with a view to removing all traces of the schismn.L And in the manifesto which, in reply to the complaints of his father, the son published to the world through the Archbishop of Magdeburg, the only reasons alleged for the movement were the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord, and the reduplicated crucifixion of Christ wrought by the hardened and irreligious heart of the emperor. When tHenry, after a vain show of resistance, finding Goldast. Const. Imp. I. 247-8. 2 Annalista Saxo ann. 1106. 370 EXCOMMMUNIOATION. nothing but treachery in those whom most he trusted, gave himself up to his son, it was under a pledge that life and dignity should be guaranteed him, and the opportunity afforded of reconciling himself with the church. Yet when he was brought before the legates at Mainz, and he prostrated himself before his subjects, humbly confessing his rebellious disobedience, and only denying that he had been guilty of idolatry, he was thrown into close confinement, where, denied all the consolations of religion, he daily trembled for his life. In the most civilized parts of his dominions —in the cities, in the Rhinelands, and in Lorraine-Henry had ever been popular, and he had merited the affection of those whom he had endeavored to.protect from the scourge of feudal tyranny. When, therefore, the people had recovered somewhat from the stupor caused by the sudden, audacious, and successful rebellion of the son, they rallied around the father, in whose favor all human instincts cried so loudly. Henry escaped from his imprisonment, and soon was able to make a show of strength by no means unimposing. Eis faithful citizens of Cologne gallantly resisted a protracted siege, which IIenry V. was obliged to raise on the approach of his father with a heavy force. Fortune seemed to incline once more in favor of the emperor, and the son sought to open negotiations for an accommodation, when the weary mnonarch, after a few days' illness, suddenly died, his last act being to send the crown and imperial insignia to his ungrateful son, with the prayer that his body might be allowed sepulture at Speyer, and that those who had remained faithful to him might be pardoned.l For the sake of human nature we may well hesitate to credit the assertion that he was poisoned with the cognizance of his son, but it would be no slander to attribute his end to the pious zeal of some enthusiastic son of the church. Urban Annal. HIildesheim, ann. 1104-5; Annalista Saxo ann. 1104-6; Chrono Reg. Colon. ann. 1105-6. THE CIHURCH AND FEUDALISM. 371 ban 11. had not long before declared it to be sound doctrine that the slaying of an excommunicate, through ardor for the church, was not homicide.l Excommunicates had no rights which the orthodox were bound to respect, and in an age so faithless, turbulent, and ferocious, it was not easy, even were it desired, to impose limits on the devotion of those who had staled their own fortunes on the overthrow of an adversary so formidable to the custodian of the keys of heaven. The enmity of Rome would not even allow Henry's wearied bones to rest quiet in the tomb. Thlie faithful Liegeois had buried him honorably in the church of St. Lambert, but lihe had died unreconciled, and his son was warned that if lie allowed the body of his excommunicated father to lie in consecrated ground, lie would become his accomplice, and be liable to the same punishment. The young king was in the hands of the church; the church was unforgiving, and exacted of him the final act of parricide. He had done too lucl to hesitate now, and unflinchingly he ordered his father's corpse to be dug up and thrust into the earth in an island of the Rhine, where no religious services were permitted, save that a wandering pilgrim from Jerusalem lingered at the spot, and chanted a psalm over the grave of the once mighty kaiser, who had dared to defy the whole power of the church, and had been broken in the hour of his triumph.2 The impatient and unscrupulous ambition of Henry V. had thus thrown away recklessly all the fruits of his father's thirty years of labor and anguish. Hailed for the moment as the new Maccabee, and as the deliverer of the church, he had made himself of necessity the slave of the church. It was in vain that by personal violence he extorted from his accomplice Paschal II. the abandonment Urbani PP. II. Epist. 122. 2 Chron. IIildesheinm, ann. 1106. (Leibnitz, Script. Rer. Brunswic. I. 736). 372 EXCOIMM UNICATION. of the claimn to the investitures. To save himself from being declared a heretic, the wretched pope was obliged to disown his own agreement. The chronic rebellion in Germany, revived by Henry, and carefully fostered by the church, rendered his excommunication in 1115 a fatal entanglement, from which he failed to extricate himself by repeating his father's experiment of setting up an antipope. His tool, the unhappy Martin Burcdinus, paid the penalty of his perilous dignity; and Henry, after prolonging to the last the fruitless struggle, was finally obliged to yield in 1122. A country ruined by anarchy, and the abandonmeent of the investitures, were the natural results of his alliance with the church —the inevitable price paid for its assistance ini destroying' his father.l The church had thoroughly won the victory, and thenceforth its behests were to be obeyed and its ministers held sacred, for they wielded the terrible spiritual sword, always unsheathed, and always ready to cut off the contumacious from the joys of earth and the hopes of heaven. Against it vainly strugglec powerful rmLonarchs like the HIohenstauffens, Henry, and John of England, Philip Augustus, and Louis of Bavaria; and where these were obliged to succumb, what chance was there for the humbler sinner? Not only did it protect the rights, dignities, privileges, and possessions of the ecclesiastic from open violence or indiscreet examination, but it enabled the church to intervene decisively in the politics of every state in. Christendom, and thus to acquire the position of universal arbiter and suzerain. When, in 1253, it was desired to invest the great charters of English liberty with the most solemn guarantee possible, no more efficient device could be suggested than pronouncing a formlal sentence of excomnmunication against Annal. Saxo ann. 1111-23. The documents may be found in Hartzhelmn Concil. German. T. III. pp. 258 sqq., 275 sqq. —Udalr. Batbenb. Cod. Lib. II. cap. 259, 265 sqlq., 295, 303. THLiE CHURIC1!H ANTD FEUDALISM. 373 all who should dare to infringe them;1 and when, in 1297, Edward I. renewed those charters in return for anl octave of his subjects' substance, he intensified the security by ordering that this sentence of excomlmunication should be pronounced twice a year by every prelate in his dominions.2 Subsequently this rule was extended to embrace the lower clergy, and until the Reformation in every parish church in England the priest was required every six months to include infl'actions of Magna Charta and the Charta de Foresta among the sins for which he pronounced a formula of imprecation, with bell, book, and candle, as minute in its details of malediction as Hervey of Rheims or BIenedict VIII. could have asked for. "Than thou thi candclell shalt cast to grounde, And spet therto the same stouncl And lete also the belles knylle, To make her hlartes the mor grylle.'"3 If the church thus at one place could become the guarantor of the people's liberties, it had as niuch right elsewhere, and as little scruple, in assisting their tyrants. Vhen, in 1141, William II., Count of Montpellier, was driven from the city by his burghers, with the countenance of Arn'aud, Archbishop of Narbonne, Innocent II. lost no time in excommunicating the consuls of Montpellier and their abettors, and laying on the city an interdict which prohibited all religious services except infant baptism and death-bed penitence. The struggle was kept up for some time, but the citizens at length were obliged to yield.4 So, too, when evil-disposed monarchs were bold enough to question the right of the Holy See to dispose at will of 1 Matt. Paris, ann. 1253. 2 Thomson's Magna Charta, London, 1829, p. 371.-Cf. Rymer, Foedera II. 793-4. I John Myrc's Instructions for Parish Priests, p. 24 (Early English Text Soc.). See also, in the notes, Ibid. p. 84, an extract from the Sarum Manual of 1530. Innocent PP. II. Epist. 509, 51S. —HInglon. Itothomag. Epist. xi. 32 374 EXCOMMUNICATION. the rich prelacies within their dominions, it cost but a skin of parchment and an ounce of lead either to- cut off from the church the ill-advised sovereign, or to lay whole provinces under interdict, until the faithful, tired of living in graceless deprivation of the consolations of religion, could prevail upon the stubborn ruler to give way.' Thus Calixtus II. treated Henry of England in 1119, in consequence of his contumacy with respect to Thurstan of York;2 Innocent II. was equally energetic with Louis-le-Jeune of France in 1141, with regard to the Archbishop of Bourges;3 and Clement III., in 1188, was as peremptory with William of Scotland in the case of John, Bishop of St. Andrews.4 If the commands of the Vicegerent of God were not promptly obeyed, Heaven did not fail to come to the rescue. Thus Henry was punished for his obstinacy with respect to Thurstan by the loss of his son William, who was drowned at sea during the next year; and when Urraca of Castile married Alphonso of Arragon within the prohibited degrees, and not only refused to separate from The conditions and regulations of the Interdict varied at different times and under different circumstances. As described in the council of Limoges in 1031, the rites of religion were conducted secretly, with closed doors, but the laity were admitted to the sacralments of baptism, penitence, and the -Viaticum. They were not allowed to marry, however, during its continuance, nor to shave or have their hair cut, and were obliged to fast as in Lent. (Concil. Lemovicens. II. Sess. I. —IHairduin. T. VI. P. I. p. 885.) In the interdict inflicted on England by Innocent III. under King John, which lasted for six years, three months, and fourteen days, all the rites of religion ceased except baptism, confession, and the viaticum (Matt. Paris HI-ist. Maj. ann. 1208, 1214). Subsequently, however, this rigor was somewhat relaxed, and the faithful were admitted privately to the consolations of religion, though all public ceremonies were prohibited (Lib. V. Extra, Tit. xxxIII. cap. 25; Tit. xxxvIIi. cap. 11; Tit. xL. cap. 17.-Lib. V. in Sexto, Tit. xI. cap. 24). Yet considerable confusion existed in the clerical mind on the subject, and lawful concessions were frequently refused and unlawful ones granted (Concil. Bambergens. ann. 14091, Tit. Lx. —IHartzheim. V. 634). a Calixti PP. II. Epist. 44. 3 Robert. de Monte. ann. 1141. Roger. Iloved. ann. 1188. Cf. Gesta Itelrici II. pp). 263, 2i5, 276-7 (Rer. Britain. Script.). THE CIIURCII AND FEUDALTISM. 375 him, but disregarded the consequent excommnunication, her sudden death, and the fall of Alphonso in battle with the lMoors, showed how dangerous it was to trifle with penalties so awful. So when, in 1199, IThys, King of South Wales, ill-treated Peter de Leia, Bishop of St. Davids, the latter promptly excommunicated him and his sons, and laid his territories under interdict. In a few days Heaven vindicated its servant in the death of Kinug Rhys, when Gryffyth, -his son, promptly made submission, and Bishop Peter enjoyed the noble revenge of scourging the dead king's decaying remains before he would allow them to be consigned to Christian sepulture.2 It requires no effort of the imagination to conceive the almost illimitable powFer conferred upon those who thus could at any moment strike down their enemies, public or private, with a weapon so irresistible; and it was only a logical conclusion from such premises when Thomas'a Becket exclaimed, "Who doubts that the ministers of Christ are the fathers and masters of kings, and princes, and all the faithful? Is it not recognized as miserable madness when the child endeavors to subdue the father, or the disciple his master, and to impose unjust conditions on him who is known to have the power of binding and loosing him not only on earth, but in heaven?"3 So' absolute was this domination, that in 1497 we see the Abbot of Weissenberg excommunicating the Elector Philip, Palatine of the Rhine and Duke of Bavaria, not only without trial, but without notice, summons, or complaint, and, notwithstandilng the irregularity of this proceeding, all that the powerful prince could do was to apply to Maximilian I. to intercede for him with the pope to have the curse removed.4 The power thus inherent in the humblest member of the Pascal PP. II. Epist. 307, 349. 2 I-laddan and Stubbs's Councils of Gr. Brit. I. 393. 3 S. Thomma Cantuar. Epist. 73 (Ed. Giles). 4 Epist. Maximil. I. ad Pontif. (Ludewig Reliq Mssctor. T. VI. p. 103). 37 X6 EXCOMMUNICNATION. hierarchy was concentrated in the person of the pope, whlose sentence was without appeal, while lie could revoke the iiimprecations of his subordinates; for though the rule that the ban must be removed by him who had imposed it still held goodGif thou a mlon a-corset has, He mote nede be soyled of the9 Whoso pareschen euer he be-' still it referred of course only to action among equals, and the punishment could be set aside on appeal to a superior. The papal prerogative therefore became limited in principle only by the discretion or ability of the wearer of the tiara; though in practice, of course, there were extremes beyond which it was nlot safe to exercise the rights claimed as imprescriptible and indefeasible. How far the medixval casuists were disposed to push their definitions s of papal omnipotence and irresponsibility is shown in a declaration of the canon law that if a pope was so lost to the duties of his high station that through neogligence he drew innumerable multitudes of the faithful with him to hell, yet was he not to be reproved by any man, for hle was to judge mankind, and not to be judged by man; therefore the nations were to pray for him9 for on him their salvation depended, next to GodC.2 When such were the teachings of the church, Matthew of Veandome could well exclaimPapa regit reges, dominos domilnatur, acerbis Principibus stabili jure jubere jubet.3 The Pope was not only, indeed, the ruler of kings and the sovereign of monarchs, but he was more than man and little less than God. As Geoffrey Vinsauf declares, addressing Innocent III. — 1 Myrc's Instructions to Parish Priests, p. 26. Gratian. Decret. P. I. Dist. 40, can. 6. —This was one of the canons alleged by Luther in justification of his publicly burning the canon law at Wittemberg in 1520 (Lutheri Opp. Jenm, 1581, T. II. fol. 3173). Matt. Vindocinens. Colnmendat. Papso (Migne's Patrol. T. 205, p. 980). THE CHURCH AND FEUDALISM.. 377 Non Deus es, nec homo; sed neuter et inter utrumlque, Queml Deus elegit sociulll: socialiter egit Tecum partitus illundum, sibi noluit unus Ollnia, secl voluit tibi terras et sibi ccelumn.l This is not to be considered as the delirium of blasphemous flattery. It was the conviction of the age, and Innocent himself, in his sermon delivered on his coronation, had no hesitation in asserting the same of himself — Now you may see who is the servant who is placed over the family of the Lord; truly is he the vicar of Jesus Christ, the successor of Peter, the Christ of the Lord, the God of Pharaoh; placed in the middle between God and man, on this side of God, but beyond man; less than God, but greater than man; who judges all, but is judged of none."2 The character of Innocent forbids us to suppose that he magnified his office beyond his own honest conviction of the position assigned to it by God, and his conviction was that of all faithful Christians. Ile was no charlatan, and when on the same occasion he expressed his anxiety lest he should kill the souls that ought to enjoy eternal life, or give life to those which ought to die, we can measure the extent to which it was conceded that God had abnlegated His power and had intrusted it to a mortal.3 Hurter, Iist. du Pape Innocent III., Paris, 1840, T. I. p. 68. Vinsauf failed in receiving the reward of his adulation, whereupon his facile pen found no difficulty in decrying the pope as energetically as it had flattered him. 2 "Vicarius Jesu Christi, Christus Domini, Deus Pharaonis; inter Deum et hominem medius constitutus, citra Deum sed ultra hominem; minor Deo sed major homine; qui de omnibus judicat, et a nemine judicatur. " —Innocent. PP. III. Serm. iii. in Consecrat. (Migne's Patrol. T. 217, p. 659). 3 Ibid. p. 658.-Experience of his own fallibility seems in time to have sobered Innocent somewhat, and towards the close of his pontificate he was by no means so assured of his omnipotence. In 1212 he admits that the church may err, and that its judgment may be very different from that of God-''" Judicium Dei veritati qus non fallit nec fallitur semper innititur; judicium autem ecclesisa nonnunquain opinionem sequitur, quam et fallere sspe contingit,'et falli; propter quod contingit interdum ut qui ligatus est 32* 3'78 E X C O U N I A T IO N. The mnedieval doctors, indeed, could hardcly find worCds strong enough to express their sense of the irresponsible omnipotence of the pope. In 1335 Bishop Alvarez Pelayo lays down the doctrine that as Christ partook of the nature of God and man, so the pope, as His vicar, participates with Him in the divine nature as to spiritual things and in the nature of man a's to temporals,1 so that jhe is not simply a man, but rather a God on earth.2 When such opinions were current, it need not surprise us that not long' after t1'his period the le l author of the Richstich Landrecht, while defining with jealous care the boundary between papal and secular legislation, adds that the clergy claim for the pope the right to alter the doctrines of the Apostles;3 and that good ecclesiastical authority asserted that "The pope is bound by no forms of law; his pleasure is law.'" "'The pope makes right of that which is wrong, and can change the nature of things."'"The pope is all and over all; he can change square things into round."4 Adrian VT. was fully of this persuasion wxhen in 1523 fhe sought to withapud Deum, apud ecclesiam sit solutus: et qui liber est apud Deum, ecole siastica sit sententia innodatus."' (Cap. 28, Extra, v. xxxix.) The admission of this into the decretals of Gregory IX. shows that the fallibility of the church in the distribution of its censures was acknowledged, yet to examine the doctrines of the casuists as to the sentences which were irrefragable and those which could be set aside by the mercy of God would occupy too much space. Theoretically it was admitted that the decree of excommunication did not irreversibly consign its subject to perdition, but practically the power of the church to regulate at will the future destiny of the faithful was assumed and acted on. I Quia sicut Christus est deus et homo.. sic ejus vicarius generalis et singularis papa participat cull Christo quodiammtodo naturet divinitatis quoad spiritualia, et humlanitatis quoad temrporalia.-Alvari Pelagii de Planctu Ececlesiw, Lib. I. Art. 37, Rat. 2 (Lugldun. 1517, fol. viii.). 2 Ejusd. Lib. I. Art. 68, No. J. (fbl. lxix.)-Papa non homo simpliciter sed quasi dens in terris est. Richstich Landrecht, Lib. Ir. cap. 24. Summus pontifex nullis subjacet formis juris, sed quod vult lex est. — Papa facit jus de eo quod non est jus, et naturam rei immutare potest. — Papa est om1nia et super omnia... potest omutare quadrata rottndis. —See the Florence'Esaminattore,"' JLuly 1, 1867, p. 190. TEMPORAL PENA.TIES. 379 draw the Elector Frederick of Saxony from the support of Luther; and, to prove that the ecclesiastical body could not through corruption forfeit its right to the obedience of the laity, he argued thus —6'Thou art a sheep; presume not to impugn thy shepherd, nor to judge thy God and Christ."1 An organization which thus conferred superhuman prerogatives on human frailty invited corruption; and that it should succumb to the evil influences thus fostered can surely not be a matter for surprise. TEMPORAL PENALTIES. This marvellous structure of theocratic autocracy was not erected solely on the spiritual powers claimed by the church. Indeed, had excommunication entailed only the remote consequence of perdition, it would have been comparatively inert in its effects on the violence of the turbulent races of Europe. Its full significance, however, was insured by its carrying with it a constantly increasing list of tenmporal disabilities and penalties. 7We have seen how Charlemagne lent the power of the state to the church which he used as an instrument in constructing his evanescent civilization, and how his impotent successors vainly sought to strengthen themselves by fusing the temporal and spiritual punishments. The power then granted to the church of calling- upon the state was improved by the forgery of the Capitulary of Louis-le-Doebonnaire, prescribing a year and a day as the limit beyond which the disregard of excommunication entailed the severest temporal inflictions, and these rights became the most effective means of subduing the state, as Henry IV. found by the Adriani PP. VI. Breve ad Frid. Saxon. (Lutheri Opp. Jena, 1581, T. I. fol. 543.) 380 E XCOMMUNIC ATION. bitterest experience. It was gradually recognized in the jurisprudence of all Europe that the civil power was bound to aid in the enforcement of ecclesiastical censures; and thus the jurisdiction of the church became a net, strong enough to hold the most powerful, yet with meshes so fine that the smallest and humblest could not escape. It was bound by no statute of limitations, nor confined by any territorial circumscription; the sentence pronounced in Lisbon was equally valid in Copenhagen; to escape it the criminal must take refuge with the schismatic Greek or the infidel Moslem; and if he evaded it by opportunely dying, his bones could be cast forth from their restingplace, and his posterity could be visited with the reversion of the civil penalties. The segregation which we have seen practised in the earlier ages of the church had by this time become a portion of the penalty of excommunication far more serious to worldly minds than the remote spiritual consequences which death-bed penitence might haply remove. The liability to share the punishment of an excommunicate for the simplest offices or greeting tendered to him was universally admitted. No one was even to salute him, and the confessor was instructed, among the regular questions addressed to his penitents, to inquire whether they had exchanged a word or a greeting with any one under the ban of the church.l Worse than a leper, he was to die like a dog, and all the promptings of humanity in his behalf were to be sternly repressed. About 1120 a monk of Flay abandoning his monastery gave as a reason that lie was a physician, and that his abbot had forced him to exercise his art on excommunicates, for the benefit of the abbey, to the manifest peril of his soul,-and St. Bernard Burchard. Decret. Lib. xix. cap. 5, ~ de excommunicat. TEMPORAL PENALTTESo. 381 esteemed the reason a valid one.' Of course, to supply the anathematized with the necessaries of life was a heinous offence, and in the bull published about the year 1420, by Martin V. against his rival Peter de Luna and his cardinals, the pope declares that if any one shall give or sell them bread or water, or other assistance, he shall ipso facto be excommunicate until death, and his descendants, male and female, to the second generation, shall be subject to the civil disabilities consequent upon excision from the churchll.2 The excommunicate thus shed around him a contagion which cut him off from all human society and left him to perish in misery and starvation. This was no mere theoretical infliction, but a law enforced with all the power of the church and applied so liberally that it became almost impossible for the innocent to escape its effects. In the early part of the fifteenth century, Chancellor Gerson complains of this as an intolerable abuse, and suggests as the only mode of preserving the conscientious Christian from ceaseless peril, that accountability should only attach to associating with those whose excommunication had been formally pronounced by a regular sentence, and not when it had merely been incurred by infiringing some rule for which an ipso facto anathema was the penalty3-as in the former case there was some chance that the condition of the criminal might be known, while in the latter it was almost impossible that those who met him could be aware of his guilt and its consequences. Flagrantly unlljust as twas the refusal of this slender concession, yet the ecclesiastical authorities were unwilling to grant it. It was one of the reforms expected of the council of Constance, but that body separated without accomplishing any of the measures for which it had been assembled, except the conI S. Bernardi Epist. 67. o Ludewig. Reliq. Mssetor. T. V. pp. 424-5. Joann. Gerson. de Vit. Spirit. Animr, Lect. iv. Coroll. xiv. Prop. 1. 382 EXCOMMTUNICATIONs detlnation of the Hussites and the extinguishment of the Great Schism; and the only effort made in this direction was a clause in the concordat between Martin V. and the Germans, under the auspices of the council, by which the very moderate concession suggested by Gerson was provided as a special and merciful grace to the subjects of the empire, no such clause being inserted in the concordats proposed with France and England.' The council of Bale assembled with a more resolute determination to uproot the abuses which were destroying the church, and it adopted this provision of the German Concordat as a general rule.2 The well-meant efforts of the council, however, were baffled by the invincible repugnance to reform manifested by the papacy, and so little was this decree respected that we find the limitation -which it thus established as a universal law of the church granted once more as a special favor to the French, in 1516, by Leo X. in his concordat with Francis J.3 All this is very suggestive of the dangers perpetually surrounding those who had the misfortune to reside where no such privileges had been graciously accorded, and even this modified restriction by no means afforded immunity from the consequences of ignorance. How easily the most conscientious and obedient sons of the church might incur the heaviest of ecclesiastical censures is manifested in 1297 by a complaint from the citizens of Berlin to Boniface VIII., that their town was frequently subjected to interdict in consequence of ignorantly furnishing food and shelter to wayfarers who subsequently were found to be excommunicates; and Boniface graciously granted to them as a special privilege, that the rule should not be enforced Concil. Constant. Sess. XIII. (Iarduin. VIII. 892). Violence offered to ecclesiastics, however, was excepted from the benefits of the limitation.' Concil. Basiliens. Sess. xx. cap. 2 (Harduin. VIII. 1194). 3 Concdrdat. Leon. X. Rubr. 9 (Isambert, Anc. Lois Fran9. T. XII. pp. 92Y3). TEMPORAL PENALTIES. 383 if the outcasts left the town promptly or were forthwith turned out by the citizens on their guilt becoming known.1 The whole theory of the consequences of excommunication is well developed in the charter of foundation granted to the church of St. Mary Magdalen, in 1520, by Jerome, Bishop of Brandenburg. All who dare to infringe its provisions are declared excommunicate, nune pro tune and tune pro nunc. For ten days the anathema is to be pronounced in the church, against the offender, with bell, book, and candle, when, if he remains obdurate, the priest at the head of the citizens is to proceed to his house and to cast at it three stones in token of eternal damnation. If for another ten days he continues contumacious, then his friends and relations and servants are to be warned not to minister to him salt, or food, or drink, or water, or fire, or to perform any other office of humanity under pain of sharing his punishment. If this is insutflcient for another ten days, then any place, or town, or church, or monastery where he may take refuge is laid under an interdict, lasting until three clays after his departure. If the hardened sinner persists in his impenitence for ten days more, then all secular authorities, judges, nobles, and others having jurisdiction are ordered, under pain of excomlmunication, to seize his person and property, goods, lands, and chattels, for imprisonment and confiscation.2 It was only by means of the secular power that these consequences of excommunication could be enforced; and the secular power, as a rule, was prompt in lending its aid. 1 Lulewig, Reliq. Mssetor. T. XI. p. 61.3. o Fundationis Eccles. M. Magdal. ~~ 14-22 (Ludewig T. XI. pp. 457-69). See also the excommunication of Rano von Kannenstein, in 1467, by the Abbot of Pegau (Ejusd. T. XII. p. 276). The ceremony of stoning the house of an excommunicate was one of wide extent. It was forbidden in 1337 by the council of Avignon (Concil. Avenion. ann. 1337, can. 8.-Harduin. VII. 1624-5). i384 E XC OMMUNICATION. Almost every code in Europe plecldgoed its assistance to vindicate the authority of the church, and this was generally done by depriving the excommnunicate of his privileges as a citizen, or by withdrawing from him all legal protection and rendering him an outlaw —that is a wild beast, bearing a capuzt lpiEinum —to be tracked and slain by any on e. Notwithstandlincg the failure of Henry II. in the constitutions of Clarendonl the English law, after the bitter experience of ecclesiastical tenderness under King John, was peculiarly jealous of all ecclesiastical interference. Yet the excommunicate could enter into no legal contracts; he had no standing in court, either as plaintiff or advocate; he was denied the wagerl of battle, and no one could eat, or drink, or speak, or live with him, either publicly or in private.l Indeed, from the time of the Saxons harboring an excommunicate was an offence against the crown which placed the offender at the king's lercy, both as to person and property.2 If any one remained under excommunication for forty clays, the bishop could apply to the king's court whence immediately a writ was issued to the sheriff commanding him to seize the offender and to imprison him or hold him in sufficient bail until he gave full satisfaction to the church, and he could be released only in virtue of an episcopal declaration of his reconciliation, Lunless, indeed, he could prove that the ecclesiastical proceedings against him had been unlawful.3 Disobedience to the king's writ entailed outlawry, with all its tremendous consequences, and this was the result of persistent contumacy.4 The church struggled hard to maintain these privileges, which were not unfrequently disregarded. In 1261, the council' Horne, Myrror of Justice, cap. ii. ~~ 3, 5, 27; cap. iii. ~ 23.-Bracton, Lib. v. Tract. v. cap. 23, ~ l.-F'leta, Lib. vI. cap. xv. ~ 2. " Cnuti L1. Secul. Tit. lxvii.-L1. Henrici I. ~ 1; Tit. x. ~; Tit. si. ~ 14; Tit. xiii. ~ 10. Bracton, Lib. v. Tract. v. cap. ii. QI 2, 4; cap. xxiii. ~ 4. Bracton, Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. xii. ~ 8. TEMPORAL PENALTIES. 385 of Laambeth complained that sometimes the writ de excom-?municato capiendo was refused, in which case it orders the bishop whose application was disregarded to place under interdict all the royal possessions in his diocese. Sometimes, also, the sheriffs and bailiffs allowed the bishop's prisoners to be discharged, for which those officials are ordered to be duly excommunicated.' A century later the church advanced in its pretensions, for the council of London in 1342 complains bitterly of imprisoned excommunicates being liberated on bail to answer before the ecclesiastical courts. It denounces this as an in-terference with the jurisdiction of the church, but has no remedy to suggest except further excommunications.2 Yet with all this the independent insular spirit is shown in the power assumed by the king of commanding the ordinaries, or episcopal officials, to remove excommulnications within a stated time, and in 1315 Edward II. promised that lhe would issue no more letters to that effect, except in cases where the ecclesiastical sentence appeared to infiringe upon the royal prerocgative.3 It was ominous of the future, moreover, that when in 1389 the Statute of Provisors, which deprived the papal court of patronage in the English church, was revived, it was re-enforced by a provision that any one bringing into the kingdom any excommunication for actions arising under the statute should be imprisoned with liability of life and liimb, and all his lands and goods be forfeited to the king; while any one pretending to execute such an excommunication, should, if a -prelate, be deprived of his temporalities during the king's pleasure, and, if of lower degree, be thrown into prison and subjected to a discretionary fine.'' Concil. LIambeth. ann1. 1261, can. de Excom. capiend. (Hardclin. VII. 539). 2 Concil. London. ann. 1342, can. xiii. (Harduin. VII. 16600). 3 IX. Edw. II. cap. 7. (Staftutes at Large, I. 168, Ed. 176'9). XIII. Ric. II. cap. 3. (Ibid. p. 395). 33 386 EXCOMMU'NICATION. Wales was even more prompt in enforcing the sentences of the ecclesiastical courts, and the law was obliged to interfere rather for the protection of the excommunicate under the fearful disadvantages of his outlawed condition. " If a person be excommunicatedl, whatever the cause for which he may be excommunicated, and the lord willeth his spoil on the spot, the law says that he is not to suffer spoliation until he shall have been excommunicated a mnonth and a day."' That he should be exposed to the ordinary disabilities of the outlaw is, therefore, a matter of course) During the period which preceded the final absorption of Wales, however, the Normanizing influence of the prelates led to long and intricate quarrels between them and the native princes, in which the secular power fiequently declined to support the censures of the church. Thus in a settlement of disputed questions made in 1261 between Llywelyn, Prince of Wales, and Richard, Bishop. of Bangor, there is a clause providing that the former, when duly called upon, shall arrest excommunicates, which apparently he had previously refused to do.3 In France the church at first seems to have endeavored to take the matter into its own hands, by applying both spiritual and temporal penalties. The eulogist of Geoffrey of Muret, who was Abbot of Castres in 1110, describes how in his holy zeal he threw into his dungeons those whom he had delivered over to Satan if they remained impenitent for a year, and how his victims recalcitrating against this double punishment appealed to the secular tribunals, giving rise to a lively quarrel between the two jurisdictions.4 In time, however, the state came to the aid of the church 1 Anomalous Laws, Bk. v. chap. ii. ~ 91; Bk. xI. ch. iii. ~ 23. (Aneurin Owen's Ancient Laws, &c., of Wales, Vol. II. pp. 75, 411.) 2 Dimetian Code, Bk. III. ch. i. ~ 10. —Anolmalous Laws, Bk. vIII. ch. xi. 19. (Ibid. I. 591; II. 205.) I HaIddan & Stubbs's Councils of Gr. Brit. I. 490. 4 Du Cange, Observations sur les Memoires de Joinville, P. I. No, 27. TEMPORAL PENALTIES. 387 as a matter of course, and supported its anathema with civil inflictions. The first forimal regulation to this effect appears to have arisen from the efforts to quench the Albigensian heresy, when the Regent Blanche of Castile, in 1228, in an edict addressed to the authorities of Nismes and Narbonne, deplores the contempt generally felt in those districts for the sentence of excommunication, and directs that the avoidance of intercourse with excommunicates shall be strictly observed, while any one remaining unreconcilecd for a year shall be compelled to seek absolution by the seizure of all his property, real and personal, which shall not be returned until he shall be reacldmitted to communion, and not even then without a special mandate from the crown.' This practically amounted to an absolute confiscation, as may be seen in the proceedings of various councils of the period; andc to quicken the sensibilities of the obdurate, a preliminary mulct of ten livres was added, to be levied on all excommunicates who allowed forty days to pass without seeking reconciliation.2 These rules, however, were scarcely applicable to the whole kingdom, and the customary cautious sagacity of St. Louis rendered him wary in pledging his power to the blind support of those who too often used their spiritual jurisdiction for the gratification of malice or ambition. About the year 1250 an assembly of the French bishops held in Paris demanded an interview with St. Louis, and assured him that he was allowing Christianity to be destroyed. The good king crossed himself and asked how that could be' when Guy, Bishop of Auxerre, replied that it was because excommunications were no longer respected, and men preferred to die under the anathema rather than to seek absolution. Therefore they requested him to issue an edict commanding his officers to seize the possessions of all who remained for a year and a day under the censure' Ordonn. ann. 1228, ~ 7 (Isambert, Anc. Lois Frang. I. 233). Concil. apud. Copriniacum ann. 1238, can. 17, 18 (Harduin. VII. 319. -Concil. Biterrens. ann. 1246, can. 36 (Ibid. p. 413). 388 EXCOMMUNICATION. of the church. To this St. Louis replied that he would willingly do so in all cases where parties were found to be in the wrong towards the church or her ministers. The prelates responded that the secular courts had no authority to investigate such matters, but the king was firm, illiustrating his position by the case of the Count of Britanny who remained under excommunication for seven years, while pleading against his clergy, and finally obtained a verdict in his favor from the pope himself. Now, said the king, if I had forced the count to submit at the end of the first year, I should have done wrong to God and man, anlld it would be contrary to God's justice were I to constrain those whom the clergy have wronged to seek absolution without hearing their appeals. This was unanswerable, and St. Louis was troubled with no more requests of the kind.l Joinville describes this scene as an eye-witness, and his testimony is not to be doubted, yet there is no trace of any such regulations in the legislation attributed to St. Louis. In the collection known as the JEtablissements it is ordered that the royal officers, when summoned by the bishop. shall seize both person and property of any one remaining under excommunication for a year and a day, without providing for any inquest into the circumstances connected with the case.2 It apparently was not easy to enforce this, and its observance had to be secured by repeated enactments, such as that of Philip III. shortly after his father's death in 1274, and of Louis X. in 1315,3 and complaints of its neglect continually arose. The whole subject appears to have been one regulated by no settled principle, for in 1280 the Parlement decided, in a case between the king and the Archbishop of Tours, that the royal officers were not bound to coerce excommunicates by' Joinville, HIistoire de Saint Loys.-This has been considered as the origin of the appellate power exercised by the crown in the capel comme d'cabis (Isambert I. 358). 2 Eta blissements, Liv. I. chap. 123. u Isambert, II. 655, III. 123. TEMPO RAL PENALTIES. 389 the seizure of person and property;' and yet in the same year, on complaint of the Bishop of Poitiers, it ordered that excommnunicates should be punished by the secular power according to custom.2 Under these conflicting decisions it is no wonder that the royal officials were not alert in seconding the ecclesiastical courts; and in 1291 we find an agreement between the king and the Archbishop of Bourges, wherein the latter promises that he will no longer prosecute the royal bailli to force him to execute the sentence of excommunication on those who happened to have nothing that could be seized.3 Some, indeed, did not confine themselves to merely the resistance of inertia, for in 1299 Philippe-le-Bel was obliged to command his baillis in Touraine and Le Mans not to protect excommunicates as they were in the habit of doing, but to constrain them to submission according to the laws.4 It thus required repeated enunciations of the principle to secure its observance, and the church was not idle in contributing to the good work. It was no easy task, indeed, to keep the faithful in the due condition of obedience. Occasionally sons of Belial were found who even dared irreverently to retort the censures of the church, by burlesquing the awful rites which symbolized the destruction of their souls. With wisps of lighted straw, tallow candles, pans of burning coals, and other profane contrivances, they mimicked the condemnation passed upon them, to the infinite scandal of all believers. Such hopeless sinners were manifestly beyond the reach of spiritual terrors, and the council of Avignon, in 1326, was compelled to call upon the secular authorities to do their duty in compelling all who remained for two months under excommunication to Actes du Parl. de Paris, T. I. p. 362, No. 418 (Paris, 1863). Olim, III. 167. Actes du Parl. de Paris, T. I. p. 270, No. 2754. Cf. Olim II. 322-3. For an arrangement with the Bishop of Coutances see Les Olim II. 209. Litt. Philip. IV. ann. 1299, ~ 6 (Isanbert, II. 721). 33* 390 EXCOIM MUNICATION. seek absolution. Judges and seigneurs who neglected this were themselves threatened with the anathema; and if persistently contumacious, their territories were placed under interdict. As though taught by experience, however, that this was ilsufficient, the church further took the matter of temporal penalties into its own hands, and struck at the pockets of those whose souls were inaccessible, by levying a monthly fine of five sous of good coin on laymen, ten sous on the lower clergy, and fifteen sous on priests, as long as they remained obdurately unider the ban.l All this seems to have speedily lost its effect, for it had to be repeated eleven years later by the council of 1337.2 At length the royal power was obliged again to intervene, and ini 1363 John II. issued a declaration renewing the old law that those who persistently remrainec uinder excomnmunication should be constrained to seek reconciliation by seizure of both person and property.3 This seems to have had little effect, for in 1371 the archdeacon of Langres represented to Charles V. that many obstinate sinners did not hesitate to remain excommunicated for ten or even twenty years, all the while frequenting church, to the great scandal of the faithful; and Charles in consequence commanded all judicial officers to coerce offenders to obedience by seizing their property after they had remnained for a year or more under excommunication, but lie adds a caution which indicates for us one of the prolific sources of abuse in these matters, for he warns his representatives to see that the clerical official does not exact inordinate payment for reconciling the culprits.4 How determinedly the church pushed the advantages thus secured is shown in a provision of the concordat of 1516 between Leo X. and Flrancis I., where it is presented as a concession on the part of the 1 Concil. Avenion. ann..1326, can. 7, 41 (IHarduin. VII. 1495, 1508). o Concil. Avenion. ann. 1337, can. 53 (Ibid. 1633). Isamlbert, T. V. p. 146. Ibid. p. 353-5. TEMPORAL PENALTIES. 391 pope that no place shall be laid under interdict for an offence committed by one of its inhabitants, unless the magistrate or seigneur shall, after receiving notice, delay for forty-eight hours, either compelling the offender to submit or driving him away from his place of residence.' 7When this was a reform, we may judge how sumlmary had, been the process by which churchmen had been accustomed to right themselves for real or imnaginary wrongs. With regard to the disabilities of excommunicates, St. Louis provided that they might be heard in lay courts, both as plaintiffs and defendants, but limited them in the ecclesiastical tribunals to appearing only as defendantsthat is, they could be prosecuted, but could not prosecute.2 In this, he was mlore liberal than his age, and his legislation received little attention. Beaumanoir, the recognized expounder of his jurisprudence, expressly states that no one under excommunication can be witness, pleader, advocate, or judge; and he adds the very sufficient reason that all who should hold converse with him would themselves be excommunicate.3 The proceedings of the Parlement of Paris show that this was a recognized usage when it requiredcl the proof of excommunication to sustain the refusal of an answer to a plaintiff, or the rejection of the testimony of a witness.4 This is manifested in another case which further suggests the enormous advantage conferred on ecclesiastics by these regulations. Jean Roisel, Mayor of St. tiquier, had brought suit against the Abbot of St. Riquier, and had been thrown out of court on admitting that he was under excommunication. He then brought another suit against the abbot in a private quarrel, and endeavored to sustain himself by the ingenious plea that, as his excommunication had been incurred in his public 1 Concordat. ann. 1516 Rubr. 10 (Isambert XII. 92-3). o Etablissements, Liv. I. chb:p. 123.' Contumnes du Beauvoisis, cap. v. ~ 17; cap. xxxix. ~ 63. 4 Olim, I. 738. 392 EXCOMMUNICATION. character as mayor, it should not prejudice his legal status as a man, but thle Parlement refused to dissociate the excommunicated official from the individual, and decided that he could not be heard in any capacity until he could bring forward evidence of his absolution.' Constant vigilance on the part of the church, however, was requisite to enforce the observance of these disabilities. Thus in 1326 we find the council of Avignon renewing the prohibition of excommunicates serving as judges, baillis, assessors, consuls, or notaries. Those who appoint such persons are pronounced excommunicate ipso facto, and if they do not force the appointee to resign within ten days their territories are declared under interdict.' In the same year, also, the council of Senlis endeavored to enforce the disabilities of excommlunicates as plaintiffs and witnesses.3 Spain maintained a greater degree of independence of the ecclesiastical power than any other state of mediaeval Europe. Her jurisprudence was founded on the Wisigothic Code, enacted at a period anterior to the encroachments of the church, and based on the Roman laws; and the character of her institutions is aptly illustrated by the regulation of the twelfth council of Toledo, in 681, referred to above, which released from excommunication any one whom the king might please to invite to his table. Spain was thus shielded at the outset from the influences which mouldecl the Carlovingian legislation,. and after the rise of the clerical power in the ninth century her internal condition was comparatively free from the necessities which drove the descendants of Charlemagne to seek a suicidal alliance with the hierarchy. Her polity, therefore, retained much of its original character to a comparatively late period. The Fuero Juzgo, or Romance version of the Gothic code, which Olimy, I. 817. 2Concil. Avenion. ann. 1326, can. 16 (IHarduin. VII. 1500). 3 Concil. Silvanect. ann. 1326, can. 4 (Ibid. p. 1532). TEMPORAL PENALTIES. 393 was not superseded until the thirteenth century, shows no trace of the effort to enforce the censures of the church by secular authority. The only recognition, indeed, of the anathema as aln element in the institutions of the Peninsula, is the insertion in that Code of various canons firom the Gothic parliaments, known as the councils of Toledo, which liberally threaten excommunication against all who may conspire against the king, or seek to interrupt the succession of the throne.' The increased preponderance of the crown, moreover, is manifested by the omission from one of these of a countervailing sentence of expulsion from the church of any monarch who may illegally oppress the people, and the substitution for it of a text inculcating submission to the powers that be, as the represeultatives of God.2 It is easy thus to understand why in Spain the thunders of the church were comlparatively innocuous, and how Queen Urraca and her cousin-husband Alphonso of Arragon could safely defy the papal excommunication to which RPobert the Pious and Philip I. of France were obliged humbly to submit. The same independence continued to be characteristic of Spanish legislation. When, about the middle of the thirteenth century, Alphonso the Wise drew up the elaborate code known as the Siete Partidas, he devoted no less than thirty-eight laws to the subject of excommunication, thus giving a more complete and detailed body of jurisprudence with regard to it than can elsewhere be found among the labors of secular lawgivers of the period. He professes, indeed, the utmost reverence for ecclesiastical censures, deriving them from the divine examples of the excommunication of the angels whom God Fuero Juzgo Prolog. LI. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17 (Concil. Toletan. IV. ann. 633, can. 75.-V..nn. 636, can. 2, 3, 4-VI. ann. 638, can. 17, 18. —VII. ann. 646, can. 1.-XIII. ann. 683, can. 4.-XVI. ann. 693, can. I0.-XVII. ann. 694, can. 7). 1 Romans XIII. 1-4, inserted in ley Ix. from Concil. Toletan. IV. can. 75. 394 EX CO M i U NICA T IO N. changed into devils for their pride, and the excommunication of Adam, when he was ejected from Paradise for disobedience.1 Yet he gives no intimation of any secular enforcement, beyond the regulation that a man remaining for a year under the ban of the church without seeking reconciliation, if he has been sentenced as a suspected heretic is to be held confessed of heresy; if he is a noble, hfs vassals are not bound to obey him while under excommunication; and if possessed of any church patronage or privileges, he is not to enjoy them while thus remaining in antagonism with the church.2 Alphonso deprecates, moreover, as improper the reprisals occasionally exercised by communities while under interdict, in prohibiting their excommunicator and his men from buying or selling in their town, grinding corn in their mill, baking in their public oven, travelling over their roads and bridges, drawing water from their wells and streams, or cutting wood on their mountains.3 Evidently in Spain there was a spirit unknown elsewhere which enabled the civil power to treat on equal terms with the ecclesiastical, and consequently the effects of excommunication, in this world at least, were much less fearful than in other lands. Although he who associated knowingly with an excommunicate incurred the comparatively light punishment of the minor excommunication, yet even this did not apply to the wife, children, servants, vassals, and hired laborers of the offender, who were not debarred from intercourse with him, nor was it forbidden to give him alms.4 In forcible contrast with the mildness of this leoislation is the contemporary jurisprudence of Germany. There Las Siete Partidas, P. I. Tit. ix. Prooem. 2 Ibid. P. I. Tit. ix. ley 32.-Also in Recopilacion Lib. vIII. Tit.'v. 1. 12. Ibid. P. I. Tit. ix. ley 19.-This device was not confined to Spain. It is condemned in 1326 by the council of Marsiac in Guyenne (Concil. Marciac. ann. 1326, can. 47.-(Harduin. VII. 1529). 4 Siete Partidas P. I. Tit. ix. 11. 5, 35. TEMPORAL PENALTIES. 395 the Carlovingian traditions were regarded with special reverence, and the constitution and vicissitudes of the Holy RIoman Empire brought church and state into almost inseparable connection. This, in the middle ages, necessarily resulted in the supremacy of the church, and consequently we find in the German law of the period that all the claims of Gregory VII. and Innocent III. were not only admitted but enforced by the secular power. In the Niirnberg decree of 1187, issued by Frederic Barbarossa for the suppression of incendiarism, that crime is punished with proscription. If this does not secure submission, then the offender is to be excommunicated by his bishop, and is not to be absolved until he makes full amends for the damage caused by the arson. On the other hand, whoever is excommunicated by a bishop shall similarly be proscribed by the secular judges, until he shall have been reconciled to the church, which is only to be accomplished by a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, or to the shrine of St. James of Compostella, involving an absence fiom the empire of at least a year and a day. If he proves obstinate and remains ulnder proscription and excommunication for a year and a day, then he becomes an outlaw, deprived of all legal rights.l The church had succeeded in humbling the central power and perpetuating the anarchy of Germany, and the authority which thus was rendered unable to enforce the law was obliged to implore the assistance of the church, and to pay for that assistance by placing its forces at the disposal of the spiritual courts. It is the old story of the Carlovingians repeated at a period when the church was more fully able to take advantage of its opportunities. When Barbarossa's grandson, Frederic II., received the imperial crown in 1220, at the hands of Honorius III., the coronation ceremonies were varied by a solemn excommu1 Feudor. Lib. v. Tit. x.-Cf. Conrad. Ursperg. ann. 1187. 396 EX C OMMUNICATION. iiication, with bell, book, and candle, launched by the pope against all who should promulgate or enforce laws infringing the privileges of the church. All who were connected in any way with such laws, from the monarch in whose name they were issued, to the officers executing them, and the scribes engrossing them, were declared anathematized ipso facto, unless within sixty days the laws were annulled or repealed.1 This was forthwith confirmed by Frederic, in an edict by which lie surrendered the power of the state unreservedly, without even asking for an equivalent. Any one incurring excommunication for infriinging the liberties of the church, and so remaining for a year, was threatened with the imperial baiin ntil he should obtain absolution. If excommunicated for harboring heretics, and not reconciled within a year, he was declared infamous and ineligible to any office or place of trust, disabled from bequeathing or receiving inheritance, from bearinog witness, and from appearing as plaintiff. If a judge, his verdicts were null and he could try no causes; if an advocate, he had no standing in court; and if a notary, his official documents were void.2 When such laws as these were- wrung from monarchs whose whole lives were consumed in ain internecine conflict with the papal power, it is not surprising to find that the principles which they thus were compelled to admit were developed even more fully in the pretensions advancecl by the church. Already, in 1266, the council of Cologne directs the excommunication of any secular maogistrate who shall refuse or neglect to compel the submission of any one remaining under excommunication for a yea r;3' This decree was not of mnere momentary force. It was quoted in 1236 as a rule of the church by Gregory IX. to Thibaut of Navarre (Martene, Thesaur. I. 996). 2 Const. Frid. II. post Lib. Fedeor. ~~ 3, 8.-The latter of these was even interpolated in the Code of Justinian, Post Const. 4, Cod. I. v.-Cf. Capit. Gregor. IX. ann. 1235 (Harduin, VII. 163-4). Concil. Coloniens. ann. 1266, can. 37, 38 (Harduin. VII. 575). TELPOPRAL PENALTIES. 397 and even this became exceeded in the popular jurisprudence of the empire. The civil and the ecclesiastical powers were bound together with the closest requirements of mutual support, yet with the supremacy of the spiritual authority fully admitted in tile last resort. Thus, in the Suabian law, which ruled all Southern Gernmany it is declared to be in virtue of an agreement entered into between Constantine the Great anc Sylvester I., that any one remaining under excommunication for six weeks and a day is to be proscribed by the lay courts; and similarly proscription, after the same interval, is to be followed by excommunication; and whichever of the two penalties has been first inflicted is to be removed before the other is removable.' In fact, he who was either excommunicated or proscribed was held to be both excommunicated and proscribed; he had no standing in court except as a defendant; he could neither ask for a verdict nor appeal fiom one, nor act as a witness or judge -in fact, he was deprived of all legal protection in both secular and ecclesiastical tribunals.2 The universality of spiritual jurisdiction was established by empowerhing the bishops, at their annual councils, to summon before them all laymen of their dioceses, from prince to peasant, and atuthorizing the prelates to excommunicate any one who neglected or disobeyed the summonso: The supremlacy of the church, moreover, was admitted by two provisions. One of these directs the bishops to excommunicate any prince or potentate who neglects to persecute heresy; if he remains obdurate for a year, the bishop is then to report the case to the pope, who is thereupon to deprive him of his rank and honors, and the secular power shall enforce 1 Juris. Provin. Alaman. Ed. Senckenberg. cap. 1, 2, 3, 100 (Ed. Schilter. cap. 1, 242, 89). s Jur. Prov. Alaman. cap. 127, 115, 78, 75 (Ed. Schilter, cap. 272, 165, 15, 68). I bid. cap. 11 (Ed. SchilLer, cap. 128). 34 398 EXCOMMUNICATION. the sentence by stripping him of all his possessions.' The other authorizes the pope to place the emperor under ban if he deviates from orthodoxy, deserts his wife, or destroys the churches.2 The severity of the excommunication thus liberally denounced contrasts strongly with the laxity of the contemporary Spanish laws. Any one conversing familiarly with a known excommunicate was likewise excolmmunicated, and if he failed to obtain absolution within the prescribed period of six weeks and a dclay, he was held guilty of the crime for which the first excommunication had been incurred.3 Under legislation such as this the responsibility of the secular authorities for the obedience of the individual was thorough and complete. In 1465, George, Bishop of Bamberg, considered it a relaxation of the strictness of the rule, when he declared that a town was not necessarily under interdict because one of its inhabitants was excommunicated, and lie mercifully provided that the authorities should have two clays in which to enforce his submission or to eject him." Thus, in Germany, the ecclesiastic was fully armed with both the spiritual and the temporal sword, and those who were obdurate to fear of punishment in the life to.conme could easily be coerced into subjection by the secular penalties consequent upon disobedience. In Italy the authority of the church was w-veaker than elsewhere. According to medieval theory that authority Jur. Prov. Alaman. cap. 351 (Ed. Schilter, cap. 308). Yet when Leo X. in 1520 endeavored to enforce this rule, in the Bull Exsurge Domine, against the protectors of Lutheranism, the German legists declared that it was unconstitutional. 2 Ibid. cap. 29 (Ed. Schilter, cap. 111). Ibid. cap. 11 (Ed. Schilter, cap. 351). This forms part of a law specially directed against usury, but the terms emlployed are general, and warrant the assumption that it was not confined in its application to that single offence.' Georgii I. Episc. Bambnlerg. Reform. Consistorii art. xxxiv. (Ludewig, Script. Rer. Gerlmaln. I. 1179). TEMPORAL PENALTIES. 399 was derived from the successor of St. Peter, and to the Italians the pope was invested with little of that awful and mysterious dignity which rendered his name a word of power in distant and more barbarous regions. They knew him as a secular prince, vindicating his claims to obedience by the arm of flesh as wNell as by the power of the Word, and they had too often successfiully withstood his pretensions to feel nucl dread of his curses whenl not restrained by his legions. This is strikingly manifest in the Neapolitan code of the Emperor Frederic II. ~We have seen him, in 1220, at Roncapglia, in his capacity as emperor, invoke the aid of the church to uproot heresy, and pledge the fill power of the state to sustain her censures, both in cases of suspected faith and of infringement of her liberties. In the freer air, however, of his hereditary kingdom of Sicily, he was careful to keep her at arm's length, and jealously maintained the independence of secular jurisdiction. In the Sicilian Constitutions there is no allusion to excommunication. The state did not call upon the church to aid in enforcing the secular law, nor would it allow itself to be called on to enforce the judgments of the church by temporal penalties. This is particularly significant when we find the lawgiver regulating ymany questions as to heresy, USl'ry tithes, marriage, incest, adultery, pemrjury, sorcery, testaments, and inheritance which at that period were generally conceded to belong almost exclusively to ecclesiastical jurisdiction;' and thle intention of the legislator is rendered unquestionable by the care with which lie limits the immunity of the clergy from the civil tribunals, and prohibits thelm from any share in administering the laws.2 Constit. Sicularum Lib. I. Tit. 1, 2, 3, Tit. 5 cap. 2, Tit. 7 cap. 1.Lib. II. Tit. 11, Tit. 38 cap. 2.-Lib. IIi. Tit. 25, Tit. 40 cap. 7. Tit. 42 cap. 2, 3, Tit. 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 59.-In the whole code the only offence comnmnitted to the jurisdiction of the church is that of adultery (Lib. III. Tit.. Lib.. Tit. 4 5. Tit. ap. 2. Tit. 72. " Ibidl. Lib. I. Tit. 40, 08, 05. Tit. GG ca3p. 2. Tit. 72. 400o El XCOMMUNICATION. At the other extremlity of Italy, when the pressure from Germany was removed, there was equal alacrity on the part of the independent states in disregarding the claims and pretensions of the church. Thus M'ilan, in 1347, decided that the clergy were bound, equally with the laity, by all the details of municipal law;' and in 1388 Gian Galeazzo Visconti, the first Duke of Miilan, struck a blow at the whole systemn of excommllnunication by a decree in which he released all laymen from the necessity of answerinug a summons from the ecclesiastical co-urtsclerks were to be tried by clerical judges, and laymen by laymen alone.2 Whatever may have been the motives which prompted the wily Visconti to this extraordinary attack upon the jurisdietion and prerogatives of the church, it was altogether too mnuch in advance of the age for even his power to sustain it, and ill the following year we find him limiting the decree in various essential particulars.3 Yet it stands upon the statute-book to show how precarious in Italy was the hold of the church on those prerogatives which kept the rest of Latin Christendom in subjection. Poland was, probably firom its contamination by the Greek schismatics, even less disposed than Italy to invest the sentence of excommunication with temporal terrors. In 1346, the statute of Yislitza declares that if the evidence of an excommunicate was requisite in a suit, and if the excommlunicator refused absolution, then the testimony of the witness could be given as freely as though he were in full communion. This manifests so complete a disregard of the sanctity claimed by the church for all its acts that we can readily believe the statement that by the commencement of the fifteuenth century the anathemla entailed Antiqua Ducurn Mediola.ni Decreta (Mediolan. 1664, p. 3). 2 Ibid. p. 136. 3 Ibid. pp. 158-9. ABUSE OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 401 no legal or political disabilities, and was consequently but little regarded by the people.l The Northern nations were guilty of no such insubordination. In Sweden, for instance, the inviolability of ecclesiastical censures was protected with relentless ferocity. By the laws in force until the time of the RIeformation, if a man remained under excommunication for a year, without seeking absolution, the bishop reported him to the king, and the king was bound to put him to death. IHis body was -denied Christian sepulture, and his relatives could claiml no wehr-gild or blood nioney, though his heirs were )not disinherited.2 Amoi-g the free Frisians, any one interfering to prevent the prelates from absolutely coercing offenders among their flocks was subjected to the heavy fine of 20 marks.3 Thus supported by the jurisprudence of nearly all Europe, it is no wonder that the church could assume as a general principle that all secular magistrates were obliged to exercise their authority at the call of the bishops, and that any one neglecting thus to performl his duty in enforcing the mandates of the ecclesiastical power, was, after three summons, hilmself liable to excommunication.4 ABUSE OF EXCOMMUNICATION. Writh the power of the state thus at command, the authority of the church became almost illimitable. It was not only available in reducing to submission the proudest monarchs of Christendom, but it extended to the minutest Krasinski, Reformation in Poland, I. 109. Raguald. LI. Suecorum Lib. I. cap. xiv. (Stockholmix, 1614, p. 23). LI. Opstalbomic,ar. ann. 1323, ~ 4. C. A. Thesauri de Poenis Eccles., Ferrarise, 1761, p. 169, 32 4 402 EXCOMMUNICATION. details of (daily life. The canons might repeat with ceaseless iteration that excomnimunication was a spiritual sword which should only be unsheathed in the cause of God, and for weighty reasons; but the cause of every churchminan was tile cause of the church, and the cause of the church was the cause of God. The rule that no one could be judge in his own case thns was disregarded in the zeal to punish the wrongs offered to God in the persons of His servants, and private enmity gratified itself under the guise of holy fervor.' It is not in human nature to resist the tenmptation of abusing a power so tremendous and so irresponsible, and tile warnings to be temperate in its exercise met with litttle respect from the highest as from the lowest. One fertile source of oppression is suggested by the case above cited of the Abbot of St. Riquier and Mayor RBoisel. As the excommunicate was what the old English law denomlinated a 6 lawless inanll-one who could claim no protection under the law —it is easy to see that when a quarrel arose between a prelate ancl a layman, the former could fulminate the anathema agaihnst his adversary, who thenceforth had no standing in court until he could procure absolution from his excommunicator, thus practically placing him at the mercy of his antagonist, who could exact his own terms for reconciliation. It nattered not whether the excommlunication was legal or illeg'al, justifiable or unjustifiable. The False Decretals had promulgated the doctrine that the episcopal sentence, even when groundless, was to be respected,2 and this principle became freely admitted in practice. Beaumanoir advises any one sumnumoned to an ecclesiastical court to obey the summons promptly, whether subject to its jurisdiction or not, for if lie fails to appear, lie will be exconimunicated- 6et li escornmeniement t font c douter, coimment qunil soient guete,' Cf. Alvari Pelagii de Planctu Eccles. Lib. Ii. Art xx. cap. 34, 35. Pseud(o-Urbani Epist. enp. v. ABUSE OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 403 soit a tort, soit a droit."' About the samle period, Alphonso the Wise of Castile, in his code of laws, declares that though it is a grave sin to excommunicate without cause, yet he who is thus excommunicated can only submit until le is absolved." It thus gradually came to be establishedl that however illicit an excommunication might be, it yet was valid;3 and so thoroughly was the customary abuse of this tremendous power recognized, that popes sometimes, in virtue of their supreme authority, granted as a special privilege the right not to be excommunicatedwithout cause. A bull of this nature is extant, issued by Celestin III. in 1193, in favor of the monastery of Nieuwerke,4 and another by Innocent III. in 1207, for the protection of an archbishop.5 It could hardly be expected, indeed, that papal monitions to be moderate in the exercise of power should be heeded when the papacy itself set the example of the most flagranat abuse. In the insatiable greed of the Rloman curia, for instance, not only was the power of confirming the election of bishops turned to account by grasping the annates, but, in defiance of all the canons against simony, the creatures of the court exacted heavy fees under pretence of free gifts. In process of time this custom, became so thoroughly established that those who were niggard or dilatory were formally excommunicated; and Peter Boerius, Bishop of Orvieto, in the latter part of the fourteenth century, relates that no less than seven bishops were thus under the ban of the church at one time for not gratifying the expectations of the cardinals.6 Coutumes du Beauvoisis, cap. II. ~ 28. Las Siete Particlas, P. I. Tit. ix. 11. 20, 21. Avila de Censuris Eccles. P. II. cap. v. Disput. ii. Dub. 1, Conclus. 4. 4 Ludewig, Reliq. Mssetor. T. v. p. 64. I5 nnocent. PP. III. Regest. Lib. x. Epist. 36. c Gloss. ad Vit. Pontificum (Baluze et Mansi Miscell. T. I. p. 479). Ecclesiastics seemed to know too much of the muachinery of excomlmunication to feel for it the implicit respect that was expected of laymen. In 1207 we 404 EXCOMMUNICATION. When we consider the materials of which the hierarchvy was composed and the influences which secured preferment to its highest places, it is therefore no wonder if the trelmendous power thus confided to unworthy hands was abused for private ends and in the most shocking manner. Medi'evall history is full of this prostitution of the name and atuthority of Christ by those who professed to be acting in His name and for His cause, as when in 1253 Henri de Suze endeavored to levy an illegal tax on the citizens of Embrun, of which place he was archbishop. The cornmunity resisted so vivaciously that he was forced to leave town, and the matter was referred to the pope, who appointed the Bishop of Senez as an arbiter. As this prelate was a suffragan of the archbishop he could hardly be regarded as an impartial judgce, and he naturally was unable to reconcile the parties. In April, 1254, therefore, the archbishop excommunicated the inhabitants, but they still refused submission, and after a year's grace, in lay, 1255, lie fulminated a more decisive anathema against them, which is a fair example of the manner in which the spirit of the Gospel was lost in tile all-absorbing interests of the temporal power:" I. If the consuls and inhabitants of Elmbrun do not return to their cluty by St. Johnllll's day they are declared thenceforth infamous, incapable of thereafter executing testaments, of bearing witness, or of exercising any public function, and in addition they shall be banished. "' II. All those who have served as consuls since the date of excomlllllunication shall be disabled from holding any office of dignity. All the acts of their consulate are hereby declared null and void. " III. All citizens who have been candidates for the consulships or municipal council of Emlbrun are declared infamous and perjured; find the church of Cologne inquiring of Innocent III. what should be done in cases where abbots and abbesses bestowed preferment on clerks who were under excommunication, and how they could be compelled to respect an interdict.-Innocent. PP. III. Regest. Lib. x. Epist. 62. ABUSE OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 405 and those who have favored them or may favor them are excommunicated. All the inhabitants more than fourteen years of age who have obeyed the consuls or have been willing' to obey them are likewise declared infamous and excommunicate. " IV. All ecclesiastics are forbidden to enter the town of Embrun; and all towns, villages, and hamlets of the diocese are prohibited from receiving or harboring the inhabitants of Embrun under pain of sharing in the interdict during their stay. "V. All testaments, contracts of marriage, and other acts which may be executed in Embrun and other interdictecl places are declared null and void, especially those to which excommunicates are parties. All children born of such unions are declared bastard and not heritable, notwithstanding the ignorance of those who may have contracted the marriage. " VI. The curates and chaplains of the Maritime Alps are ordered to publish these presents on all Sundays and holidays. All who during the interdict shall frequent the market of Embrun, shall sell provisions to the inhabitants, or shall assist them in any manner vwhatsoever, shall appear before the archbishop to answer for their disobedience.'VII. The present interdict shall be addressed to all bishops, abbots, priors, convents, and other ecclesiastics, with prohibition to receive any of the inhabitants of Embrun, or any messenger from its pretended magistrates. All confessors are moreover forbidden to absolve any of the said inhabitants without special permission. " VIII. The bodies of all persons dying under the said excommunication shall be hung upon trees. Any one burying them, even in the fields, is declared unworthy of sepulture until St. John's day."t As during the next year, 1256,. the archbishop is found in peaceable possession of his city, we may fairly conclude that even his stubborn flock were unable to maintain their ground ag'ainst so ruthless a proscription as this. In sentences of this kind it is worthy of note how comnpletely the spiritual penalties had becolme absorbed in the temporal punishment. The alliance between church and state had done its work, and the church, secularized in its' Gautier, Hist. de ha Ville de Gap, Notes, pp. 208-10 (Gap, 1844). 406 EXCOMMUNICATION. aspirations, relied rather upon the sword of flesh whichl it had succeeded in grasping than upon the sword of the spirit which it claimed to have received from the apostles..Thus the power to refuse tile rites of Christian sepulture, not content with merely denying all funeral ceremonies, expands into a prohibition even to hide the body of the excommunicate in the bosom of mother eartllh. The corpse is to be suspended on a tree, and rotting in the air is to carry dreadful warning and example to the senses of those whose souls are too hardened or too obtuse to fear the threat of eternal punislllhent. This was no invention of the Archbishop of Embrun. It was the recognized penalty attached by the church to all who died under her censure. In 1031 the Bishop of Cahors edified the council of Limoges with an account of a miracle that had occurred under his own supervision, showing that heaven approved of this regulation. The body of a certain knight who had died excommunicated for spoiling the church was forcibly buried by his companions in consecrated ground, but without funeral rites. Next morning the corpse was found lying naked on the ground beyond tile cemetery, while the grave presented no signs of having been touched. On opening it tile grave-clothes were found; the body was again buried, and the spot covered with an enormous pile of stones, but to no effect, for the next clay the body was found thrown out as before. This was repeated five times, until the noble friends of the deceased, appalled by the warning, allowed the body to lie unburied, and soughlt reconciliation to the church.' WVhen the rule was thus divinely enforced it is no wonder that the church adhered to it. In 1260 the council of Cognac prohibited all dead excommunicates from being covered with stones even above ground;' while in Iceland the attempt to bury a corpse to which sepulture 1 Concil. Lemovicens. II. Sess. II. (IIarduin. T. VI. p. I. pp. 884-5). o Concil. Copriniac. ann. 1260, can. 15 (Ilarduin. VII. 532).-Cf. Ducange s. v. ibabloccatts. ABUS} E OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 407 had been interdicted was punished with exile.' Tile custom was observed even when the excommunication itself was despised. Thus, when in 1239 Gregory IX. anathematized Frederic II. in the vain hope of staying the progress of his victorious arms in Italy, and ordered his subjects to elect another emperor, the Germans treated the papal fulmination with absolute contempt. The Bishop of Passau even soundly pummelled and cast into jail the nuncio who bore the apostolic commands, and the whole nation asserted its independence of Roman control. Yet when Eberhardt of Salzburg died in 1246 under excommunication for sharing in this disobedience, although he had quietly exercise(I his archiepiscopal functions without interruption, his body was refused sepulture, and lay at Radstadt until 1288, when it was finally broughlt to Salzburg and magnificently interred.2 Usurers, as being ipso facto excommunlicate, were similarly denied Christian burial, and in 1456 the Bishop of St. Andree complained to the council of Salzburg that thle mendicant friars dared to give funeral rites to notorious offenders of this kind, without exacting satisfaction from the heirs, to the great injury of the priesthood.3 In process of time, indeed, the strictness of the rule was relaxed in some places, where the clergy found it more profitable to be merciful. George, Bishop of Bamberg, issued in 1465 a scale of prices for all the processes of his episcopal court, to restrain the grasping venality of the officials, and in this document he defines that the fee for burying the body of an excommunicate shall be properly proportioned to the 1 Kristinrettr Thorl. oc Ketils, cap. VII. XLVIII. (Havni-e, 1776, pp. 37, 171). In the Icelandic church there were regular fees for sepulture established by law, as well as for other sacerdotal ministrations, even to the consecration of a church by a bishop.-Ibid. cap. v. xIv. xv. 2 Dalham, Concil. Salisburgens. pp. 91-99.' Concil. Salisburg. xxxviii. (Dalham, op. cit. 233). Even as late as 1569 a formal body of ecclesiastical law adopted by a council of Salzburg forbade Christian sepulture to usurers (Concil. Salisburg. XLVI. const. li. cip. 9.- DalhaIm, p. 505). 408 EXCOMM MUNI CATION. estate of the defuLnct.1 It is evident, therefore, that the absolute refusal of sepulture was no longer rigidly enforced in his diocese, and doubtless even in earlier times a proceeding so repugnant to all human sensibilities could not have been universally carried out, for if it had been it would have demonstrated the falsity of a wide-spread belief that the corpse of an excommunicate, though it might decay, was practically indestructible, and would remain for an indefinite period in a putrid condition. Adam of Bremen relates a case in which a body thus was preserved for seventy-five years, until a pious bishop removed the excomnmunication, when it incontinently crumbled into dust; and two centuries later Matthew Paris shows that the superstition still existed.2 Thus, although the temporal penalties formed the most efficient feature of excommunication, yet its spiritual and superhuman effects were by no means abandoned. These were materialized,. however, to suit the grosser superstitions of the age, and men were taught that nature itself was subject to the awful and mysterious ban of the church. Not only were the bodies of the dead rendered imperishaable witnesses of the doom reserved in another world for the disobedient, but even in this world, if the stubborn soul of man was insensible, the dreadful curse could wither into sterility his lands and his flocks, for God had given the earth to His church, and the blessings of kindly nature were to be enjoyed only on condition of submission to its behests. From time immemorial up to the Revolution of 1789, an annual tribute of 30 sous Morlaas was regularly paid by the Valley of Saint-Savin in B1igorre, to the Valley of Aspe in Bearn. The origin of this custom, as explicitly Georgii I. Episc. Barnberg. Reform. Consistorii Art. xlii. (Ludewig Script. Rer. German. I. 1183). 2 Adam. Bremens. Gest. Pontif. HI-amburg. Lib. II. cap. 31. —Iatt. Paris ann. 1245 (Ed. Paris, 1644, p. a64). ABUSE OF EXCOMMIUNICATION. 409 set forth in formal legal documents of 1348 and 1592, was as follows: The people of Aspe made a sudden raid upon their neighbors of Saint-Savin, when, to arrest the course of the invaders, an abbot climbed into an elder-tree and so paralyzed them by his magic arts that they allowed themselves to be slaughtered without resistance. The pope, informed of this shocking carnage, cast an interdict on SaintSavin, and for seven years it was cursed with absolute sterility-women bore no children, cattle gave no increase, and the land produced no fruit. To expiate its crime and to gain absolution the Valley of Saint-Savin at last agreed to pay tribute to Aspe, and the memory of its punishment and expiation was thus regularly handed down to modern times.1 From this example it is not difficult to understand how the excommunication of animals and inanimate objects came to be, if not a matter of everyday occurrence, at all events a recognized portion of the attributes and functions of the church. Shortly after St. Bernard had founded his ascetic community at Clairvaux, a monk of a less rigid order planted a vineyard in the neighborhood. Two of the Bernardines, regaording this as a scandalous derogation from the austerity of monastic life, after vainly-expostulating with brother Christian the cultivator, informed him that lie should never taste the fruit of his labors, and proceeded to excommunicate tle vineyarcl. It never thrived, and Christian died without seeing it come into bearing. After years of resultless labor hsd beeh spent upon it, at length the owner came to St. Bernard and complained of the curse of barrenness which had been inflicted on it by the excommunication of his brethren, when the pitying saint caused a basin of water to be brought, blessed it, and told the vine-d(resser to sprinkle it over the accursed ground. The vines thenceforth grew luxuriantly, and bore such La Greize,!tist. du Droit dans les Pyrdndes, Paris, 1867, p. 339. 35 410 EXCO MM UN ICATI ON. abundant crops that they were the admiration of all be. holders.l It will be observed here that it was not the sanctity of the monks but the anathema itself which' inflicted the curse of barrenness; and such was the fact also in a case reported by Chassanee, where a priest excommnunicated an orchard of which the tempting fruit enticed away the children of the vicinage from attendance upon divine service. It immediately ceased bearing, and remainecd sterile until the curse was removed at the special request of the Dowager Duchess of Burgundy.2 Excommunication of animals, however, was much more fiequent than that of inanimate objects. The earliest instance on record, I believe, occurred in 1120, when a bishop of Laon excommunicated the caterpillars, which were ravaging his diocese, with the same formula as that emploTyed the previous year by the council of RIheims in cursing the priests who persisted in marrying in spite of the canons1. What success attended his efforts is not on record, but soon afterwards St. Bernard found the remedy effectual when, preaching in the monastery of Foigny, which he founded in 1121, he was interrupted by swarms of irreligious flies whose buzzing solely tried the patience of the orator and the attention of his audience. Wearied beyond endurance, the saint at last exclaimed to his tormentors, "' I excommunicate you," and next morning they were found lying dead upon the floor of the chapel in such multitudes that they had to be swept out.4 In all these cases it is observable how completely the original idea of excommunication-the depriving a sinner of participation in a sacrament of which he was unworthyJoann. Eremit. Vit. S. Bernardi Lib. II. cap. 10. Agnel, Curiositds Judiciaires du Moyen-Age, Paris, 1858, p. 26. 3 Desmnaze, Pdnalitds Anciennes, Paris, 1866, pp. 31-2. Guillelmi S. Theod. Vit. S. Bernardi, cap. xi. No. 52. Willinam, Abbot of St. Theodore, was a contemporary of St. Bernard, and his story represents therefore a living belief of the age, and not merely a. miraculous legend. ABUSE OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 411 is lost in the secon(dary notion of a ban or curse inflicted on persons or things who never had enjoyed or could enjoy communion. The church is no longer merely the custodian of the body and blood of the Redeemer, but has acquired the attributes of the Deity, the power to bless or to curse, and excomrmunication is only the traditional form through which to convey the curse that works woe in this world and the next. In all ages the saints, peculiarly favored of God, were enllabled by divine grace to work miracles, but the formula of excommunication embodied the collective authority of the church, and it was effectual as an every day operation of that authority, irrespective of the character of the minister who wielded it. Hlow thoroughly these excommunications of animals were assimilated to the reg'ular use of the censures of the church is manifest by the form which they subsequently took. Even as the calons, however constantly violated, forbade the expulsion of a Christian without a formal trial, so, as civilization advanced, it began to be thought that an unfair advantage was ttken of the dumb creatures of God by condemning them unheard, and the practice arose of affording them the opportunity of defence before the ecclesiastical courts prior to pronouncing the dreadful sentence against them. Perhaps the best known of these curious proceedings was that by which the distinguished lawyer, Bartholomew Chassanee, in 1510, made the reputation which subsequently elevated him to the post of Premier President of the Parlement of Aix. The country around Autun being intolerably infested with rats, whose numbers resisted all ordinary means of extermination, the inhabitants applied to the bishop to have the vermin regularly excommunicated. The episcopal court nominated Chassanee to appear as counsel for the rats, in consequence of his having shortly before printed a consultation of vast erudition on trials of that kind. iHe accordingly undertook the defence, and proved that the rats had not been properly 412 EXCOMMUUNICATION. sumimoned to appear, and the trial went over until a formal citation to the defendants was published by the priests of all the parishes in the infested district. I-He then moved for a longer delay, alleging that the time allowed the rats to put in an appearance was too short, in view of the danger incurred by them through reason of the cats which rendered all access to the court dangerous for them; and his learned argument on the point gained an additional postponement.1 Ie Thou, to whom we are indebted for these curious details, does not state the conclusion of the trial, but it is fair to presume that the rats were finally condemned and duly excommunicated in spite of the learning and ability of their advocate, for that was the usual result in these cases, and Chassande in his consultation had admitted its propriety. He argues, after various generalizing reasons, that religion permits us to lay snares for birds and other animals destructive of the fruits of the earth, and that the anathema is the surest and most comprehensive of snares. That to preserve the harvests, incantations and other forbidden proceedings are tolerated by the law, and a fortiori it is permissible to use against destructive vermin the excommunication which is.authorized and employed by the church itself. In support of this opinion he cites a case in which the sparrows who soiled the church of St. Vincent were excommunicated by the bishop, and another where the rats and caterpillars who swarmed over a wide extent of country were jointly anathematized by the ecclesiastical authorities of Autun, Macon, and LTyo1ns.2 Such cases, indeed, were by no means rare. In 1451 the fish of the Lake of Geneva were threatened with destruction by the abounding multitudes of leeches. By order of William of Saluces, Bishop of Lausann e, a reegular trial was held; the leeches were ordered, under pain of excommunication, to confine themselves to a certain spot, and they De Thou, Hist. Univ. Lib. vI. o Agnel, Curiosit6s Judiciaires, pp. 25-6. ABUSE OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 413 duily obeyed, no longer venturing to wander beyond the limits prescribed. In 1480 the spiritual court of Autun, on complaint of the inhabitants of Mussy and Pernan, excommunicated. the caterpillars, and ordered the priests to repeat the anathema from their pulpits until it should produce the desired effect. In 1481 a similar sentence was rendered at Macon against the snails, which was repeated in 1487. Another was delivered in 1488 at Autun against the caterpillars, and the same year at Beaujeu against the snails. At Troyes, in 1516, there were similar proceedings against caterpillars;1 and about the same time against grasshoppers at Milliere in Normandy. The progress of enlightenment, however, made itself apparent in 1587 at Valence, where a plague of caterpillars led to a formal trial and sentence of banishment under pain of excomnmunication. The obstinate insects refusing obedience, the grand vicar of the Bishop of Valence was proceeding to fulminate the threatened anathema, when he was dissuaded by some discreet lawyers and theologians.2 Cardinal Duperron, who was too vain of his learning to have much belief in anything but himself, was keenly alive to the absurdity of these proceedings, and in the ritual of Evreux in 1606 forbade everything of the kind except under written permission of the bishop. Yet the superstition was too deeply rooted in the popular belief to be easily eradicated, nor was the church prepared to abandon any source of influence over the faithful. Maartin of Arles, who about this period published a tract against the superstitions of the day, mingles with sensible observations on the grosser forms of popular credulity a defence of proceedings of this kind, providled they are conducted in accordance with the established formulas of the church. The form of acdjuration employed on this occasion may be found in Du Cange s. v. Excowzq?2miccatio (T. III. p. 137, col. i., Ed. 1844). a Agnel, op. cit. pp. 26-36. 35* 414 EXCOMMUNICATION. All destructive vermin he conceives to be the direct emissaries or instruments of the devil, and it is the province of the church to exorcise and defeat the devil in all his manifestations.l Wlhat were the established forms are to be found in a manual of exorcisms published by authority at Antwerp in 1648, which gives the regular ritual provided for the cursing of noxious vermin. After certain prayers offered in the fields to be cleansed of them, the priest recited the 9th chapter of the Apocalypse, the llth of Lulke, and the 49th Psalm, and then proceeded, c " I exorcise and adjure you, O pestilent worms, by God the omnipotent Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ -His Son, and by the I-oly Ghost proceedingo from both, that you at once abandon these fields, meadows, pastures, gardens, vineyards, andc waters, if the providence of God permit you, still to live, and that you no longer stay here but betake yourselves to such places that you may do no harm to the servants of God. If you are here through the craft of the devil, I order you in the name of Divine Majesty, of all the Heavenly I-Iost, and of the Church Militant, to decrease and disappear unless you can add to the glory of God the comfort of man. WThich may He deign to grant who cometh to judge the quick and the dead and the world by fire. Amen!"2 In this there is no mention of excommunication, and if the latter was employed, it must have been a subsequent 1 D. Martini de Aries Tract. de Superstit. Ed. Francof. ad. M. 1581, pp. 392, sqq. The first edition of this work I believe was published in Rome in 1560. 2 R. D. Max. ab Eynatten Manuale Exorcismorum, Antverpia, 1649, pp. 299-305. I find the same form of exorcism, with a more elaborate litany, in a manual published in Italy in 1815 (Sannig, Collectio sive Apparatus Absolutionum, Benedictionum, Conjurationum, Exorcismorum, Rituunrr, etc. Bassani, 1815, p. 217), and it may possibly be used there to this clay. The same collection has a form of exorcism for powder and ball, to insure that when used against enemies of the Ctatholic faith evil spirits may not render them harmless (Ibid. p. 180). ABUSE OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 415 proceeding on the vermin proving obdurate to the exorcism. The custom was not obsolete, however, for, fifty years later, the Canadian colonists used occasionally to seek protection from the ravages of immense flocks of wild pigeons by getting the Bishop of Quebec to excommunicate them; and in the early part of the eighteenth century, at the request of the village of Pont-du-Chateau in Auvergne, a regular process of anathema was resorted to by the ecclesiastical courts against an invasion of caterpillars. In 1713 the good brethren of the monastery of St. Anthony of Marafion, in Brazil, finding that their provisions were destroyed and the foundations of their building undermined by an immense colony of ants, went through the forms of a regular trial, ending in a sentence of banishment under pain of excommunication; and on this being formally read at the entrance of the ant-holes, the obedient insects at once took up the line of march in heavy columns and proceeded to the spot designated for their habitation. About the same time a similar occurrence is recorded as taking place.in Peru, where the ravages of a miultitude of ants threatened to destroy a library,l These eccentric abuses of the power of excommunication have their importance as showing the impression produced on the human mind by the assiduous teachings of the church. Not only was the anathema thus believed to be endowed with almost omnipotent power, but the disposition to resort to it on every occasion when the ordinary processes of law were at fault was encouraged until it became a universal remedy or panacea. Diego Gelmirez, Archbishop of Compostella, in the early part of the twelfth century, could thinkl of no better mode of preserving the manuscript history of his pontificate than by fulminating an excommunicationwhich consigned to eternal damnation with Dathan and Abiram, any sacrilegious wretch who Agnel, op. cit., pp. 40-46. 416 EXCOMMUNICATION. miglht steal or mutilate the copy which he deposited in the archives of his cathedral.l When Clement III. desired to encourage the rising University of Bologna, he issued a bull anathematizing ipso facto any one who should offer higher refnt for lodgings occupied by any teacher or student; and this became the common law of the church everyvhielre, according to Alphonso the Wise.2 After the invention of printing had given a pecuniary value to literary labor, and before the invention of the legal protection of copyright, pirated editions were prevented by accompanying the grant of exclusive publication with an anathema directed against all who should infringe upon the rights of the author. Even popes did not disdain thus to fulminate the papal excommunication, and publishers were able to defiantly proclaim the eternal punishment awaiting those who should interfere with their privileges.3 So minute, indeed, were the applications of the anathema that learned doctors gravely disputed whether a man who stole a single bunch of grapes from a vineyard could be excommunicated, if others followed his example until the vines were stripped; or whether the same penalty could be inflicted for the theft of a tailor's needle, when the loss of it mnight throw him out of work.4 This idea of supplementing the defects of human law by the employment of excommunication was a very fruitfiul one, and gave immense extension to the jurisdiction of the church, not only. increasing incalculably the power of the ecclesiastical body, but providing an endless succession of fees for its officials. Even as late as the eighteenth century,' Historia Compostellan. Procem. et Comminatio.' Las Siete Partidas, P. I. Tit. ix. 1. 2. Cf. Thesauri de Pmnis Eccles., Ferrarim, 1761, p. 83. 3 See the Rituum Ecclesiasticorum Libri III. Venet. 1516.-reprinted in I-Ioffinann's Nova Script. ac Monument. Collect. T. II. (Lipsi;, 1733). 4 Avila de Censuris Eccles. P. II. Cap. V. Disp. ii. Dub. 3. Conclus. 3. ABUSE OF EXCOMMIUNICATION. 417 any one suffering fiom a theft could procure episcopal letters of excommunication against the offenders on swearing that they were unknown, and casuiStS excused this traffic in the body and blood of Christ by arguing that this process was not intended for the temporal good of the loser, but for the soul's health of the criminal.' In fact, before an irreligious generation superseded it with the carnal device of a detective police, it was regarded as the most efficient agency for the recovery of stolen property. There is on record a bull of Paul III., issued in 1542, excommunicating some graceless rascals who had made way with a portion of the muniments of Montignac in Bigorre. In the archives of Pan there exist various " monitoires," dating about the middle of the seventeenth century, addressed by the episcopal official to the cures of parishes, for the pur'pose of obtaininog the restitution of certain papers belonging to the commune. These monitoires were read from the pulpits, and after three repetitions, any one neglecting to reveal any facts within his knowledge bearing on the subject was ipso facto excommunicated. So, also, the records of Vic-en-Bigorre contain a resolution adopted by the authorities of that town, in 1665, to obtain a papal excoinmunication against certain parties who would not restore some documents belonging to the comnlne.2 The most instructive example, however, of this extension of the anathema is perhaps to be found in its application to the collection of debts, which was so widely used and so long continued that we may fairly conclude that it proved very effectual. The rise of this custom would seem to be attributable to the efforts of the papacy to protect the money-lenders of Italy in advancing funds to the mnultitudes attracted to Rome by the innumerable interests concentrated around the high court of Christendom. A Avila dcle Censuris Eccles. P. II. cap. v. Disp. ii. Dub. l. Conclus. 2, 3. n La Greze, lIist. du Droit dans les Pyrdndes, pp. 281, 211. 418 EXCOMMUNICATION. sojourn in the hIoly City by any one who had a favor to gain, a preferment to be confirmed, or a cause to be won, was apt to prove much more costly than the simple Englishman or German had anticipated, and benevolent bankers were not scarce who would cheerfully supply the necessities of any prelate in good credit, to the resultant profit of the papal officials. The stranger, however, would sometimes depart without a settlement, and when safely returned to his native fastnesses would prove unduly oblivious of the florins and byzants accumulated against him on the books of the obliging Italian. Collections by the ordinary forms of law were almost hopeless, but it was not difficult to obtain the friendly interest of the Holy Father, whose arm was long, and who could reach the debtor, however distant and however high-placed. The earliest instance which I have met with of this occurred in 1180, when Lucius III. writes to the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose chancellor had borrowed largely of some Bolognese on the security of an Italian friend. The money was not forthcoming, the interest was daily increasing the debt, and the security was becoming uncomfortable, when the pope intervened and informed the English primate that if the transaction was not disputed, the debtor must be forced to settle by means of ecclesiastical censures.l So in 1207 we find Theodoric, Bishop of Utrecht, making default in the payment of 1250 marks borrowed of certain citizens of Rome and Siena, and setting at naught the excommunication launched at him by the Bishop of Prmnleste as papal legate. At length Innocent iII. wrote to Hugh, Bishop of Liege, that the sum must be paid within the year, in three equal instalments, without interest, failing which, Hugh is formally to anathematize Theodoric with bell, book, and candle, in all the churches of the province of Cologne, and the clergy of Utrecht are no longer to render obedience to Cap. 3, X. Lib. II. Tit. 22. ABUSE OF EXCOMMUNICAT ION. 419 him; while further contumacy is to be punished with final deposition.' It is evident that no ecclesiastical rank, however exalted, exempted the debtor from this liability, as Ulric, Archbishop of Salzburg, found when he was excommunicated in 1262 by Urban IV. for not fulfilling engagements made with the pontiff, amounting to 4000 m1arks.2 In an age when the distinctions of meum and tuum were too often subordinated to force and fraud, there was a charming promptness and simplicity about this mode of procedure which recommended it forcibly to the proverbially defenceless class of creditors. They, therefore, eagerly supported the claims of the church to jurisdiction in such cases, which was easily effected by making debtors swear to the punctual discharge of their obligations. Bankruptcy thus became peijury, which was clearly a case of conscience, subject to the courts Christian; and gradually the latter acquired a large and profitable business in collecting desperate debts. Already, by the middle of the thirteenth century, St. Louis felt himself obliged to restrain the rigor of these proceedings by enacting that when in such cases the debtor remained under excommunication for the legal period of a year and a day, the secular court should seize only his property and not his person, leaving him, moreover, enough to sustain life, and that on settlement he should pay a fine of nine livres —three to the temporal and six to the ecclesiastical court.3 About the same time the council of Ruffec, on the other hand, sharply reproved the tenderness of those priests who absolved the dying debtor, without first taking care to see that his heirs had arranged to satisfy the creditors, and in all such cases the misplaced sensibility of the ecclesiastic was punished by making him responsible for all indebtedness, unless, indeed, the estate 1 Innocent. PP. III. Regest. Lib. vI. Epist. 215. Dalham, Concil. Salisburg, p. 98. Etablissements, Liv. I. chap. 123. 420 EXCOMMUNICATION. of the decedent should prove to be utterly insolvent.1 In Germany, the tendency of the priesthood seems to have been towards extreme severity, for the council of Wurzburg, in 1287, is obliged to forbid the excommunication of the widows and mothers of dead insolvents. When they inherited property and refused to pay the debts of the deceased, this was allowable, but when they received nothing the council reasonably enough thought it a hardship that they should share in the damnation of the defunct.2 In an age when a powerful debtor could be reached in no other way there was much to be said in favor of this efficient intervention of the church, and yet the employment of her solemn rites for so purely worldly a purpose could not fail to be shockingto the spiritually inclined, and the natural result of'such an abuse of ecclesiastical censures was to dull the sensibilities of the people to their awful nature. In 1371 Charles-le-Sage issued an edict in which he recounts that multitudes of wealthy debtors remained unconcernedly under excommunication for long periods of years, and the church was therefore obliged to recur to the vulgar expedient of requesting the state to seize the possessions of such hardened delinquents —a request with which the king hastened to comply.2 In 1302 Boniface VIII. had already called attention to a flagrant abuse by which, through avarice rather than Christian charity, whole communities and provinces were laid under interdict, the living deprived of the sacrament and the dead refused sepulture, on disputes arising merely from pecuniary questions, and he forbade such oppressive use of the power of excommlunication for the future.4 This was not held, however, to apply to individual cases, and in 1341 we find Benedict XII. collecting in this manner a debt of Concil. Roffancens. ann. 1250, can. 8 (Ilardcin. VII. 503).'. Concil. Herbipolens. ann. 1287, can. 29 (Ibid. p. 1140). 3 Isambert, V. 353. Can. 1 in Septimo. Lib. II. Tit. viii. ABUSE OF EXCOMMIUNICATION. 421 16,200 gold florins due to him by Hiumbert II., the last Dauphin of Vienne.l Even the restriction as imposed by Boniface seems to have received little respect, for in 1326 the council of Marsiac was obliged again to forbid the infliction of interdicts on communities for debt, without the especial license of the HIoly See.2 The council of Avignon in 1337 sought to check another abuse through which frauds were frequently practised in such cases, by ordering creditors, under pain of excommunication, to surrender, on receiving payment, all obligations and evidences of the debt discharged, and by prescribing a limitation of ten yTears, after which all bonds and promises to pay became invalidcl. In 1456, however, a complaint of the Estates of Languedoc shows that the roval officials were beginning to issue injunctions prohibiting excommunication in cases of debt, and the remonstrances made to Charles VII. received a very unsatisfactory response' —though for a century later the church continued with more or less activity her functions as a collector. When a debtor died under the ban of the church we have seen that the German practice to enforce a settlement was the simple expedient of excommunicating his heirs. This does not seem to have generally obtained, and elsewhere the revival of the ancient Roman custom of refusing sepulture to his corpse was deemed sufficiently effectual —a proceeding which Theodoric the Ostrogotl hclad prohibited under pain of five years' exile and forfeiture of one-third of the offending creditor's property.5 Theodoric was an Arian, however, and his notions of humanity were no rule for the orthodox, while the indecency of the act seemed justified by the general principle which denied sepulture to 1 Da Cange s. v. Excomn. ob Debitca. 2 Concil. Marciacens. ann. 1326, can. 55 (Harduin. VII. 1530). 3Concil. AvenIionens. ann. 1337, can. 27, 28 (Ibid. pp. 1627-8). Isambert. IX. 298, 311. 5 Edict. Theodoric. cap. 75. 36 422 EXCOMIMUNICATION. the dead excommunicate, and it was found too effectual to be lightly foregone. A striking example of its efficiency was afforded in 1356, when Pierre I. Duke of Bourbon fell valiantly fighting at his sovereign's feet, in the disastrous clay of Poitiers. He was the great-grandson of St. Louis, the brother-in-law of Philip of Valois, and the father-inlaw of Charles V. of France, and of Pedro the Cruel of Castile, yet his creditors were numerous, and, finding no means of enforcing payment from a man elevated above the reach of ordinary law, they had obtained a sentence of excommunication against him. Neither his royal blood, his lofty station, nor his distinguished services availed aught against the decrees of the church. lis corpse was carried from the field of battle to the church of the Jacobins at Poitiers, where it lay unburied until his son, Louis II., a youth of 18, pledged to Innocent VI. all his estates to satisfy the creditors of his father, when the excommunication was raised, ancl the remains at last were honored with a splendid funeral.' In 1365 the council of Apt censured the practice of continuing to proclaim the excommunication of deceased insolvent debtors, and ordered the creditors to have recourse against the heirs, which was probably directed against the practice of refusing burial in such cases,2 yet the custom long continued. At the very close of the fifteenth century we -find the case of Barthelemyy de Saint-Aunis, who died under excommunication for debt by the ecclesiastical court of Tarbes, and whose widow, Mlarie de Castelnau, by a document executed in 1499, pledged herself to pay his debts, amounting to 52- crowns, at the rate of four crowns per annum, in order to obtain Christian burial for him.3 As time passed away, the rigor of refusing inhumation was modified into the lighter penalty of burial in unconsecrated ground, and in 1542 the court of Desormeaux, Hist. de la Maison de Bourbon, 1. 285-6. Concil. Aptens. ann. 1365, can. 23 (Martene, Thesaur. IV. 338). La G r6ze. Hist. du Droit dans les Pyr6n6es, p. 209. ABUSE OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 423 the Seneschal of Bigorre entertained an appeal from Dominique de la Case, a priest of Tarbes, who had been unable to obtain Christian sepulture for his cousin Guillaume Beyric, then five years dead, and lying in unhallowed ground-his plea being that the non-payment of Guillaume's debts had arisen from his utter poverty.l This shows that the church took no count of the debtor's inability to pay when condemning him to eternal torment, and also that such inability was thought to be a fair justification to bring before a secular court. This question was one which received different solutions at different times. In the earliest extant Coutumier of Britanny, dating probably about the commencement of the fifteenth century, the subject is discussed at some length. The right of the church to act in such cases is allowed in opposition to the opinion of those who held that secular courts alone had cognizance of such matters, and its jurisdiction is admitted to be a valuable resource against the partiality, negligence, or avarice of the secular tribunals; but the assertion is made that no one ought to be excommunicated if he has property, real or personal, which can be taken in execution by the lay officers. At the same time, any priest refusing absolution to a dying debtor, whose poverty is the excuse for the non-payment of his debts, should be deprived of his benefice.2 In the early part of the sixteenth century, Anne of Britanny withdrew actions for debt from ecclesiastical jurisdiction;' and in 1539, Francis I., who endeavored to limit at all points the power of the spiritual courts, expressly forbade his clergy front citing laymen before them in secular matters, and prohibited the episcopal judges from issuing any summons in such cases.4 Yet in La Greze, op. cit., pp. 209-11. " Tres Ancien Cout. de Bretagne, cap. 335 (Bourdot de Richebourg. IV. 280). D'Argentr6, Comment. in Consuet. Britan. App. p. 2. 4 Edit. de Villers:Cotterets, ann. 1539, Art. 1, 2 (Isambert. X]I. 601).Cf. Edit. de Yz-sur-Tille (Oct. 1535), chap. xII. art. 20, 27 (Neron. I. 131). 424 EXCOMMUNICATION. spite of all this, the revision of the Coutumier in 1539 contains the same provision, permitting excommunication only in cases where the debtor has no property that can be seized under judgment, and the right to do so disappears only in the revision of 1580.1 Bertrand dl'Argentre, writing in the interval, intimates that the limitation was not strictly ob)served, and that ecclesiastical censures often served a, good purpose in aiding the secular courts to deal with tricky an d fraudulent debtors.2 As the administration of law became systeimatized, and petty local despots were less able to set it at defiance, the necessity for these proceedings decreased, and they gradually disappeared; but there can be no doubt that in preceding ages they were in many instances the only mode in which substantial justice could be obtained of the powerful by the weak. At the same time there can be as little doubt that they frequently opened the door to frightful abuses. The power thus conferred on the unscrupulous is well illustrated by Blalthazar Cossa, better lknown as John XXIII. Before his elevation to the papacy, while yet a cardinal and papal legate at Bologna, in the opening years of the fifteenth century, he enriched himself by lending money at the moderate usury of twentyfour per cent. for four months, obliging the borrower to give security, and to pledge himn-self under the ecclesiastical penalties and censures. If the loan were not promptly repaid at maturity, he immediately prosecuted the unlucky debtor and his sureties before the auditor of the papal chamber, and had them thrown into prison.o Another abuse of the system is indicated by a protest in the Ancien Coutulme de France, to the effect that the rule convicting of heresy any one remaining for a year under excommuniAncien. Cout. de Bretagne, Tit. I. art. 6.-Cout. cde Bretgne, Tit. i. art. 6. 13. d"Argentrd, Comment. in Consuet. Britan. p. 17. 3 Theod. a Niemu de Vit. Joann. XXIII. ABUSE OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 425 cation does not apply to those involved in the censure for debt.' It is fair to assume, indeed, that the Diet of Niirnberg in 1522 was justified in including among the grievances laid before Adrian VI. this mode of collecting debts, and that its statement of the wrong and ruin frequently caused by this incongruous mingling of spiritual and temporal affairs was not exaggerated;2 especially when we find Clement VII., in 1529, obliged to promulgate afiesh the decretal of Boniface VIII., prohibiting the interdict of cities and provinces on account of debts.3 From this rapid sketch of some of the practical applications of the power of excommunication, and of the penalties consequent upon separation from the sacraments of the church, it is easy to imagine the authority thence derived to the ecclesiastical body, and the opportunities for good or evil which it thus acquired. In the social order of Christendom, no man was so high as to be beyond its reach, no man so obscure as to escape its observation. Even the misbelieving Jew could not elude the anathema, for when he disobeyed the commands of the church lie was indirectly excommunicated by excommunicating the secular authorities until they compelled his obedience.4 The network of its organization covered every land, and where it could not effect its purposes by working on the consciences of men, the whole power of the state was at its bidding to compel obedience and to crush resistance. In Languedoc it could marshal irresistible armies to exterminate heresy; in Sweden it could deliver to the execuDu Cange s. v. Excomv. ob Debitca. " Gravamina Nationis German. cap. 41 (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. T. II. pp. 188-9). 3 Can. 3, in Septimo Lib. II. Tit. viii. 4 Synod. Bambergens. ann. 1491, Tit. xliv.-" Ipsi autem Judaei per nos indirecte per subtractionem communionis fidelium excomnmunicationis sententia compellanltur.'' (Irtzheiml, V. 623.):x)k 426 E XCOMMU NICATION. tioner the miserable peasant who refused to pay his tithe; and no matter what was the nature of the offence, as soon as the church intervened, all crimes became equal when merged in the one overwhelming sin of disobedience.l In thus building up an organization able to confront the savage forces of feudalism, the church unquestionably accomplished vast good. Yet the benefits thus conferred on civilization were accompanied by inseparable evils. More occupied with acquiring power than with training those intrusted with its exercise, the church found its ministers too often utterly unworthy of the tremendous responsibilities thrust upon them. The authority, indeed, was too vast and too unll ecked to be safely confided to fallible human nature, and there was more piety than reason in the anticipation that God would strengthen the hands to which so large a portion of His attributes were assigned. Theoretically, indeed, the system was one of strict accountability, but practically it amounted to irresponsibility. With the growth of the papal power all the active forces of the church camne gradually to be centred in the successor of St. Peter. Ile was supreme, and his subordinates everywhere exercised only a delegated authority, to be set aside or overruled at his pleasure.2 While thus there lay an appeal to the pope from the sentence of any ecclesiastical court, 3et this illusory reference to distant' An exception to this must be noted in the case of Iceland, whose church differed so greatly from the iest of Christendom. In the code of ecclesiastical law drawn up by Bishops Thoralik and Ketill in 1122, which remained in force until 1275, there is no mention of excommunication save a somewhat doubtful allusion to the interdiction of sepulture. The penalties provided for all offences-infraction of filsts, disregard of Sunday and saints' days, non-payment of tithes, and even sorcery and paganism-are all purely temporal, being simply fines or banishment, and all charges were tried before the secular courts by the regular form of a jury of the vicinage.Kristinrettr Thorlaks oc Ketils, cap. xv. xvi. x xvi. xxx. XXXV. XXXVI. XXXYII. XL. XLI. XLNII. XLIii. XLIX. Johann. PP. VIII. Epist. 263. —-Clement. PP. III. Epist. 33.-Gregor. PP. VIII. Epist. 20. AB USE OP EXCOMMUNICATION-.'427 IRome was, in most cases, practically to render the local judgment final, except to wealthy pleaders, at an age when communication was so tedious and difficult, and perpetual private wars and robber nobles rendered every pathway insecure. Even with these obstacles, moreover, the rush of business of all kinds to the papal court was so enormous and so various that its equitable dispatch became impossible amid the obstacles to obtaining proper evidence concerning minute details occurring in every corner of Europe. Setting aside the notorious venality of the Roman curia, therefore, the organization was one which no human force, in the existing condition of European society, could carry on without the commission of perpetual injustice. The endeavor to create a theocracy, and to concentrate its power in the visible head of the church, was a brilliant scheme, but one which only angels could execute. Too much was attempted, and even the best-intentioned popes often were unwittingly the cause of aggravating the evils which they sought to mitigate. Omnipotence can only be safely directed by omniscience, and the papacy, in grasping at the former, unfortunately was unable to command the latter. Thus the supreme jurisdiction, original and appellate, of Rome, only added another to the numerous elements of wrong and extortion wherewith the church afflicted the faithful. Papal letters were all-powerful everywhere; they were readily obtainable, and in a system so liable to abuse they proved a perpetual source of confusion and injustice. All the prelates of Southern France, assembled in council at Avignon in 1326, and again in 1337, complain bitterly of the evils thence arising. Letters were constantly procured fiom the pope or his legates under false pretences; they were transferred from hand to hand, and were used for extortion or revenge by enabling the holder to cite his adversary before d(istant courts, under pain of excommunication, to tlrump up fictitious c'tses, and to wealry him 428 EXCOMMUNICATION. out with perpetual annoyances and endless expenses.' The remonstrances of these councils, of course, only deal in generalities, but fromn an epistle of Innocent III., written imore than a century earlier, we obtain a glimpse into the nature of the wrongs thus perpetrated. That pontiff complains of the uses to which certain letters of his had been put, and endeavors to recall them. The holder of one of them, failing in his efforts to overcome the virtue of a young married woman, used the papal authority to cite her and her friends before an ecclesiastical court, under pretext of obtaining restitution of certain presents which he claimed to have made her. Thus, in the name of the pope, he procured her excommunication, and that of several others, including a female relative who had refused to act as procuress for him. Several of these unfortunates had died while under the ban, and had not been buried, while the young wife herself had only been able to obtain absolution on her death-bed by paying a heavy bribe to the ecclesiastical judge. It requires no effort of the imagination to conceive the amount of human misery revealed in this short and simple story. In another case a cobbler was cited and excommunicated, by virtue of the same letter, in a dispute arising about a little thread, valued at- less than four deniers. The holder of a papal letter endeavoring to force an entrance into a certain house was prevented by one of the servants. Soon after the domestic was about to be married, when the other interposed, declared him excommunicate, and consequently unable to marry, and in virtue of the powers conferred by the letter, absolved him after extorting ten sols. The same individual caused two hundred men to be cited on fraudulent grounllds by an arch-priest, and then had the arch-priest summoned before the episcopal court because lie had not shown cldue diligence in executing the papal mandate; finally forcing him to buy Concil. Avenion. ann. 132E6, can. 49.-Ejusd. ann. 1337, can. 59 (IIarduin. VII. pp. 1511-12, 1633). ABUSE OF EXCOMMUNICATION..429 himself off with a heavy fine. With a similar threat of excommunication he extorted fifteen sols firom a shoemaker who, he asserted, had made his shoes too small; and. another sum fiom the owner of a horse which he had hired, and which by stumbling in a ford had wet his cloak. Another man he prosecuted for a handful of vegetables, and obtained ten sols from him. In another case he harassed with repeated citations a young man who had causedi him the expenditure of a single denier by not keeping an engagement to visit with him a house of prostitution. Innocent adds that some of the ecclesiastical judges were understood to share the booty of these nefarious transactions; that they-purposely cited persons to appear in places. dangerous to reach, a failure to attend being, by canon law, punishable with excommunication; and that they freely signed and sealed letters to their fiiends and accomplices, empowering them to inflict excommunication and orant absolutionl —in this, apparently, only following the example set them by the pontiff himself. If such abuses could flourish under the lofty ambition and ceaseless vigilance of a man like Innocent, it is easy to imagine the condition of affairs under popes who were either negligent or corrupt, when Europe was covered with harpies armed with irresistible and irresponsible powers, tormenting the existence and sucking the life-blood of whom they pleased. John Gerson, who was second in reputation to no ecclesiastic of the fifteenth century, states that Urban V. was in the habit of remarking that the one thing for which he chiefly congratulated himself in obtaining the papacy was, that he no longer was in danger of excommunication; to which Gerson adds, reasonably enough, that if he had loved his neighbor as himself, he would have used his power to remove some of the snares and pitfalls which harassed the lives of others less fortunate. Gerson points Innocent. PP. III. Regest. Lib. x. Epist. 79. 430 EXCOMMUNICATION. out, moreover, that while no secular law ventured to kill the body for simple contumacy, the church, in such cases, had no hesitation in killing the soul; and he speaks in vehement terms of the innumerable and incredible troubles with which the ecclesiastical functionaries vexed the existence of the poor and friendless.1 We can, therefore, well believe him when he declares that the abuses of excommunication had wrought confusion in the church, contempt for its spiritual censures, and the ruin rather than the salvation of souls.' It could hardly be otherwise when the vicegerent of Christ himself openly used, as did Sixtus IV., his supreme control over the sacramznents for the purpose of extorting money from his subordinates, levying arbitrary and enormous subsidies from the Roman clergy, and enforcing their payment by a liberal use of excommunication.3 T"he only thing that was lacking to complete the atrocity of the system was found when the canonists devised the plan of making certain offences punishable with what was known as excommunication ipso facto, ipso jure, or late sententiwe. This, as its various names indicate, required neither judge, trial, nor sentence-the offender was excommunicated by the fact of his offence, and was subjected to all the consequent penalties without warning. It could be prescribed even for internal sins as well as for external acts; for tlioughts which no man knew as well as for crimes notorious to all;4 and thus the subject of it might be cut off from the church and deprived of salvation without his own knowledge or that of others. This fortunate invention i Jo. Gersoni de Vit. Spirit. Animue Lect. Iv. Corol. xiv. Prop. 2, 5. 2 Ejusd. de Potestate Eccles. Consid. iv. I Infessurm Diar. Urb. Roman. ann. 1484 (Eccard. Corp. Hist. IT. 1940). Sixtus, among other devices, would sometimes cause a notice to be affixed to the doors of a church to the effect that unless a certain sum was forthcoming at once, the church would be interdicted, and its ministers deprived-ca financial expedient which was abundantly productive. 4 C. A. Thesaurus, de Poenis Eccles. P. I. cap. iii. iV. v. EMANCIPATION. 431 gave so much additional efficiency to the spiritual sword that it became widely employed and was threatened upon every occasion when the privileges or the property of the church were in question. In 1491, a synod of Barnberg made an enumeration of no less than one hundred offences thus punishable with ipso facto excommunication by the canon law, and it is curious to observe that in this long catalogue only twelve are disconnected with the direct personal interests of the church, while many are of the most trifling character.l To give a man over without warning to Satan for collecting toll from an ecclesiastic on crossing a bridge would seem but a slender exercise of Christian charity, and yet such was the use made by the church of the illimitable power which it claimed to enjoy under the special ordinance of God. EMANCIPATION. The warnings of such men as Gerson were unheeded. Secure in the possession of temporal power, the church became less and less mindful of its spiritual duties, and its boundless authority was constantly devoted more and more exclusively to the purposes of individual ambition and the oppression of Christendomn. The reform so pompously promised at Constance was easily evaded by the intrigues of those whose interests it would have compromnised. Better things were expected at Bale, but that council degenerated into an unseemly squabble between the head and the body of the church, which exposed both to contempt, and its efforts to diminish the abuse of excommunication and interdicts were of little avail.2 Yet Concil. Bamberg. ann. 1491, Tit. LXI. (Hartzheim V. 634-8). 2 Concil. Basiliens. Sess. xx. cap. 2, 3. 432 EXCO3MMIU NICJAT ION. though tile revolt of the Hussites had shown how infirm was the basis on which was erected the imposing structure of sacerdotal Christianity, the sounding promises of reformation extorted from the fears of the hierarchy were sufficient to postpone the dreaded revolution for nearly a century. The whole organization of the church, however, was so thoroughly interpenetrated with corruption that no internal efforts at purification could be successful. The Valley of the Shadow of Death had to be traversed to compel the surrender of the vested interests, the privileges, the preroygatives which produced so abundant a revenue and o'ave such ample liberty for the indulgence of passion and the exercise of despotic power. Meanwhile the minds of men were gradually becoming emancipated. Already, in the passage above cited, Gerson speaks of the derision to which the jurisdiction of the spiritual courts was exposed by the selfish use made of it in purely temporal and worldly affairs; and, as time wore on, men began to speak more boldly. Even in the fourteenth century the German clergy had complained that excommunicates were not deprived of standing in the secular courts, and the Emnperor Charles IV., ill 1359, encleavored to correct this laxity by imposing a fine of fifty pounds of pure gold on all who showed so little reverence for the censures of the church.' The tendency, however, was not to be checked, and the councils of the fifteenth century frequently remonstrate against the growing indifference with which the anathema was regarded by an irreligious laity. Thus, in 1456, the Bishop of St. Andree represents to the provincial council of Salzburg that men remained under excommunication for a year and more without conceiving themselves debarred from frequenting the churches, and that they deterred, with terrible threats, the officials from visiting them with the canonical penalties.2 Caroli IV. Constit. dcle Immunit. Cleric. ~~ 2, 7 (Goldast. II. 92-3). 2 Concil. SalisbUrlens. XXVIII. (Dalhamn, Concil. Salisburg. p. 233). EMANCIPATION. 433 AMore politic, but not more reverential, was the conduct of the Florentines when excommunicated by one of the worst pontiffs who has disgraced the tiara. In punishing the conspiracy of the Pazzi, one of the victims was the Bishop of Pisa, who was hanged with his accomplices. Sixtus IV., who was deeply concerned in the conspiracy, seized this as an excuse for launching an anathema a.t Florence, but the community appealed froml the sentence as unjust, saying that they had hanged him not as bishop but as a traitor who had conspired against their liberties.l This tendency did not diminish, and in 1491 we find a synod of Bamzberg re-echoing the complaint that laymen disregarded the anathema or visited with savage chastisement the official messengers who served on them the letters of excommunication; while many priests set at naught the sentences of other priests and did not hesitate to administer the sacraments to excommunicates. Evidently distrustful of the penalties which it threatened against such infractions of the canons, the synod strove to revive the fading terrors of the anathema by telling the faithful that in primitive times the disobedient and contumacious who were ejected from the church were forthwith seized by ravening delons.2 All this was portentous of the future, and at length the open revolt of Luther stirred up the spirit of insubordination even amonog those who remained orthodox, leading to the discussion of the oppressions of the sacerdotal sJTstem with tihe determination to effect their removal. At the Diet of Niirnberg, for instance, in 1522, a list of grievances was drawn up to be presented in the name of the German nation to Adrian VI., from whom so much was expected. In this catalogue of evils, the abuses of excommunication occupy a considerable space. The complainants declare Infessurse Diar. Urb. Roman. ann. 1482 (Eccard. Corp. Iist. II. 1907). 2 Synod. Bamberg. ann. 1491, Tit. xi. xii. liii. (Hartzheinl V. 602, 627) — 6rapido ore dacleonurn trahebantur."'47 434-. E XCOMMUNICATION. that the anathema was constantly employed by venal episcopal officials from motives of the basest avarice, and that for filthy gain multitudes of Christians were driven to desperation, their property confiscated, and their souls and bodies destroyed. To render their extortions more pioductive, the officials often included the neighbors of the excommunicate, so that when he and his family had been ruthlessly driven into exile, ten or a dozen others were placed under ban, if they had held the slightest intercourse with the offender, in order that the required sum might be more surely exacted.' To all remonstrances that thle censures of the chutrch are not to be employed for pecuniary matters, the officials replied that the punishment was not for the money but for contumacy. If an ecclesiastic was killed, not only the slayer but the whole town or district was placed under interdict, until the homicide was avenged or paid for; and if a quarrel occurred in a cemnetery, resulting in the shedding of a single drop of blood, an interdict was forthwith proclaimed, until the people raised enough money to pay for a new consecration of the spot.2 Suspension of communion was mercilessly inflicted on those whose poverty prevented them from paying their churchclues to the dclay; and at vintage-time the tithers, under pain of excommuniuation, forbade the gathering of the In the reformation attempted by George of Bamberg, in 1465, he endeavored to prevent the customary exactions by an established fee bill, in which the price of removing an interdict of sepulture is fixed at 15 denarii and one pound of wax, while that for removal of a general interdict is twice the amount. —Georgii I. Episc. Bamberg. Reform. Consistorii Art. xlii. (Ludewig Script. Rer. German. I. p. 1183).' This was a complaint of old standing. In 1418 the council of Salzburg indignantly denounces the audacity which led the laity to persist in burying their dead in cemeteries under interdict before the fines were paid. All corpses so interred are ordered to be dug up and thrown out of consecrated ground.-Concil. Salisb. XXXIV. can. xxxi. (Dalham, pp. 184-5). On the other hand, in 1465, George, Bishop of Bamberg, condemns the abuse of exascting payment for sepulture, and orders that thereafter no charge should be made for burial during interdict.-Op. cit. Art. xxxii. (Ludewig, loc. cit. 1178). E MANCIPATION. 435 grapes until they could select their share, while from this delay the wretched peasant frequently saw the ruin of his crop from frost or rot. The prelates and religious houses -which were patrons of livings reserved to themselves the larger part of the stipends, so that the incumbents were forced to eke out their existence by constant exactions, grinding their flocks to the verge of destruction, and enforcing their claims by a liberal use of the anathema. Other dissolute priests and monks, carrying weapons, brawling, drinking, and gambling, retained enough of their sacred character to be able to use the thunders of the church, and oppressed the miserable laity with impunity, forcing them to submit to all manner of abuses, and to purchlase on their own terms escape from the dreaded censure.1. To this had come the ideal theocracy of Hildebrand, aid this terrible condition of society was the logical result of conferring irresponsible power on the fallibility of human nature. That there was little if any exaggeration in this was shown when the aspirations of the orthodox culminated in the council of Trent, and the faithful hoped at last for the thorough reformation so often promised and so long eluded. As one nation after another presented to the venerable synod its projects and requests for reform, the abuses of ecclesiastical censures were dwelt upon with greater or less insistance, but with a unanimity which showed how widely spread and deeply felt they were. The Emperor Ferdinand urged the matter with an iteration which proves the importance attached to it in the estimation of his subjects;'and he was supported by the Portuguese, the Spaniards, the French, and even the Italians, each enumerating their own peculiar grievances.2 It would be mere 1 Gravam. German. Nationis ad Hadr. PP. VI. cap. 22, 23, 24, 36, 63, 66, 70 (Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. II. 179-202).' The documents are in Le Plat, T. IV. pp. 657, 759, 762, 766.-T. V. pp. 85, 230, 243, 261, 266, 566, 617, 641. 436 E X XCOMMUNICATION. repetition to examine these in detail; their only present interest lies in their confirmation of what has already been described at length. The spirit in which these propositions were received by the Roman Curia controlling the council may be estimated by the manner in which the French project of reform was treated. It was not presented until January 3, 1563, and the 31st Article declared that as excommunication was the supreme sword of the church it should not be invoked on all occasions and for trivial causes, but should be reserved for offences of the deepest dye, and then be employed only after three or at least two warnings. In reply the papal legates presiding over the council admitted that it should not be made use of constantly, but yet that mature consideration -was requisite lest the church should be deprived of the censures which were her principal weapon; and with the same delightful ambiguity, the college of cardinals, to whom the whole was submitted, responded that the council should decide according to its best judgiment, bearing in mind the cases in which execution was impossible, and that censures were the only arm of the church, especially against the absent and the powerful.' The demands of the secular powers for a thorough reform of the church were so reiterated and so pressing that it finally became difficult to evade them longer, and as the hierarchy had secured what it desired it was eager to obtain the consent of its imperial and royal patrons to a dissolution of the council. For this purpose the papal legates, towards the end of September, 1563, shrewdly submitted a counter-project of reform for sovereigns, so artfully drawn up that it would have released the church almost entirely firom secular influence, and have deprived the monarchs of the rights of patronage which they enjoyed under concordats and pragmatic sanctions. This of course drew from I Postulata Orat. Reg. Gallic. Art. 31. (Le Plat, V. 641-2). EMANCIPATION. 437 them a lively protest, and in the confusion thence arising the council was readily brought to an inglorious conclusion. This project, having served its purpose, was speedily cast aside, and yet it possesses a certain interest for us as showing how little the controlling mninds of the church proposed to abandon the advantages arising from the use or abuse of excommunication. It provided that all who appealed to the secular tribunals in cases subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction should be ipsocfacto excommunicate, thus perpetuating and intensifying one of the worst excesses of the system which for certain specified acts subjected men to the anathema without trial and even without notice. The temporal authorities, moreover, were forbidden to demand the absolution or prohibit the excommunication of any one, thus destroying the supervision which in many places the state was beginning to exercise over the ecclesiastical courts. In addition, it forbade, under pain of the anathemta, ipso facto and without notice, all invasions of the righlits of the church, all laws and statutes to the contrary notwithstanding which were not in harmony with the decretals of the popes and the constitutions and. claims of the church; thus proclaiming excommunicate even the princes themselves for the exercise of the rights which they enjoyed under their respective concordats.l Inspired by such a spirit, it is not to be sulpposed that the fathers of the council were disposed to abandon any prerogatives or surrender any of the powers of the church. In the Decree of Reformation, therefore, hurriedly adopted in December as the council was breaking up, the provisions respecting excommunication gave little promise of amlendment. A vague command to distribute the censures of the church with discretion alleges as a reason the contempt to Cap. de Inmmun. Cleric. et Reform. Principum, cap. 2, 4, 12. (Le Plat, VI. 228, 229, 233). o-7:k. 438 EXcoMMIJNI CATIoN. which their abuse rendered them liable, and their use for extorting evidence or to obtain the restitution of articles lost or stolen is to be exercised only by bishops after full examination and not in petty cases. In either civil or criminal affairs the episcopal ordinaries are instructed not to issue excommunications where property real or personal can be seized in execution, and where this cannot be had the spiritual sword is only to be unsheathed in cases of a certain gravity and after two admonitions. The interference of the secular magistrate is strictly prohibited, and the old rule is revived which authorizes the prosecution for heresy of any one remaining for a year under the ban of the church.l While thus there was a pretence of removing the evils against which Christendom so loudly protested, there was the evident determination to maintain intact the pretensions friom which those evils had inevitably sprung. This is clearly minifested by the council of Salzburg, convened in 1569 for the publication of the council of Trent, which issued a series of canons reorganizing the church in accordance with the Tridentine system. In treating of the subject of excommunication it expressly declares that the ancient power of the church in inflicting its censures is to be maintained in full vigor, and only concedes thalt the use of the spiritual sword shall be restricted to cases of importance sufficient to warrant its employmen t.2 The formal abandonment of the right to inflict excommunication, with all the prerogatives attendant upon that right, had indleed not been expected, yet men had hardly anticipated so bold and so absolute an assertion of their continued and perpetual existence. In some respects, indeed, the Tridentine canons riveted anew the chains of the faithful, for, with the freedomn of thought resulting from the Reformation even 1 Concil. Trident. Sess. xxv. Decret. Reform. cap. 3. 2 Concil. Salisburg. XLVI. const. xlvi. cap. 1, 2, 3. (Dalham, op. cit. p. 495). EMANCIPATION. 439 among the orthodox, there had arisen a general disposition to curb the abuses of spiritual censures. Thus when Charles V. despaired of any reformatory results from the longeluded promise of a general council, and endeavored to reform for himself the church of the Empire, he had forbidden the use of excommunication except in criminal cases when the offender proved incorrigible, and had commanded that civil matters should. be confined exclusively to the jurisdiction of the secular tribunals.l In this he had only given formal expression to customs which were rapidly spreading, for in many cases the local courts had begun to set some bounds to the oppression of the courts Christian in civil matters, and had presumed to forbid excommunication or to command absolution in certain cases -a presumption which, as we have seen, the Tridentine canons strictly prohibited for the future. This was a principle of no little importance. The celebrated Richarclot, Bishop' of Arras, in his address in 1564 to the Duchess of Parma, urging the adoption of the council of Trent, does not fail to point out how completely the reception of the council would liberate the ecclesiastical courts from the subjection into which they were falling through the corr'uption of the times.2 rrhe civil authorities, also, were prompt to see the fresh tribulations in store for them under a reformation such as this. When the Duchess of Parma was striving to obey the orders of Philip IT., and force the states of the Low Countries to accept the council, this point was one which called forth the unanimous remonstrances of the council of Flanders and of the authorities of Hainault, Artois, Utrecht, Namur, and Brabant. as contrary to their rights and privileges and the prerogatives of the crown.3 So in France, the encroachment of this article on the jurisdiction Caroli V. ForrnTu. Reformat. cap. xxii. (Goldnst. II. 339). Le Plat, op. cit. T. VII. p. 28. Le Pl'at. T. VII. pp. 19, 33-4, 54, 67, 75, 88-9. 440 EXCOMMUNICATION. of the king and the parlement was one of the reasons which prevented the reception of the council of Trent.1 The logic of events, however, was more potent than the rhetoric of the Tridentine fathers. They might seek to restore and to perpetuate the old order of things, but nothing could efface, even from the minds of the orthodox, the effects of the teachings of Luther and Calvin, and the successful rebellion of the Anglican church. The hoary belief in the supernatural attributes of sacerdotalism had received a fatal shock. Men at length felt at liberty to criticize the scandalous lives of their pastors, and medieTval veneration was fast disappearing. While such a spirit was abroad, it could indeed hardly be expected that the old reverence for the mysteries of religious observance could be preserved, when, even after the council of Trent, Gregory XIII. in 1573 had to deplore the fact that in many cathedral churches throughout Germany the priests and clerks during divine service occupied themselves with chatting, laughing, and quarrelling, sometimes even coming to blows; and that dying Christians frequently were deprived of the saving viaticum1 because the ministers of the altar were boozing in taverns, and could not be hunted up in time, or, if found, were so drunk that they could not administer the sacraments, while through the negligence of priests and bishops extreme unction had fallen into almost universal disuse.2 When churchmen themselves showed so little sense of re-' See the Report of the President d'Espeisses to Henry III. in 1583, and the Mdmoire of the Prdsident Le Maistre presented to the Etats assembled at Paris by the League iu 1593 (Le Plat. VII. 257, 270). 2 Concil. Salisburg. XLVII. (Dalham, p. 576). It would be difficult to conceive of anything better fitted to destroy the reverence of the people for the sacrament than another custom condemned by Gregory.. As the rules of the church forbade administering the Eucharist to those deprived of reason, the priests, when applied to for communion by idiots or the insane, saved themselves the trouble of contesting the matter by giving an unconsecrated wafer —a piece of jugglery with the bod'y of Christ which the pope very properly denounced'in fitting ternis. EMANCIPATION. 441 sponsibility for the awful functions entrusted to them, the laity naturally yielded to the infection of the time, and began to treat the ecclesiastic as an equal and not as a demigod. However humbly the crown might thereafter treat the tiara, there was a new and most potential element introduced in the relations between the church and state, none the less powerful because not openly declared. The new order of things was fitly illustrated by Henry IV., when, with the mocking effrontery of which he was so consummate a master, he replied in 1605 to one of the innumerable petitions of the Gallican church for the publication of the council of Trent: "Je souhaite la publication du concile avec la meime ardeur que vous; mais les raisons humaines, conime vous venez de le dire fort bien, paroissent oppose'es a la sagesse divine. Cependant, je n' e'pargnerai ni lies soins ni ma vie menme pour faire triompher l'eglise et la religion."' Thus Richardot, in an elaborate memorial on the measures necessary to restore the faith, deplores in 1566 the neglect and derision into which the censures of the church had fallen, and declares that even the heretics were more exacting than Catholics in the conditions imposed on sinners and backsliders for readmission into their damnable conventicles. H-e attributes this to the contempt felt for excommunication in consequence of its frequency, and recommends limitations on its employment.2 So, in 1565, the council of Cambrai urged circumspection in the use of the censure, and complained bitterly of the continued interference of the secular tribunals;3 but when the Bishop of Namur, as deputy of the council, presented to Margaret of Parma a long memorial arguing the supremacy of spiritual censures, the duchess contented herself with drily responding that the lay judges had always undertaken to Le Plat, T. VII. p. 279. o Ibid. pp. 186-7, 193. Concil. Camerac. ann. 1565, Tit. xiv. cap. 3, 11 (Hartzheim, Concil. German. T. VII. p. 111. 442 EX C O:IM UNICATION. prevent the abuses of excommunication which had been forbidden at Trent, and that if the clerks would obey the council strictly they would avoid all occasion for a conflict of jurisdiction.' Even Philip II. himself, when ordering Franche Comte, in 1572, to receive and publish the council, points out the limitations imposed by it on the current abuses of excommunication, and in order to render them effectual, directs that in future the sentences of the spiritual courts shall be intrusted for execution not to their own officials, but to those of the secular authorities.2 To this growing tendency of the age is to be attributed the assertion of what were long known as the liberties of the Gallican church, and in 1594 Pierre Pithou was able to enumerate among them the prohibition of all excommunication for civil matters, except the recovery of things purposely concealed.3 The influences thus manifested could not, of course, but grow stronger with the progress of enlightenment and civilization, and the state at length emancipated itself wholly from the church. When. for instance, the French monarchy culminated in the person of Louis XIV., he was able, in his quarrel with the papacy over the L droit de regale," to dictate the celebrated declaration of 1682, by which his obedient clergy proclaimed to the world, " That St. Peter and his successors, the Vicars of Jesus Christ, and even the whole church, have received from God power only over spiritual things, concerning salvation, and not over temporal and civil matters..... We therefore declare that, under the command of God, princes and kings are not subjected in temporal affairs to any ecclesiastical authority; that they cannot be deposed, directly or indirectly, by the power of the keys; that their subjects cannot be released from the allegiance and obedience due to Le Plat, T. VII. pp. 127-30. 2 Ibid. p. 221. Pit hou, Libert6s de l'EgI. Gallicane, art. 35. EMANCIPATION. 443 them, or be absolved from the oath of fidelity; and that this doetrifle, indispensable to the public peace, and as advantageous to the church as to the state, must be invariably followed as conforming to the word of God, to the traditions of the Holy Fathers, and to the examples given us by the Saints."' Nor was this an empty boast, though duly anathematized byAlexander VIII. and Innocent XII., and though the influences which surrounded the king led him formally to annul it in 1693.2 When a certain brother Hyacinth, a Capucin professor of theologyT under the Regency, ventured to indulge in an argument to prove the legality of interdicts directed against sovereigns, he was seized and imprisoned, and his brethren had no little difficulty in interceding for his pardon.3 Even Louis, notwithstanding the rapid advancement of his Jesuit-ridden dotage, had maintained his position with sufficient firmness. An ordonnance of 1695 had defined peremptorily the limit of ecclesiastical jurisdiction to spiritual matters, and even in these the "appel comme d'abus" had given a superior appellate power to the civil courts.4 I-How thoroughly independent the secular authorities had become under these inspirations is shown by an affair occurring- in 1698. The "monitoire,"' a proclamation by the episcopal ordinary, threatening excommunicatioin to extort the revelation of a crime, was strictly forbidden Unless the assent of the civil tribunals had been obtained. In June, 1698, the Due de la Meilleraie procured from the Sovereign Council of Colmar permission to apply for such a document to the Bishop of Bale, with respect to some trespasses 1 Declarat. Cleri Gallicani, art. 1 (Isambert, XX. 384). —In 1810 this declaration was made a law of the state by Napoleon, in response to the excommunication launched at him by Pius VII. (Dupin, Manuel du Droit Publique Eccl]siastique, p. 119.) 2 Isambert, XX. 380. s Monteil, Trait6 des Matdriaux MSS. II. 143. 4 Ordonn. d'Avril, 1695, art. 34-37 (Isambert, XXI. 253). 444 EXCOMMUNICATION. committed on his estates, but he changed his mind and obtained it of the pope. On causing it to be published, the council took the matter up as unauthorized, and in December, 1698, ordered the monitoire to be suppressed, and directed proceedings to be commenced against all concernecd in its publication.1 Thus gradually came to an end the alliance between church and state which Charlemagne found so efficient in his civilizing policy, and which proved so disastrous to his successors. The pretensions of the False Decretals led so inevitably to the monopoly of all power by the church, that when they were once recognized no monarch could ask its assistance in reducing his subjects to obedience without himself becoming its slave. We have seen to how much of petty tyranny and oppression this gave opportunity, yet oin the whole there can be no question that it advanced the interests of civilizations and that the average influence of the church was for the benefit of the people. When Innocent III. boldly stood forward as the sole defender of Ingeberga of Denmark against her powerful and resolute husband, Philip Augustus, he taught the reckless spirit of feudalism that might does not always make right. In those turbulent ages it was only the church that could interpose between power and its victims, and the church could not do this unless armed with the power to coerce as well as to persuade. The weightiest evils of this incongruous mingling of spiritualities and temporalities fell upon the church itself. As its claims to supremacy became recognized and admitted, it naturally employed its power for its own aggrandizemnent. Its claim to the kingdom of heaven became a stepping-stone to the kingldom of earth, and its spiritual Ordonnances d'Alsace, T. I. p. 281. Comp. Arret of 1717, prohibiting the reception or publication of all papal bulls, letters, &c. (except letters of penitence), without royal letters patent (Ibid. p. 486). E'M AN C IPATION. 445 privileges were chiefly valued as they could be employed for the gratification of worldly ambition. The sheep were tended that they mlight be shorn. To the covetous and unscrupulous an ecclesiastical career opened the shortest avenue to success, and the church accordinglly became filled with the covetous and unscrupulous, bringing in their train corruption of every kind, aLind oppression which rivalled that of the feudal seigniory. When this was at length carried beyond human enduCrance, EI urope arose with a universal protest. The bolder spirits emancipated themselves alike from the dlogmas and the dominion of Rome; the more conservative preserved their reverence for the doctrines of Latin Christianity, but plainly showed that their allegiance was to be secured only by the abandonment of the prerogatives which the critical spirit of inquiry discovered to be as destitute of authority as they were unsuited to the new requiremlents of modern civilization. The struggle was long and intricate. For a century or more the press, the pulpit, and the battle-field waere by turns or simultaneously the arena on which the new era and the old contended for mlastery, and when at lengoth plhysical exhaustion brought about a truce at the peace of Westphalia, although the Roman church apparently held her own1 it was no longer on the same terms as before. The )princes who had fought lher battle had secured their pay. They were no crusaders who had drawn the sword unselfishly for thle propagation of the faith, and if they had preserved her existence, their price for the service had been emancipation. Their emancipation proved to be likewise the emancipation of the cliurch. As its temporal authority declined, its spiritual energy revived. The change, it is true, was slowv and did not become fully manifest until the Revolution of'89 relieved the hierarchy still further from the burdlens which kept it weighed down to earth. Since then it has gained elormiously in all that constitutes real powler 446 EXCOlIMMU N IJ C ATrION. over the souls and consciences of men. Unfortunately, however, this has been accomplished in spite of itself, and it still clings to the old traditions and mourns over the disgraceful glories of the past. The spirit of the hierarchy is unchanged and apparently nuchangeable. According to Pius 1X., in his allocution of 1849, the iimpotence of the church to impose its yoke on others is bondage and shameful servitude;1 and, careless of the teachings of the intervening twenty years, he shows what that yoke is by reviving in 1869, as recorded in thejournals of the day, an obsolete order which requires all physicians to cease attendance, and abandon to his fate, any patient dangerously ill, who, within three days after seeking medical aid, shall not have confessed his sins, and expressed his willingness to receive extreme unction. Destined to perdition in the next world, he is to be abandoned helpless to his fate in this, and the voice of humanity is to be stilled for him who cannot be -forced into dependence onl the spiritual ministrations of the priest.2 When the Vicar of Christ conceives that his duty to God requires him to use suchl means to reclaim his erring children, we learn the full significance of the principles proclaimed in the Encyclical and Syllabus of December, 1864, Alloc. Quibus Quantisque, 1849 (Recueil des Alloc. cites dans l'Encyclique et le Syllabus de 1864, Paris, 1865, p. 224). 2 The fourth council of Lateran, in 1215 (can. 22), ordered all physicians, as soon as they -might be summoned to attend a patient, to urge him to confession, alleging as a reason that disease was frequently the punishment of sin, and that recovery would be promoted by absolution. In 1566, Pius V. promulgated the regulation, recently revived by Pius IX., requiring the physician to cease attendance when the patient neglects, after three clays' warning, to send for a confessor (cap. 1, Tit. vi. in Septimo, Lib. III.). I find the observance of this regulation enjoined by Marcus Sitticus, Archbishop of Salzburg, in the instructions drawn up for the visitation of his province in 1616 (Statut. Visitat. Salisburg. ann. 1616, Tit. I. cap. vi.Dalham, p. 603) at a time when the toleration of Lutheranism by the Duke of Bavaria rendered the church keen to employ every means for the repression of heresy. EMANCIPATION. 447 where any denial of the imprescriptible rights at any time possessed by the church is condemned as absolute heresy. It is a damnable error to assert that the church has ever exceeded her rightful prerogatives; that the state should be independent; or that the church should not be allowed to coerce into submission all who may disregard her authority.' The ideal of Hildebrand is evidently still the ideal of the ruling hierarchy. The priest is still the supernatural being set apart by God, wielding the full power of Christ, who has bestowed His authority on himrn.2 The bishop is still clothed by divine law with the rigoht to the unlimited and unqualified obedience of the faithful, while the state only possesses a limited and qualified claim to the allegiance of the citizen, and, when the two powers conflict;, divine law of course must override human law, the church, as a "Divine Institution,' being necessarily the arbiter 4' whose authority the state is bound to respect as supreme in its sphere."3 As of old, this right to the unquestioning submission of the faithful is enforced by the control over the sacraments, through which the gates of heaven are closed and the portals of hell are opened to the eternal and changeless destiny of him whose contumacious obstinacy causes him to die outside of the pale of the church.4 If the nineteenth century is not subjected to the theocracy which ruled the thirteenth, it therefore is through no abatement in the claims of the church to universal domination, Syllab. Prop. 23, 24, 41, 54, 55. " Potestas enim quxe in Christo inest, eo quod Deus sit, ab Ipso Sacerdotibus communicatulr.'"-Concil. Plenar. Baltimor. II. ann. 1866, Tit. x. cap. 1, No. 456 (Acta Concil. Plen. Balt. II., Baltimorve, 1868, p. 231).' Pastoral Letter of the Plenary Council of Baltimore, ~~ 2, 3 (Ibid. pp. cviii.-ix.). The direct application minde of this claim of obedience to the condemnation of the Fenian movement (ubi sup.) shows that the supremacy of the bishops is not understood as confined to faith and morals alone, but extends to the region of politics. Instruct. Sac. Cong. de Propag. Fide, No. 1 (Ibid. p. cxxxvii.) 44 8 E XC OMM UNICAT I O N o but because a godless aznd irreligious generation refuses to render due reverence to the ordinances of God. Yet as tlhe churlch has gained so much of spiritual vitality in spite of the reactionary efforts of her rulers, we may not unreasonably hope that her progress may still continue. Her real friends are those whom she regards as her worst enemies; and in the possible triumph of her avowed policy, however mnuch the advance of civilization might be retarlded, she herself would be tile greatest sufferer. THII REFORMED CHURCHIES. In the reformation of the.fifteenth century, the Protestant churches received the power of excommunlication as part of thle inheritance which they divided with their elder sister, and this imperfect sketch can hardly be concluded without some reference to tthe use which they made of the legacy. Of course the first conclusion to which a heretic can come is that the power which seeks to control him is illegitimate and not entitled to obedience. Thus Wickliffe taught that no one should be excommunicated by man until after he had been excommunicated by God, which was placing a serious obstacle before the ecclesiastical courts. His own experience had probably led him to the doctrine that any prelate was a traitor who excommunicated one who had made an appeal to the king; and he had no hesitation in asserting that the anathema of pope and prelate alike was to be condemned.l Wickliffe himself, however, did not hesitate to threaten others with excommunication, and a tract which passes under his name simply condemns the Artic. Dimnat. Joann. Wickliff, No. 11, 12, 13, 20, 30, 34.-Concil. Constantiens. Sess. vII., 1415, Mvaii 4. THE REFORMED CIIURCItES. 449 abuses of the censure, regarding it purely as a reiedial measure, and one not to be employed either for revenge or extortion.' The "Apology for Lollard Doctrines," attributed to Wickliffe, moreover, merely asserts that the church may not curse except as ordered by Christ, "but acording that man be cursid, for the honor of God, and profit of himnsilf, and of the peple, with mani final leful leke causis os it semith of the peyn of damlllplid men."' A century later, the Scottish heretics known as the Lollards of Kyle were accused on their trial of asserting that the censures of the church were not to be dreaded.3 In fact, Wickliffe and his followers only interposed the right of private judgment by which the offender should decide whether the condemnation passed upon him. were just or not —a very natural position for men so circumstanced, but one which could be accepted by no organization in days when men relied on force alone. John HRuss followed inevitably in the same path. IIe vehemently denounced the abuses of the anathema by which worldly ecclesiastics filled their purses and oppressed the people; aid he reasonably enough compared the doctors who argued that the civil authorities should be employed in coercing the obdurate to the Scribes and Pharisees who declared that they could not shed blood, and who therefore delivered Jesus Christ to Pontits Pilate for punishment.' It is well known how slowly Luther reached the point of disclaiming all allegiance to the church of Rome. When in 1517 he offered to defend in disputation his celebrated ninety-five propositions, he had been fired by the nameless abuses of the system of indulgences which he assailed, and 1 Tractat. de Offic. Pastoral, Lib. I. cap. vi. (Leipzig, 1863, p. 14). Apology for Lollard Doctrines, pp. 17-9 (Camden Soc. 1843). Spottiswoode, Hist. of Church of Scotland, I. 121 (Edinburgh, 1851). Concil. Constan. t. art. Damnnat. Joann. Huss, No. 14, 17, 18, 19 (Eiartzheini V. 86-7). ~R.i 4 50:a EXCOMMUNICATION. he doubtless believed as he professed to do, that the papacy and the church would encourage him in the good work. The sacerdotal structure, however, had been erected by cunning hands, and every stone had been so fitted into its fellow that none could be disturbed without shaking the whole edifice. Under the remorseless logic of the scholastic theology, the most monstrous pretensions of the hierarchy were the iriefragable conclusions from premises which could not be overthrown without overthrowing tradition, canon, and decretal. All that zealous churchmen held most (lear must be swept away, and the church reduced to its primitive simplicity, ere Tetzel could be convicted of blasphemy when he declared that the indulgences offered for sale would insure eternal salvation, even if the purchaser had committed rape on the person of the Mother of Godl Though Tetzel has acquired an infamous notoriety from happening to be the object which aroused Luther's indignation and thus led to the Reformation, he was no worse than his fellows. The whole system had long been a scandal to the devout. Even as early as 1402, Boniface IX., under the guidance of Balthazar Cossa (afterwards John XXIII.), sent into Germany and Denmark a. number of these vendors of salvation, who, according to an eyewitness, were wont to declare that St. Peter himself had no more power than they to procure the remission of sins. In less than two years they returned with spoils amounting to more than 100,000 golden florins (Theod. a Niem de Vit. Joann. XXIII.), and this was probably but a small portion of the amount extracted from the pouches of the faithful. In 1456, the council of Salzburg complains that for one pound these collectors would buy from a church a letter of authority to sell indulgences, on which they would manage to collect forty or fifty pounds a year, squandering the proceeds in riotous living, to the infinite disgust of all good Christians (Dalham, Concil. Salisb. p. 239). The evil was inherent in the system, however, and the synod of Bamberg in 1491 vainly remonstrated against its more flagrant abuses (Synod. Bamberg, ann. 1491; Tit. lv.-Iartzheim, V. 628), repeating the prohibitions of the council of Vienne in 1311 (Lib. v. Clement. Tit. ix. can. 2). The estimation in which these gentry were held in the fourteenth century is fairly presented in Chaucer's description of his Pardoner"He saide he hadde a gobbet of the seyl That Seiut Peter had, when that l he went Upon the see till Jesti Christ hiln hent, THE REFORMED CHURCHES. 451 Luther took no heed to this, nor did he see how utterly he was denying the power to bind and to loose, on which was founded the existing theocracy, when he gave utterance to such propositions as these: " The Pope has neither the power nor the desire to remit any penalties except such as are imposed by himself or by the canons."'6 The Pope cannot absolve any sin except in declaring and approving its absolution by God."' The Pope in granting plenary remission of punishment only means the remission of that imposed by himself." "The dying are released from all in dying.'" Those whom he thus attacked were keener than himself, and easily perceived the conclusions to be drawn from such premises. WBith all the confidence of prescriptive right, they therefore conceived that he was sulfficiently refuted in showing that these principles were incompatible with the existing practice of the church. Thus in the counter-propositions put forth in the name of Tetzel, the latter axiom of Luther was replied to by pointHe had a crois of latan ful of stones, And in a glas he hadde pigges bones. But with these relikes, whanne that he fond A poure persone dwelling up on lond, Upon a daie he gat him more moneie Than that the persone gat in monethes tweie. And thus witll fained flattering and japes He made the persone and the peple his apes." scltterbury Tctes, Prologue. During the Reformation, the Reformers did not neglect the opportunity which these,angrant swindlers afforded of attacking the system of which they were the results. Thus Sir David Lyndesay presents one of them as vending his wares"I am Sir Robert Rome-raker. Weill seald with oster-schellis... Ane perfite publile pardoner,... The culum of Sanct Bryd's kow; Admittit be the Paip. The gruntill of Sanct Antonis sow, Sirs, I sall schow yow for your wage Quilk buir his haly bell. My pardons and my pilgrimage, Quahever he be heiris this bell clinckQuilk ye sall se and graip. Gif me ane ducat for till drink-.. y patent pardounus ye may se, lie sail never gang to hell." Cuon fra the cane of Tartarie, Saty're of the Thrie Estaits (Early Eng1. Text. Soc. I869, pp. 453-55). Diiput. M. Lutheri, No. 5, 6, 13, 20 (Opp. Jense, 1564, T. I. fol. 2, 3). 452 EX COMM LTEMUNICATION. ingi out that heretics, schismatics, and traitors were excommunicated and anathematized even after death, and their buried bones exhumed.1 In the progress of the disputation, Luther could not help advancing step by step, as the logic of his adversaries forced him to recur to the basic principles of sacerdotal theology, since the refutation of their conclusions depended on destroying their premises. Two sermons preached by him in 1518 sweep away the whole system of canonical penitence; and in another series of propositions issued for public disputation, he advances nearly to his great foundation-element of justification by faith, in denying emphatically the necessity of sacerdotal intervention between God and man for the remission of sins.2 This would necessarily break down all the machinery of confession, penitence, absolution and excommunication on which depended the whole spiritual and temporal authority of the hierarchyyet Luther was still unprepared for such a revolution. Another sermon preached about this time on Excommunication reveals to us the transition state of his mind, and the struggle inevitable between his efforts to liberate himself and the inveterate habit of obedience. Christ himself; he exclaims, had not during life the power of cutting off a soul fiom God. Yet excommunication is the maternal and kindly chastisement inflicted by the church, not to condemn to hell but to restore to salvation those who are hastenilg to destruction, and therefore should it be received with gladness and reverence, and be borne with exhaustless patience. While rebuking in the strongest terms the abuses to which it gave occasion, he still declares that even when undeserved it is to be endured as the lovingly intended though mistaken punishment inflicted by a tender mother. Corrupt as may be the hands through which it is administered —even those of a Herod, a Pilate, an Annas P1 rimnr Disput. Jonnn. Tetzelii Prop. 38 (Lutheri Opp. T. I. fol, 6 a.) 2 Ibid. fol. 11 sqq. fol. 25 a. TIE REFORMIED CIIURCIES. 453 or a Caiaphas-yet are not they to be regarded, but only the motherly church from whose benignant power it flows. To bear an unjust excommunication is the noblest of good works. Yet with all this teaching of implicit obedience, his native independence flashes forth at the end. No excommunication is to be obeyed if obedience leads to sin. Better to die excommunicate, for what, in comparison with injustice, is a death-bed without the sacrament and the loss of funeral rites and Christian sepulture? Blessed for ever is the just man who dies excomnmunicate for adhering to the right, for the earthly penalty will be rewarded with an eternal crown.1 These bold assertions were pregnant with immeasurable revolt. Here was the right of private judgment asserted against the universal voice of the church, and her censures were held to affect the body alone. The soul was beyond her reach, and dealt directly with the Creator. Yet on March 5 of the following year, 1519, we find him writing to Leo X. that he most fully receives the Roman church as supreme over all, in heaven and earth, except Jesus Christ alone, and begs him to disregard the lies of those who would persuade him otherwise.2 Luther might deceive himself as to the extent of his rebellion, but the Roman curia labored under no such delusion. By persuasion or by force he must be suppressed, and as argument thus far only drew him on to further and more dangerous positions, the long deferred sentence at length was pronounced. In the bull of excommunication, dated June 15th, 1520, among the damnable errors imputed to him were enumerated that he asserted excommunication to be only an external punishment, which did not deprive the convict of his share in the general prayers of the church; and that Christians should be taught rather to 1 Concio de Virtut. Excom. (Opp. I. fol. 164-66). ~ M. Lutheri Epist. ad Leon. X. (Ibid. fol. 210 b). 454 E X C OMMUNI A T ION love than to fear it.' These opinions Luther freely acknowledged, saying that they were to be found fully justified in his sermon on excommunication, and that, with all the rest, he pledged himself to prove these good Christian doctrine, under pain of eternal malediction.2 Leo X., however, did not propose to trust longer to the wordy disputations which had already proved so unsatisfactory. In his bull he gave Luther and his followers sixty days for recantation, after which they were to be held ipso facto as under the major excommunication, including deposition and disability for churchmen, while laymen were visited with forfeiture of all their possessions and the penalties incident to heresy, treason, and outlawry. No one was to hold any communication with them, to render themn any assistance, or supply them with the necessaries of life.3 All civil and secular powers were ordered, under the same penalties, to seize and deliver them to the papal officials, receiving rewards for the service; and all places whIere they might sojourn were subjected to an interdict during their stay, and for three days after their departure.' Though Leo, in sending, July 8th, 1520, a copy of this bull to Luther's patron, the Elector Frederic, was careful to inform him that it was drafted under the especial influence of the Holy Ghost, which never was absent from the Apostolic See, yet that sagacious prince did not in the least obey the accompanying command to make Luther abjure his errors or to deliver him at once to the papal officers. WVe have Luther's assertion, indeed, that the Elector received the envoys with scant courtesy and drove them from his presence with a sharp reproof.' The senI Bull. Exsurge Domine, ~ 2, No. 23, 24 (Mag. Bull. Roman. Lugd. 1692, T. I. p. 615). 2 Lutheri Opp. T. II. fol. 286-7, 305.' Ulric Hutten's characteristic gloss on this passage is " Etiam matulam non porrigent" (Lutheri Opp. T. I. fol. 484 a). 4 Bull. Exsurge Domine, ~ ~ 5-19. M. Lutheri Prefat. (Opp. T. I. —T. II. fol. 257). THE REFOR{MED CHURCIHES. 455 tence, in fact, contained nothing but what, for at least three centuries, the church had had an undisputed right to decree, but people were beginning to think for themselves and to criticize where once they were content to obey. Jurists were found to assert that it was. an infringement of the privileges of the Holy Roman Empire for the pope to talk about stripping laymen of their fiefs and possessions, and even Erasmus declared that the ferocity of the bull, so unworthy of Christian charity, disgusted all right-minded el e.1 It was not until Oct. 3d that Dr. Eck, the papal nuncio, officially sent a copy of the bull to the University of Wittemberg, but Luther had already parried the attack after his own fashion, in his treatise on the seven sacraments, entitled the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. In considering the sacrament of ordination he pronounced it a figment, invented for the oppression of mankind:-" W]e Christians are all equally priests. Those whom we call priests are men chosen from among us to act in our name. The priesthood is only a function..... By this figment of sacramental ordination they obtain the power to command, to threaten, to oppress. It is simply a beautiful device to justify the wrongs which have been and still are perpetrated in the church. Thus has Christian brotherhood been destroyed, and thus our shepherds become wolves, our servants tyrants, and our clergy become more than mortals."2 This was a blow aimed at the heart of the enemy. It deprived the priest of his supernatural powers; he was no longer a mall set apart from his fellows by God, and endowed with some of the attributes of God, and his curse or his blessing was alike impotent. It went even further than this, however, for it destroyed all the prerogatives and immunities of the church. The ecclesiastical power was no M M. Lutheri Opp. T. II. fol. 314. 2 De Captiv. Babylon. Eccles. (Opp. T. II. fol. 282 b). 456 E XCOM M IUN1 CAT IO N longer superior to the secular. The civil government was reinstated in its old supremacy, and the clergy were its subjects, to obey its laws and submit to its authority. If the orthodox expected that, because Luther had inculcated patient submission to unj ust excommunication, he would meekly endure thle censures of Leo, they e gregiously mistook the combative spirit of the man. By December 1st he had a hastily prepared answer ready for publication, in which he pretends to doubt the authenticity of the bull, as it could only have been drawn up by Antichrist. " What imore can I ask'," he cries, " than that I may never be absolved, reconciled, or joined in communion with that most ignorant, most impious, and most ferocious Antichrist?"' Yet, though his doctrines had swept away the whole theory of excommunication and of tle anathema, he does not hesitate, in the blind fury of his wrath, to retort the curse:-~" If the spirit of Christ and the strength of our faith be of any avail, by these letters we condelmnl you, if you persist in your fury; and we deliver you with your bull and all your decretals unto Satan, to the destruction of the flesh, that your soul may be saved with ours in the day of the Lord. In the name of Jesus Christ whom you persecute, Amen!... And as they, for their sacrilegious heresy, excommunicate me, so I, for the holy truth of God, excommunicate them. May Christ be the judge to determine which excommunication is the better, Amen I"1 This was not enough. In Luther's frame of mind it was easy for him to persuade himself that a more defiant proof of his contempt for the censure launched against him might be beneficial to the cause and reassuring to his followers. The bull had ordered all Lutheran books and writings to be collected and publicly burned, and this had been done in many orthodox places. He doubtless therefoire deemed it an act of poetical justice to retort in kind, and notice was 3M. Lutheri, Op)p. T. II. fol. 286-7, 289 a, 292 a. THE REFORMED CHURCHES. 457 accordingly given that on December 10th, a holocaust would be macde of the bull and the papal decretals. On the appointed day the magistrates and citizens of Wittemberg, and the students of the University, then numbering over five hundred youths, assembled at the designated spot, near the poorhouse. Learned professors built the pile and lighted it, when Luther solemnly cast into the flames the books of canon law and the bull of excommunication. As the latter left his hand he exclaimed:'' For that thou hast persecuted the holy of the Lord, so may the quenchless fire persecute thee!" The sacred missive of the Vicegerent of God disappeareld in the flames; the spectators gazed earnestly at this bold defiance of all the powers of heaven and earth, and when the fateful ceremony was over, Luther was escorted to his cell by the nmagistrates of the town and the doctors of the University.l He had burnt his ships, and retreat was henceforth impossible. Vainly might the church invoke the warning example of Dathan and Abiram. The earth opened not to hide the perpetrators of the sacrileoe; and Luther, with the ominous words: 11 This is the beginning of the tragedy. Hitherto I have only played and jested with the pope," published a manifesto justifying, the auto-da-fe by thirty propositions drawn from the books of the canon law, which he declared to be damnable and fit only for the flames.2 That the papalists should regard the act as the climax of Luther's wickedness was but natural, and even the constitutional phlegm of Acdrian VI. described it as " that incredible madness of that outlaw, that conteminer, and violator of all law, who dared to commit to the flames the most holy decretals of the popes and the canons of the church."' Yet the effect of all this was greatly to a)bate the tone of papal supremacy, and to encourage the reformers in Lutheri Opp. T. II. fol. 320 a. 2 Ibid. fol. 319 b. Adriani PP. VI. Breve ad Frideric. (1Iartzheiml VI. 192). 39 458 ELXCOMXIMUNICATION. despising the once dreaded censures. When in 1521 the first rupture took place between Francis I. and Charles V., and an excommunication was threatened against the former by Leo X., the only comment made at the court of the Elector Frederic was, " 0 foolish king, if he fears such trifles!"1 The popes felt this, and lowered their peremptory tone. For four years Frederic of Saxony had been the protector of Luther, without formally separating himself from the Catholic church or with drawing his obedience from Rome. He was solely responsible for the melancholy fact that Luther had not long before perished at the stake of John Russ and Jerome of Prague; yet in 1522 Adrian VI., in addressing him a long epistle complaining of Luther, does not dare to remind him that under the bull of Leo X. he and all his friends are excommunicate, outlawed, and deprived of lordships and possessions. On the contrary, he is the pope's dearest son, from wliom the church still hopes obedience and assistance; and only vague warnings are thrown out of the fate of Dathan and Abiram, and only general intimations that, if he continues his protection of heretics, he cannot expect to escape punishment in this world and the next. So, at the close of the next year, Dec. 7th, 1523, Adrian's successor, Clement VII., still addresses the obstinate prince as his well-beloved son, in the most friendly strain.2 Equally significant is a pastoral epistle of Jan. 20th, 1524, addressed by the Bishop of Ermeland to his flock. To withstand the alarming progress of Lutheranism he deals liberally in imprecations and curses, devoting all backsliders to eternal malediction, blut he indulges in no threats of the temporal penalties which had so long served to give a keener edge to the sword of the spirit.3 In Northern Germany, at least, tle time for such manifestations had passed. Spalatin. Ann al. ann. 1521. 2 IIartzhein, VI. 192.-Lutheri Opp. T. II. fol. 571 a. 3 Lutheri Opp. T. I[l. fol. 63b. THE REFORMIED CHURCOIIES. 459 In the heat of controversy Luther might deny thle power of excommunication, but when he excommluniicated the pope he only showed, by unconscious example, that some power of the kind must be lodged ill every organized church; and this was recognized when the Protestants, after completing the work of destruction, commenced that of reconstruction. Every body of men must have the right to determine their conditions of fellowship, and the power of expulsion from their association must be lodged somewhere, to be used with such moderation and discretion as God may vouchsafe them. This was manifested when the Lutlierans came to draw up a formal declaration of faith and discipline in the Augsburg Confession-lthough it should be borne in mind that this document was framed in the hope that it might lead to a reconciliation of the churches, and that it therefore conceded as much as possible to the Catholic views, while its adoption as the recognized standard of German orthodoxy arrested the development of the reform. The relations between church and state, and the limits of the sacerdotal power as expressed in the Augsburg Confession, are the natural results of Luther's doctriies on the sacrament of ordination quoted above. The old abuses of the episcopal power, infringing onl the secular authority, are warmly denounced. The province of the church is to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments9 not to dethrone kings, usurp temporal power, or interfere with the laws of the land. Church and state have each its own sphere, and if the ministers of the church have at any time exercised authority, its source has not been divine law, but the pleasure of the secular potentate. To this is to be attributed the supervision of the bishops over marriage and tithes, with the necessary corollary that what has been given may be withdrawn. Their only independent jurisdiction is found in the remission of sins, and in examining questions of faith. They 460 E XCOMM U NICATION. are to cond(emn all doctrine at variance with Scripture, and to exclude from communion those whose impiety is notorious; but this must be done by the word alone, without recourse to the arm of flesh. At the same time the right of private judgment is reserved to the churches, which have the command of God to refuse obedience to anything contrary to the gospel.' Melanchthon, in his apology for the Augsburg Confession, explains this by saying that to the bishlops belongs the ministry of the word and of the sacraments, with the power of excommunicating those convicted of crime, and of absolving them if truly contrite; but they have no power over the law, and must exercise their jurisdiction according to the word of Godl. In 1597, after the Lutherans had had time to perfect their organization, we find an authoritative exposition of their doctrine on this subject. The ban of the church was not to be employed indiscriminately against all sinners and for all offences, but only against public and notorious delinquents, who scandalized the church, corrupted others by their example, and caused the name of God to be blasphemed; and also those who after repeated monitions refused to undergo penitence and to reform their evil lives. In such cakes, according to the command of Christ, a sentence of public excommunication was to be rendered, ejecting the offender from the church, and le was to be threatened with the wrath of God and eternal damnation for his obdurate refusal to obtain by repentance the remission of his sills.3 There was in this all the elements of a new sacerdotal domination, especially as in principle the princes and rulers of the land were as liable as the humblest peasant to the infliction of the censure. By the necessity of the case,, Confess. Augustan. P. II. art. 7. o Melanchth. Apol. (Lutheri Opp. T. IV. fol. 266 b). 3 Joann. Fechtius, de Excom. Ececles. p. 13 (Rostochii, 1712). TIIE REFORIMED CHURCHES. 461 however, as well as by the doctrines of Luther aCnd of the Augsburg Confession, while the state was independent of the church, the chutrch was dependent on the state, and the German sovereigns were not likely to subject themselves to a new ecclesiastical tyranny similar to the one which they had had so much difficulty in throwing off. The Thirty Years' War, moreover, while it stopped the extension of Protestantism, was not calculated to raise the influence of the spiritual arm. Excommunication, therefore, became less and less usual as a resort, and towards the opening of the eighteenth century some godless men were found who openly advocated its abandonment, to the great indignation of the stricter members of the church.l Theoretically the Lutheran church thus retained thle machinery of excommunication, but with the advance of enlightenment and the more regular administration of law, its employment naturally became rarer. A writer of the eighteenth century alludes to the minor excomlnmunication, or suspension from the Eucharist, as a remedy occasionally employed; but the major excommunication, which deprived the culprit of all connection with the church except as an auditor, rendered him incapable of acting as sponsor, and( excluded himn from Christian burial, though recognized by canon lawyers as still existing, was practically obsolete. Only some special occasion, and the consent of the government, could justify proceeding to so severe a penalty.2 The Calvinistic theology, with its views of election and regeneration, and the d(irect relation which it established between the believer and the Creator, would seem to render' Fecht's work, just cited, is a long and dreary polemical discourse of four hundred quarto pages directed against these Indifferentists or liberals. 1-e deplores greatly the growing obsolescence of the censure. Willenbergii Tract. de Excess. et Poen. Cleric. Jense, 1740, pp. 46(-7.Only thirty years previous, in the time of Fecht, the minor excommunication involved exclusion from sponsorship and dep;iivation of Christian seplultuire (Op. cit. p. 2). 39* 46 EX CO M M U N I C A T I O N. excommunication utterly illogical as a punishment to be inflicted by the church.l Calvin's Confession of Faith carefully excludes all human devices intended to bind the conscience; it reduces the sacraments to two, and professes implicit obedience to the secular power, even if that power be infidel; but excommunlication it recognizes as instituted by Christ, " which we do very well approve and acknowledge the necessity thereof and of its appendages."' Calvin's treatment of Servetus, indeed, shows either that he was unwilling to leave the heretic and blasphemer to the vengeance of an offended God, or that he was quite willing to regard the minister of Christ as the chosen instrument of that vengeance. In either case, predestination and reprobation fared badly. Among the Huguenots, therefore, excommunication was an established portion of church discipline; but as their churches were for the most part persecuted, or, at the best, were barely tolerated, there was of course no scope for the temporal extenlsion of spiritual penalties. Even within the church, the infliction of excommunication was limited with restrictions carefully devised to prevent abuse. The second council of Paris, in 1565, drew up a series of regulations with regard to it which became the established rule of the church, and were included in its final code of discipline. An offence committed in private was visited with a brotherly admonition. If this was disregarded, or if the offence was notorious, then the culprit could be punished by suspension from communion, but the pastor was not empowered to decree it upon his own authority. The consistory alone was competent, and careful investigation was required to precede the sentence. Still careful of the feelings and reputation of the culprit, only in notorious crimes was the sentence made known to the congregation, and 1 Calvin's Confession of Faith, adopted by the churches of France in 1559, Arts. xvii. xix. xxi. xxii. (Quick, Synodicon in Gall. Reform. I. pp. x. xi.). o Ibid. Arts. xxxiii. xxxv. xxxvi. (Quick, I. xiii-xv). THE REFORMED C r-IUC-HE S. 463 restoration to communion could at any time be obtained by confession and repentance. If the offender continuled obdurate and impenitent, however, then at. length excoimmunication could be resorted to: " But, inasmuch as this is the last and most rigorous of all remedies, it shall never be used but in case of extremity, when all fair and gentle means have proved ineffectual." If, after repeatedly striving with his contumacious spirit, the culprit was still found hardened in guilt, the pastor, on a Sunday, announced the impending anathema to the congregation, preaching a sermon on the terrors of expulsion from the church, and begging the prayers of the faithful for the obstinate sinner, whose name was still kept concealed. If these prayers and the warning proved alike unavailinyg, then on two successive Sundays the same was repeated, with the announcement of the name of the offender. At last, on the fourth Sunday, the pastor, in the name and with the consent of the whole church, declared him excommunicate ancd cut off; as a rotten member, from the ecclesiastical body; he was thenceforth deprived of all spiritual privileges, and the faithful were exhorted not to frequent his company or to converse familiarly with him. If the excommunicate repented and applied for readmission, and if on examination by the consistory he showed firuits of repentance, the pastor announced the glad tidings to the congregation; the sinner appeared before them, publicly confessed his trainsgressions, and asked pardon of God and the church, when he was received back with joy and thanksgiving.' In the final code of discipline, the consistories were directed to use great discretion and deliberation in awarding either suspension or excommunication. Suspension was not to be made public, except in the case of heretics, despisers of God, rebels against the consistory, traitors, those convicted of public crimes involvino corporal punSecond Council of Paris, ann. 1565, can. 2 (Quick, I. 57-8). 464 6 X C OMMUNIAT 1 I 0 N. ishmnent, those married by Catholi6 priests, or who allowed their children to be baptized in the Roman church or to mlarry Ronmanists. When an excommunication was impending, the pastor was directed, in his weekly exhortations, to entreat the congregation to pray and use all means to urge the offender to repentance, so as to avert the dreadful anathema "' unto which we cannot proceed without a world of regret and grief."T While in this there is to be recognized and honored the sincetre desire to deal moderately and hum-lanely with offenders, aldcl to preclude as far as possible the abuse of the penalty for the gratification of private vindictiveness, it is evident that there was also a purpose to heighten in the minds of the faithful the impression of the awful nature of the penalty. Indeed, it is curious to observe that, notwithstanding the purely human character of the Calvinist priesthood, when they spoke in the name of the church they assumed the power of regulating the salvation of the wicked as fully as Innocent III., and of delivering himl over to Satan with as much certainty as the Apostle Paul. This assumption of the powers of God is complete in the form of excommunication adopted by the synod of Alez, in 1620, and embodied as the authorized fbrmula in the Code of Discipline. After reciting the repeated warnings and the hardened impenitence of the sinner, it proceeds" Wherefore, we ministers of the Word and Gospel of our Lord. Jesus Christ, whomi God hath armed with spiritual weapons, mighty through God to throw down the strongholds which do oppose themselves against Him; to whom the Eternal Son of God hath given the power of binding and loosing upon earth, declaring that what we shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and being willing thoroughly to purge the House of God, and to free His church of scandal, and by pronouncing anathema against the wicked one to glorify the name of our God; In the name and by the authority of our Lord Jesus, by the advice and authority of the pastors and Cod. Diseip chap. v. can. xv.-xvii. (Quick, I. pp. xxxi.-ii.). THE REFORME'D CHURCHES. 465 elders assembled in colloquy, and of the consistory of this church, we have cut off and do cut off the said N.N. firom the communion of the church of God. We do excommunicate and deprivelhim of the fellowship of saints, so that lie may be unto you as a pagan or publican, and that among true believers he may be an anathema and execration. Let his company be reputed contagious! and let his example possess your souls with astonishment, and cause you to tremble under the mighty hand of God! And this sentence the Soni of God will ratify and make effectual, until such time as the sinner being confounded and abased before God, shall glorify Him by his conversion..... If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ let him be anathema maranatha! Amen!T"1 Those who in persecution could thus arrogate to themselves the right to speak for God, and could assume that their acts were His, lacked only the opportunity to become as tyrannical and domineering as the Latin church in its worst days. Honestly, but fiercely, fanatical, they were troubled with as few doubts or misgivings as Damiani or Torquemada, and in a few generations of unresisted domination their simple form of belief would have resulted in a theocracy as absolute as that which Hildebrand founded. The rapidity of this inevitable development was manifested in Scotltand, as soon as the Catholic cause was fairly subdued. The consistories of Calvin, composed of the pastor with his deacons and elders, became the kirk-sessions, which were virtually the rulers of the land, and which maintained their power for generations against the assaults of papist and prelatist on the single basis of excommunication. A contemporary has sketched these assemblies and their domination in no friendly spirit: " Every parish had a tyrant who made the greatest lord in his district stoop to his authority. The kirk was the place where he kept his court; the pulpit his throne or tribunal from wl-ich he issued out his terrible decrees; and twelve or fourteen sour, ignorant enthusiasts, under the title of elders, composed his council. If any, of what quality soever, had the, Cod. Discip. chap. v. can. xvii. (Quick, I. xxxii.-iii.). 466 EX COMMUNICATION. assurance to disobey his orders, the dreadful sentence of excommunication was immediately thundered out against him, his goods and chattels confiscated and seized, and he himself being looked upon as actually in the possession of the devil, and irretrievably doomed to eternal perdition, all that convened with him were in no better esteem."' Another contemporary, Sir Andrew Weldon, an English traveller who visited Scotlald in the early part of the seventeenth century, pithily describes the spirit with which this rule was administered: " Their Sabbath exercises are a preaching in the morning and a persecuting inl the afternoon."2 This sounds like exaggeration, yet, making allowance for its hostile tone, it gives a reasonably truthful picture of the Scottish theocracy. While in many respects the kirk-sessions formed an admirable police system, yet their petty and all-pervading tyranny must have been inexpressibly galling and odious. All kinds of offenders were brought before them, and though they transferred to the criminal tribunals such crimes as theft or murder, yet their jurisdiction seems to have been practically limited only by their own discretion. Criminal judges who did not administer justice to their satisfaction, were promptly summoned to trial. The private relations of families, the vices or the evil disposition of the individual were alike subject to their inquisition and judgment. Their decrees were virtually irreversible. and without appeal, and behind all lay the awful power of excommunication, which seemed to reduce the most hardened to submission. Indeed, they even assumed legislative as well as judicial functions, and local presbyteries would pass general laws punishing such offences as adultery with temporal penalties.3 Rome her1 Memoirs of Lochiell (Spottiswoode Miscellany, II. 229-30). Rogers's Scotland, Social and Domestic, p. 28 (Grarmpian Club, 1869). Thus, in 1586, the kirk-sessions of Glasgow ordained that adulterers should'"satisfy six Sa-lbbaths in the pillory," bare-legged and in sack-cloth, TtIE REFORMED CIHUIRCHIES. 467 self scarcely dared to organize a sytem of despotism so minute and so complete; and however disinterested and ardent in the faith may have been the men who built it up and admini: -red it, human nature, even in the elect, is too imperfect for us to imagine that such a theocracy could exercise its power without causing infinite misery. There was probably less corruption than under the Spanish Inqilisition, but it may be doubted which rule of the two was the more easy to be endured. Numerous extracts have been printed from the registers, still existing, of many kirksessions, which afford us an insight into some of the practical workings of the system, showing that the procedures established iln the French churches were faithfully observed, and that the cumbrous process designed to limit the use of the spiritual sword proved of little avail amnong those who were unanimously ready to exercise their brief authority. Thus in the Kirk-Sessions Rlegoister of Perth, published by the Spottiswoode Society, we find under date of June 29th, 1575: " The whilk day Mr. John Row, minister of Perthl, denounced Elspeth Carnock excommunicate, in presence of the whole people, for subtracting herself from her repentance." A few mnonths later a certain Thomas Dundclie and his wife had a quarrel. The sessions took up the matter, adjudged Thomas to be in fault, and or(dered the three admonitions or warnings to be given him. He apparently held ou' until the third warning, for after that there is no f: rther notice of him. Then there is a case of assault and battery of which the sessions takes cognizance, ordering the bailies to keep the parties in custody until they perform the award, under pain of excommunication, thus showing that the civil power was bound to execute the spiritual decrees as completely as in Germany under the and then be carted through the town-i. e., be whipped at the ca!rt's tail. The same body, in 1.643, decreed that the same offence be punished with standin, th:,,e hours in the "jaggs," a public whipping, imprisonment in the j!il,:nu b.l:,isiment from the town.-R-ogers, op. cit., p. 364. 468 EX COMM U NICATIO N. Schwabenspiegel. Indeed, soon after tlis we find the l)ailies themselves threatened with excommunication within a fOl'tnight for lunkewarmniiess in executing the judgments of the sessions; all future bailies were included in the threat, and the existing ones wisely made their peace and escaped the anathema by prompt submission. This power over thle secular magistrates was manifested again a few years later, when the bailies were ordered, under pain of excommunication, to imprison a certain Thomas Taylor, who had neglectedl the admonition of the sessions; the proceeding was successful, and the obdurate Thomas was brought before the kirk and forced to perform due penance. Thus the terrors of the spiritual and criminal law comb)ined were wieldcled by thle church, and were brought to bear upon the most trivial cases as well as upon the most hardened offenders.l The kirk-sessions moreover were the principal promoters of the fearful prosecutions for witchcraft, which pelrhaps were worse in Scotland than in any other country. They paid the; pi1ickers" vwho tortured miserable old women to obtain proof, and they voted supplies of firewood for the resultant auto-da-Je. While they rigorously prohibited funerals and marriages on the Sabbath as a profanation of the sacredness of the day, witch-burnings were deemed a good work allowable on the Lord's day, and committees of ministers attended them officially. Zealous ministers, indeed, sometimes did not content themselves with simply directing these proceedings. In 1650,'Mr. John Aird, minister of Stow, reported to his kirk-session his success in personally convicting a witch by pricking her, having triumphantly thrust into her shoulder a pin up to the head." From this supreme crime clown to the pettiest offence, there was nothing that did not come within their jurisdiction. They regulated the proceedings at wecddlings, Spottiswoode Miscellany, TI. 235, 236, 241, 249-50, 268. 2 Rogers, op. cit; pp. 29, 270, 328. TIHE REFORMED CIIURCHES. 469 they prosecuted pipers and fiddlers for performing at them, prescribed the number of guests to be invited, and the quantity of liquor to be drunk; and when the feast was provided by a publican, they limited the amount of money to be spent. If the quaint carvings on an old tomb displeased them, they speedily caused its remodelling, as in the case of Lord Boyd, whom the Presbytery of Irvine, in 1649, ordered. to remove an image from the sepulchre of his ancestors, under pain of excommunication, and he incontinently had to obey. If a youth chanced to pass his father without lifting his bonnet, the apparent disrespect was made the subject of grave deliberations, as occurred in the Presbytery of Glasgow in 1598. Tile same body forbade the marriage of James Armour to Helen Bar, because the bridegroom was in debt; and it threatened anl unfortunate piper with excommunication if he did not discontinue playing on his pipes on Sunday. The kiirksessions of Stirling, in 1598, ordered the imprisonment, on bread and water, of two persons who had played at dice, and the sessions of Dumfries fined a man in twelve shillings who had been found card-playing. The sessions of the Port of Menteith, in 1668, prosecuted three persons who had drunk a "1 chapon" of ale on Sunday, and sentencecd them 66to sit bair headit beffore the pulpit, and atier sermon to acknowledge their scandal on their knees." Perhaps, however, the most capricious exercise of petty tyranny was in the case of William Howatson, whlo, on. May 6, 1652, was ordered by the kirk-sessions of Stow to "humble himself before the session and crave God's mercy," because, on the preceding Sunday, he had walked a short distance to visit his sick mother.l No one could escape the searching inlquisition of the. system. In 1650 the synod of Fife ordered every parish to be divided up among the ellders, andI in obedience to the Rogers, op. cit. pp. 18, 115, 340, 343, 357, 367, 371. 40 470 E X CO M MI- UNICi TION. act of the General Assembly in 1649, each elder was to traverse his district carefully at least once a month, and report to his sessions all cases of disorders or offences which might come within his knowledge.' To supplement this minute perqnisition there were the regulations which prescribed to all constant attendance in church on Sunday, andc partakino of communion at stated intervals.' Thus as eaily as 1568 the kirk-sessions of Aberdeen imposed a fine of sixpence on all absentees from divine service, and of two shillings on elders and deacons. The sessions of Anstruther, Kilrenny, and Pittenweem commanded the presence of every one, morning and afternoon, withl an ascend — ing scale of penalties, being twelvepence for the first offence, two shillings for the second, and five shillings for tlie third and all after. In 1570 the sessions of St. Andrews decided to withdraw alms from all paupers who did not present themselves regularly at sermon time; and at Lasswade, in 1615, a fine was levied of twenty pence Scots on servants, three shillings and fourpence on. yeomen, and six shillings and eightpence on gentlemen. To insure the observance of these reogulations a minute system of supervision was organized. In 1583 the kirk-sessions of Perth ordered each elder to go around his district every Sunday forenoon and note all absentees, so as to levy on them the fine of twenty shillings; and in 1600 the sessions of Glasgow decreed that the deacons of the several crafts should search among the families of their freemen for absentees, and report themn for fininog.2 It was the same with respect to attendance at the Lord's Supper. In 1600 the Scottish Parliament passed an act ordering every adult to partake of communion at least twice a year, under penalties graduated according to the station of the delinquent. Thus for an earl the mulet was ~1000 Scots; for a lord, 1000 merks; for a baron or land Rogers, op. cit. p. 374. Ibid. pp. 345, 347. THE REFORMED C HUtRCIIES. 471 owner, 300 merks; for a yeoman, ~40; and a recordl of Aberdeen, in 1603, shows that the enforcement of this law was in tile hands of the kirlk-sessions, and that the fines were not only collected by legal process, but were increased at the pleasure of the sessions.' Even in the eighteenth century, absence fiom the kirk for three consecutive Sabbaths without a proper excuse, leaving church during the services, or being present at communion without partakin o of it, were all offences which entailed the censures of the, churchi.2 It evidently was not easy for the carnal-minded to escape the watchful supervision of the sessions. No matter how trivial the offence, it became as of old a crime of the deepest dye if there was any slackness of obedience in submitting to the commands of the sessions. Any one who failed to answer when summoned was at once proceeded against with the three premonitory warnincgs,3 and no rank or station excused the offender. Thus in 1612 the Malrquis of iluntley and the Earl of Errol were excommunicated by the synod of Fife for not communicating; and on January 7th, 1647, the Presbytery of Lismahago convicted the Duke of HIamilton of 1not being faithful to the covenant and compelled him to acknowledge his offence upon his knees and to make full confession publicly in church.4 So in 1638 John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, was excommlunicated by the Glasgow assembly because he lhadl refusecl to perform penance in Edinburg-h for having preached before Charlies I. in a surpllice.5 The segregation of the excommunicate was strictly enforced. Cases are frequently mentioned of proceedings takeln against those who frequented with, harbored, or Rogers, op. cit. pp. 24, 346. The pound Scots was one-twelfth of the pound sterling; the mlerk was half a pound.' Lauder's Ancient Bishops Considered, chap. viii. Nos. 22, 26, 27, 46 (Edinburgh, 1707). 3 Spottiswoode Miscell. I. 251, 292-5. Rogers, op. cit. pp. 314-17. 5 Spottiswoode Miscell. 1. 201. 472 E XCOMMUNIC ATION. even spoke to the recalcitrant wretches who were under the ban of the kirk. From 1621 to 1645 John Robertson was minister of Pterth, but notwithstanding this long and faithful service he was deposed in 1645 by the General Asseibly for conversing with Montrose, who was then under excommunication, and though he was readmitted in 1654 he was not restored to his post.l So great was the dread of holding any relations with a person thus anathematized, that when, in 1611, John Spottiswoode of that ilk killed in a quarrel his friend Matthew Sinclair of Longformacus, and the Privy Council, by command of King James, intervened to pacify the feud, the brothers of the murdered man, in responding to certain offers made by Spiottiswoode, felt obliged to place on record a protest to justify themselves for receiving and reading any communications from an excommunicated man. "6 First, we protest that we recaued thame be commandiemnent of your moist hounourable Lordschippis sua that na imputatioun justlie may be attributed to ws for vewing ancl reiding thairof, proceeding from his Maiestie's rebell and ane excommunicat persone, and sua Godis and his Maiestie's enemye."' So, when Lord Herries was excommunicated by the Provincial Synod in 1647, two tradesmen who had business with him were obliged to apply to the kirk-sessions of Dumfries for permission to visit him before they could venture to hold converse with him.3 Strange as it may seem, however, the spiritual terrors of the anathema were more effective than its temporal penalties, and men of thle most hardened natures, who derided the law, or had nothing further to expect from it, were brought to subjection by the unknown and awful conseqnences of separation from the church. Thus, in the KirkSessions Register of Perth, under date of November 20th, 1598, there is an entry showing that Thomas Law, a desSpottiswoodc Miscelliny, II. 253, 273-4, 275, 312. Ibid. I. 27. 3 Rogers, op. cit. p. 375. THE REFORMED CIHURCHES. 473 perate rebel who had broken jail acld had long defied thle civil mangistracy, appeared before the sessions and beoggoed an abandonment of the proceedings for the excommunication which he had deserved, offering to render whatever satisfaction might be desired by both the bailies and the sessions.' Equally significant of the immense influence over nmen's minds of this fearful sentence is an incident which occurred at the execution, in 1646, at St. Andrews, of three royalists, serving under Montrose, and taken prisoners at Philiphaugh, after promise of quarter. One of them, Major Nathaniel Gordon, is described in Lochiell's AMemoirs as a gentleman " of great courage and fortitude,"' vet on the dclay of his execution, when there was no further hope of reprieve or pardon, he pleaded earnestly for reconciliation to the church, in a written declaration, expressing his sorrow "for taking up arms and shedding mucth innocent blood in this wicked rebellion against this church and kingdom, for which I was justly excommunicated by the kirk; I do therefore hunlbly beg parclon and Lmercy from God for the samle, thorough a(ndl for the merits of Christ his sonne, desiring earnestly to be relaxed friom that fearful sentence of excommunication."9 The request was granted, andl he malde a most ediifyilng end. It required, indcee, the combination of tenmporal and spiritual terrors attendant upon the alternative of excommiunication to compel subjection to the sentences of penance inflicted upon every trivial occasion. This penance was no light punishment in itself, and was skilfully graduated to suit every species of crime and to serve as a supplement to the ordinary penal laws. Every kirk had its stool of repentance on which the penitent was obliged to face the congregation bareheaded while the painful ministel drew from his shamne lessons of edification for the faithful. Some churches had not only a stool but a pillar, on Spottiswoode Miscell. II. 277. R Ibid. L. 205 —6. 40* 474 E X CO IIMUN ICATION. which hardened offenders were raised to a bad eminence for the benefit of the spectators; and all parishes were required to possess a'lharden-g'own" or "linnens," a coarse sackcloth cloak in which the penitent was enveloped. Even as late as 1693 an entry in the sessions register of Kirkmichael records the making of one of these gaiments. The character of the penitence ordinarily enjoined may be learned from the sentences rendered in several cases of adultery recorded. Thus the kirk-sessions of Dumfries orders two culprits to sit in sackcloth seven Sundays on the stool and to stand barefoot at the church door oin the first and last days. At Aberdeen, in 1568, the offenders were required to stand bare-leg'ged and in sackcloth for three Sundays at the church door wearing paper crowns on which their crime was inscribed;'~ when the preacher begoan his sermon they were to come to the stool of repentance, and, when service was over, to return to the church door until the congregation had dispersed. In 1642, the Presbytery of Lanark punished them by compelling themn to go through all the kirks of the district and stand barelegoged at the door, from the second bell until the last.1 This ingenious cumulation of shamne and disgrace, however, frequently was considered insufficient, and it was supplemented by physical torments better fitted to subdue those who had become hardened-C perhaps by undergoing repeated exhibitions on the stool or pillar. One implement of torture was called the bran/cs —a sort of helmet composed of iron bars, secured upon the head with a padlock, and furnished with a triangular projection which entered the mouth of the patient. This was particularly provided for scolds and slanderers, whose penance onl the stool of repentance was renderecd more unendurable by its application. The kirk-sessions of St. Andrews ordered it for Isobel Lindsay when she was convicted of slandering Rogers, op. cit. pp. 353, 364-6. TIE REFORaMED CHURCHES. 475 Archbishop Sharpe; and the sessions register of Dunfermline, Marlch 5th, 1648, records a similar sentence passed on Margaret Nicholsone for scoldling and drunkenness. A still more effective means of torment was found in the jaggs or jougs (jugum), an iron collar which was locked arounnd the neck of the penitent and securecl to the wall near the church door at a height to render the attitude of confinement painful. Sometimes the length of punishment was only an hour, but it was repeated in aggravated cases, somue stubborn offenders being jagged every Sunday for six months. Sometimes the application was prolonged. In 1570 the kirk-sessions of St. Andrews warned Gelis Symson that she should be jagged for twenty-four hours if she did not reform her habits of scolding and Sabbath-breaking. Nor was this severity of punishment at all unlikely, when in 1606 we see the kirk-sessions of Ayr inflict the jaggs and pillar of repentance on John M'Crie for saying that " no bodie had the wyte (blame) of the poore folks but the devill and the priest."' This severity of discipline continued until the Scottish Parliament in 1690 abolished the civil penalties of excommunication.2 A fatal blow then was struck at the temporal usurpations of the kirk, and the abuses which had flourished so luxuriantly commenced rapidly to decline. The Anglican church inherited its discipline from PIome more directly than any other of the Protestant denominations, and its relations with our subject are therefore easily comprehended. When Henry VIII. threw off his spiritual allegiance to Clement VII., his object was to create a schism, not a heresy, and simply to supplant the tiara l)y the crown. Assuming to himself the supreme authority wielded by the pope, it formed no part of his plan to diminish that authority in any respect, and the power of excommunication was too precious an addition to the royal Rogers, op. cit. pp. 354-61.' Ibid. p. 376. 476 EXCOMMUNICATION. prerogative to be abandoned or even weakened. Transubstantiation, private masses, and the sacrament of penitence were retainedl which were quite sufficient for that purpose; and though Henry did not presume to officiate as highpriest himself, his control of those who did so placed thle salvation of his subjects as completely in his hands as it had ever been in those of Innocent III. or Boniface VIII. With the simplification of dogma under Edward VI. this spiritual autocra~cy disappeared, but excommunication was retained as a convenient weapon, and as its superhuman terrors were abated, the temporal pains and penalties attaching to it under the ancient law were carefully preserved and strengthened. The forty-two articles promulgated in 1552, and the thirty-nine articles of Elizabethl, which have remained the standard of Anglican orthodoxy, alike enjoin the treatment as a heathen and a publican of any excommunicate.2 But this was insufficient. In 1562 the bishops in convocation complained of the negligence of the sheriffs in imprisoning excommunicates' whereby the censures and corrections of the church do run in great contempt; and like daily to grow into more, unless some speedy remedy be found in that behalf'"3 3What was the disposition of the more ardent churchmen in this respect may be gathered from a MS. printed by Strype of propositions to be laid before the convocation, annotations on wllich in Archbishop Parker's hand show it to be authoritative. It proposed that those who do not communicate at least thrice a year be severely punished, while persons not communicating at all, and excommunicates remaining'i unreconciled for six months, be dealt with as heretics.4 Another liberal proposition made in the satme convocation was that any one notably neglecting to attend divine Burnet's Collections, I. 305. Ibid. II. 217. 3 Strype's Annals, I. 272, 310. 4 Ibid. additions to Vol. I. p. 13 in Vol. II. ad calcem. THE- REFORMED CHURCHES. 4 T service or to take communion should be held as excommunicate without further process or promulgation of sentence, and that during his continuance therein he be deprived of all benefit of law, having no standing in court except as defendant.l The complaints of the bishops were not unheeded. The writ dcle exconm-tunicato capiendo imprisoned without bail any one remaining under excommunication for forty days, and a statute to insure its execution and to correct the negligence of the sheriffs was passed without delay. These writs were made returnable to the Court of Queen's Bench, which was empowered to fine at discretion any sheriff negligent in the premises. If the party excommunicated did not surrender himself, a second writ was issued, failure to obey which within six days was visited with a fine of ~10. A third writ then was issued, carrying with it a fine of ~20; and as long as the offender was contumacious, an infinity of these writs followed each other, each bearing its separate fine of like amount, thus rendering persistent obduracy a luxury too expensive even for the most wealthy.2 This law enumerates the offences entailing excommunication-as heresy, refusing to allow a child to be baptized, declining to receive communion after the orthodox form, negligence in attending divine service, dissidence in belief, in continence, simony, usury, perjury in ecclesiastical cour-ts, and idolatry. This was a tolerably wide and comprehensive field for censure-mongers, yet its limitations were by no means strictly observed. We have seen elsewhere the abuses arising from the subjugation of the state to the church, and the yet more anomalous Anglican theory of using the church as a department of the state was fruitful of the same troubles. WVhen Queen Elizabeth, urged by the antiquarian tastes of Archbislop Parker, desired to Strype's Annals, I. 316-7. Cf. Strype's Grindal App. p. 11. 9 5 Eliz. ch. 23 (Statutes at Large, II. 563-5). Cf. Blount!s NomoLexicon, s. v. 478 E XC OMM U N I C AT ION. put a stop to the iconoclastic tendencies of the people in defacing imonuments in the churches, breaking stained windows, and, stealing the bells and lead, she not only very properly forbade it for the future, but she ordered an inquisition into the injuries done since the commencement of her reign, and required that they be made good under pain of excommunication —and this not by act of Parlianient. but by royal proclamation of Sept. 19, 1559.1 Moreover, while the bishops in the convocation of 1562 were bemloaningy the slackness of the sheriffs in incarcerating unlucky exconmmunicates. a canonist of undoubted orthodoxy, Ralph Lever, presented to the queen a memorial complaining of the abuses practised by bishops and their officials in excommunicatin g without cause, and in defiance of both canon and statute law.2 The temper of the times was against him, however, and we have seen how parliamnent yielded to the demands of the bishops, while the attempted limitation of the subjects for censure speedily became a dead letter. The act of 1562, in fact, was not adapted to diminish current abuses. They grew and flourished, rendering the people discontented, and brinaging the church into disrepute. That the rising sect of puritans should protest and arogue that such censures were without foundation in either the Old or:New Testament,3 was natural enough, since they were the principal sufferers by the spiritual sword thus wielded by the secular arm; but a more cogent evidence of the existing evils is furnished by the convocation of 1580, when the House of Bishops earnestly asked the lower house to frame some measure whereby the scandals that rendered the very name of ecclesiastical censures odious to the people might be removed. That it was only the name and not the reality of the penalty that they desired to change is evident from a paper laid before the Strype's Annals, I. 185. Ibid. p. 321. Ibid. pp. 523, 584. TIHE R.EFOR3MED CHURCHES. 479 body, attributed by Strype to Archbishop Grindal, in which, after alluding to the extension of excommunication to petty offences in violation of ancient custom, it is suoggested that, except in cases of heinous crime, the decree of excommunication shall be altered to a decree of contumacy, this contumacy carrying with it all the legal penalties and disabilities of excommunication, except deprivation of the sacrament, and segregation from the society of the faithful.1 This ingenious proposition was not adopted, and some six or seven years later another convocation again deplored the freedom with which excommulnicationi was decreed, often by persons possessing no ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and in cases purely temporal, such as non-payment of legacies, tithes, &c. No better remedy than the previous one, however, could be suggested —that of denouncing the offender as contumacious instead of excommunicate.' The people might complain of oppression, and religion might be rendered odious by the abuse of its most sacred mysteries, but the tendency of the governing powers was towards arbitrary repression, and enlightened liberality was not to be expected. The royal prerogative sought to extend itself in every direction, and the crown, in its capacity of sulpreme head of the church, found spiritual censures too convenient an instrument of tyranny to abandon one jot of the advantage which it thence derived of evadinog or supplementing the common law. Among his other devices for illegally raising money, Charles I., in 1640, caused the synods of Canterbury and York to levy a "' benevolence" on the clergy, the payment of which was enforced, among other penalties, by excommunication; and the sysStrype's Grindal, p. 259; also Append. No. xv. 2 Ibid. Append. No. xvi. 3 This " benevolence" was carefully kept out of the published proceedings of the synods. See the speeches in Parliament against it-IParl. -list. IX. 80, 85, 91-2, &c. 480 E XC O MMU N IC A TION. tem was recognized as so intolerable a burden, that when, a few months later, the Long Parliament met, a petition from fifteen thousand citizens of London described, among other grievances, that the ecclesiastical courts " claimed their calling immediately from the Lord Jesus Christ; which is against the laws of this kingdom, and derogatory to his Majesty and his state royal," mid further protested against " The multitude of canons formerly made; wherein, among other things, excommllunication, ipso facto, is denounced for speaking of a word against the devices aforesaid, or subscription thereunto..... XXIII. The great increase and frequency of whoredoms and adulteries, occasioned by the prelates' corrupt administration of justice in such cases, who taking upon themselves the punishment of it do turn all into monies for the filling of their purses.... XXIV. The general abuse of that great ordinance of excommunication, which God hath left in his church to be the last and greatest punishment the church can inflict upon obstinate and great offenders; and the prelates and their officers, who of right have nothing to do with it, do daily excommunicate men either for doing that which is lawful, or for vain, idle, and trivial matters; as working or opening a shop on a holy day; for not appearing, at every beck, upon their summons; not paying a fee or the like: yea, they have made it as they do all other things, a hook or instrument wherewith to empty men's purses, and to advance their own greatness; and so that sacred ordinance of God, by their perverting of it, becomes contemptible to all men, and seldom or never used against notorious offenders, who, for the most part, are'their favorites."' Even making allowance for indignant exaggeration, this shows us how all the abuses which led to the Pleformation were rapidly being revived and systematized in Panrl. Hist. IX. 114-20. THIE REFORMED CHURCHES. 481 the new establishment. A sacerdotal church and caste were growing up on the pattern of the ancient hierarchy, with the substitution of a king for a pope-the combination of spiritual with temporal tyranny leading inevitably to the establishment of a despotism as complete as that of the Cssars. At this moment, it is true, a fresh impulse had been given to popular indignation by the action of the synods of 1640 above referred to; and a glance at the canons there adopted under the guidance of Laud and promulgated by royal proclamation under the great seal, will serve to show how efficiently the censures of the church were being used in aid of the Star Chamber and the Court of Higl Commission, for the purity of the faith and the supremacy of the crown. First in the order of the canons is the declaration that " The most High and Sacred order of Kings is of Divine right, being the ordinance of God himself, founded in the prime laws of nature, and clearly established by expresse texts both of the Old and New Testaments. A supream power is given to this most excellent Order by God himself in the Scriptures..... The care of God's church is so colnmitted to Kings in the Scripture, that they are commencled whell the Church keeps the right way, and taxed when it runs amisse, and therefore her government belongs in chief unto Kings..... For subjects to bear arms against their Kings, offensive or defensive, upon any pretence whatsoever, is at the least to resist the powers that are ordained of God: And though they do not invade but only resist, St. Paul tells them plainly, They shall receive to themselves damnation."' These comfortable doctrines were ordered to be read at least once a quarter by every parson, vicar, curate, and preacher in the kingdom, and any one maintaining the contrary was ordered to be excommunicated by the royal commissioners till he should repent. 1 Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiasticall, No. 1.-Published by his Majesties Authority, London, 1640. 41 482 E X C O MU N IC A T ION. The precautions for enforcing utniformity of religion were still more efficacious. All Papists, Socinians, Anabaptists, Brownists, Separatists, Familists, &c., were warned against absenting themselves for a month fiorn their parish churches without lawful ilmpediment, and churchwardclens and sideen were instructed to be on the watch for those who attended church and listened to the sermon without joining in the services or taking communion. REecusants were to be reported at the visitations in order to their due excommun-ication, which was to be repeated every three months, both in their parish church and in the cathedral of their diocese. If this proved ineffectual, the obstinate recusants were to be reported to tthe judges of assize, and once a year the bishops were ordered to forward to the high court of chancery a list of all who remained under excommunication beyond the time allowed by law, with a request that writs de excogmmlunicato capiendo should forthwith be issued against them; and the execution of these writs with promptness and energy was enjoined on all sheriffs and their deputies. No excommunicate remaining' under censure beyond the legal term could be absolved by any ecclesiastical court without making personal appearance, and taking the oath' De parendo juri et stando mandatis ecclesie," which placed the unlucky penitent completely at the mercy of his ghostly persecutors.1 "The pestilent invention of printing was deprived of its capacity for evil with the same care. Any stationer, printer, or importer, who might print, buy, sell, or disperse any book or scandalous pamphlet against the faith, discipline, or government of the Church of England was excommunicate ipso facto, and his name was ordered to be sent to the attorney-general for prosecution'according to the late decree in the Honorable Court of Star Chamber against 1 See the speech in Parliament of Nathaniel Finnes, Rnshworth's Collec. tions, IV. 109. TEIE REFORMED cTIUnRCeES. 483 the spreaders of prohibited books." Any preacher who vented such damnable doctrine in a sermion was to be excommunicated for a first offence, and cideprived for a repetition. Even the possession of such books, except by doctors of divinity in orders, graduates in divinity, or persons having episcopal or archicliaconal jurisdiction, was visited with the samne penalties. Some provisions were added to prevent the decree of excommunication by persons not properly qualified, but these were counterbalanced by similar restrictions laid on the granting of absolution.l Such regulations as these, agreed upon in a conclave of prelates, and given the force of law by royal. proclamation, betokened a rapid concentration of spiritual and temporal despotism to which Englishmen in that age were not likely to submit. It is no wonder then that one of the first efforts of the Long Parliament which assembled in Nov. 1640, was directed against them, the chief arguments beeino levelled at the palpable infringements on the rights of Parliament. So fierce was the attack that when the matter came to a vote, Dec. 16th, no one dared to record himself against a resolution which declared "That the Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical, treated upon by thle Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Presidents of the Convocations for the respective Provinces of Canterbury and York, and the rest of the Bishops and Clergy of these Provinces, and agreed upon with the King's Majesty's license in their several Synods begun at London and York in the year 1640, do contain in them matter contrary to the Kin(g's Prerogative, to the fundamental Laws andcl Statutes of the Realm, to the Rights of P:arliament, to the Property and Liberty of the Subject, and MAatters tending to Sedition and of dangerous consequence."1 The proceedings against Straffordc and Laud, with the pressure of the tumultuous business of that revolutionaryL time, pr1eConstitutions and Canons, Nos. 3, 4, 5, 14, 15.' Rushwlorth, lV. 112. 484 El XCOMMUNICATION. vented the early action of the Lords on this resolution, but at length, June 12th, 1641, it received their assent, notwithstanding that Hall, Bishop of Exeter, endeavored to shift to the shoulders of the king the whole responsibility: " It is le Roy le veult that of Bills makes Laws. So was it for us to do in the Matter of Canons; we might propound some such constitutions as we should think might be useful; but when we have done we send them to his majesty, who, perusing them curm avisamnento concilii sui, and approving them puts Life into them; and of dead Propositions makes them Canons: as, therefore, the Laws are the King's laws and not ours, so are the Canons the King's Canons and not the Clergy's. Think thus of them, and then draw what conclusions you please."l The conclusions which it pleased the Commons to draw were not aogreeable to the good bishop, for on August 3d he was impeached, with thirteen others, for their share in the busiless.2 As the puritan cause advanced, its ministers naturally sought to secure for themselves the powers which were slipping from the grasp of the heads of the established church; and the Assembly of Westminster, in 1645, asserted the power of the keys by divine appointment and not by the laws of the land with a distinctness worthy of Rome herself. It framel accordingly a scheme of church-government which lodged in each congregational assembly the prerogative which we have seen exercised by the kirk-sessions of Scotland2. Parliament, however, was not disposed to abandon any of its riglhts as the supreme law-making and law-dispensing body, and an earnest controversy arose between it and the Assembly. To the great disgust of the extreme puritans this resulted in the complete assertion of secular control over the Parl. Hist. IX. 351-3. " Ibid. p. 467. a Neal's tIst. of Puritans, Vol. II. p. 194, and Append. No. 3 (Ed. 1754). THE REFORMED CHURCIHES. 485 church. An act was passed conferring on the congregational assemblies the right to suspend from communion in certain specified cases and in accordance with a prescribed form of trial, but all persons so excomm.unicated were empowered to appeal to the classical assemblies, the synods, and finally to Parliament itself'. Thus not only were the pretensions of the Jus Divinum scouted, but the very exercise of control over the sacraments was subordinatecl to the civil authority. It is hardly worth while to pursue the subject further, for all these questions were practically settled by the G'reat lebellion; and, when the storm was past, England, inl its final reconstruction, gradually outgrew the spiritual terrors which yet lingered on the statute-book. In the openin, years of the eighteenth century, honest Joseph Binghallm cleplores the laxity of discipline pervading the church ever since men's minds had been perverted in the Rebellion. Three communions per annum were still obligatory, and the pastor was bound to present as notorious delinquents all who did not obey the rule; but experience showed that, especially in country parishes (and Bingoham was a country parson), it was impossible to force the laity to obey the law, and that it was equally useless to present them for the disobedience.2 Yet a legal author of the latter part of the last century describes all the old forms as being still in force-the writ de excom'nunicato capiendo being issued after forty days allowed for relentance, and the excommunicate being dlisabled from executing a will, serving on juries, appearing as a witness, or bringing an action at law., At length, in 1814, the chatnge suggested by Grindal in 1580 was made, of sulbstituting a writ de conturmace capiendo for the older form, but it worked no substantial change in the principles inRushworth, VI. 210-12. 2 Bingham's Antiquities, Chap. ix. ~~ 7, 8. 3 Burn's Law Dictionary, -Dublin, 1792, p. 280. 41' 48G ElEXCOMMUNICATTON. volved.1 Practically, however, it appears to be little more than providing for the ecclesiastical courts a counterpart of the "G contempt" with which the secular tribunals enforce their jurisdiction. A church which is subjected to a free state becomes insensibly moulded to suit the average of public opinion; and those who have been concerned in the prosecution of Bishop Colenso have probably acknowledged that in the nineteenth century it is not easy to bring the rig'ors of ecclesiastical law to bear against any main. From this long history of oppression and wrong we may learn how easily the greed, the ambition, or the bigotry of man can convert to the worst purposes the most beneficent of creeds; and how unequal is our weak human nature to the exercise of irresponsible authority. Honest fanaticism and unscrupulous selfishness have vied with each other in using as a weapon for the subjugation of body and soul the brightest promises made by a benignant Saviour to his children; and every increase of power has been marked by an increase in its abuse. It is a saddening thought that a religion, so ennobling and so purifying in its essence, should have accomplished so little for humanity in this life, and that the ages in which it ruled the heart and intellect most completely should be those in which its influence was the least efficient for good and the most potential for evil. Its great central principles of love, andc charity, and self-sacrifice seem ever to have found their most determined enemies in those who had assumed its ministry and had bound themselves to its service; and every conquest made by its spirit has bee won won against the earnest resistance of its special defenders. Even though the last two centuries have been marked by a development of true Christianity, still the old arrogance and uncharita53 Geo. III. c. 137, ~ 2 (Wharton's Law Diet. s. v.). TIHE REFORMED CtIURCIIES. 487 bleness exist. InTdifferentism and irreligion are assuLmed to be the motives of men who most earnestly strive to obey the laws of Christ; and it would scarce be safer now than in the thirteenth century to intrust temporal authority to those who claim to represent the Redeemer and His Apostles. There is much, then, to be done ere the precepts of the Gospel can truly be said to control the lives and the characters of men; and all who are earnest, in the good work can derive from the errors and the follies of the past not only a noble zeal of indignation to nerve them afresh for the long struggle, but also hopeful encouragement for the future in measuring the progress of these latter (lays. INDEX. ABBEYS in the gift of thesove- Aimery de Maignac, Bishop of reign, 95 Paris, 200 Absolution and dispensation, 153 Aird, John, his zeal against Abuses of clerical exemption, witchcraft, 468 185, 197, 207, 212, 216 Aix-la-Chapelle, council of, in Abuses of excommunication, 401 809, 58 Acacius, excommunication of, in 816, 59 132, 276, 284 in 836, 100 Accusations of laymen not re- in 862, 160 ceivable against clergy, 63 Alamanni, wehr-gilds of the, 292 st. Accuser, unsuccessful, punish- Alaric II., his control over the ment of, 258 church, 55 Adam, excommunication of, 394 Albigenses, legislation against, 387 Adrian I. refutes Charlemagne Alcuin on the secular power, 57 on image worship, 26 ns. Aldric of Le Mans, case of, 143 his grants to Charlemagne, 33, 87 Alez, synod of, in 1620, 464 adopts the canons of Ingilramn, 44 Alexander II. rebukes Gervase rejectsfilioque from the creed, 58 of Rheims, 150 produces the donation of Con- Alexander III. forbids accusastantine, 156 tions between clerks and layAdrian It. grants privileges with men, 66 s2. the pallium, 140 Alexander IV. on clerical conadmits Lothair to ordeal, 164 cubinage, 151 asserts papal supremacy, 166 Alexander VIII. anathematizes assumes to dispose of king- the Declaration of 1682, 443 doms, 331 Alexandria, primacy of, 104 Adrian VI. on papal power, 378 its assaults on Constantinotreatment of the Reformers, 457 pie, 112, 113, 130 Adultery, penitence for, 474 its attempted supremacy, African church, relations of, to 117, 282 Rome, 116 its power broken, 283 resists usurpations of Rome Alienation of church property in 253, 120 forbidden by Odoacer, 17 dominated by Innocent I. in Allegiance, oath of, required of 416, 116 the clergy, 99 vindicates its independence secured by excom., 332 in 419, 126 released by excom., 368 excommunicates Pope Vigi- Alphonso of Arragon, case of, 374 lius in 550, 118 Alphonso the Wise on clerical Agapm, or love feasts, 228 immunity, 195 Agde, council of, in 506, 55, 174 on excom., 393, 403, 416 Agobard, St., on image worship, 27 vs. Alvarez Pelayo defines the impehe aids in degrading the Em - rial power, 37 peror, 321 proves the supremacy of the he is deposed, 102 church, 81 it. 490 INDEX. Alvarez Pelayo- Appellate jurisdiction (Papal) on clerical immunity, 195 granted temporarily by counAmbrose, St., on the trial of popes, 17 cil of Sardica, 122 on temporalities, 98 n. falls into desuetude, 123 on penitence, 242 zs. revived by Innocent I. 125 his excom. of Maximus, 272 denied by African church, 126 his opposition to Justina, 272 admitted by Gaul, 128 his rebuke of Valentinian II. 272 established by Valentinian his excom. of Theodosius, 273 III., 129 Anastasius (Emp.), his resistance rejected by the East, 130 to Rome, 285 admitted by Spain, 131 Anastasius II., his assertion of rejected by the Western BarRoman supremacy, 118 barians, 132 Anathema, omnipotence of, 361 its recovery attempted with disregard of, 433 the pallium, 135 Ancyra, council of, in 314, 275 Boniface seeks to revive it, 136 Andronicus of Pentapolis, his ex- the pallium again resorted to, 137 communication, 240, 264, 270 Charlemagne disregards the Anglo-Saxon laws on benefit of papal claims, 138 clergy, 187 privileges of appeal conceded Angels, excommunication of, 393 with the pallium, 139 Anglican church, excom. in, 475 jurisdiction established by abuses of,'' 478 the false decretals, 141 complaints of the people, 480 delay in admitting it, 142 decline of, after the Great established by Nicholas I., 143 Rebellion, 485 case of Rothadus of Soissons, 145 Anicetus (Pope) and Polycarp, 105 evils attendant upon the sysAnimals, excommunication of, 410 tem, 147 Anisola, case of the Abbey of, 181 complaints of the church, 149 Anne, Queen, extends benefit of jurisdiction denied by the clergy, 190 Neapolitan Normnans, 150 Anne of Britanny stops excom- admitted by the German Emmunication for debt, 423 perors, 150 Anselm of Milan deposed, 102 corruptions entailed by it, 151 Antioch, its quarrel with Jeru- reform attempted by council salem, 113 of Bale, 152 primacy of, 104 evils continue undiminished, restored to communion in - 152, 427 415, 282 Apt, council of, in 1365, 422 council of, in 269, 1(07 Arabic version of Nicene canons, 109 council of, in 341, Arbitration in the early church, 68 93 ai,., 104, 109, 231, 263, 280 of bishops, 109 Apiarius, case of, 126 enforced by Honorius, 69 Apocrisarii, papal, 21 Arcadius, his pretended excomApostles, their avoidance of here- munication, 125 ac. tics, 238 and Honorins, law of, in 400, 123 their teachings of forgive- Arian controversy, advantages ness, 225 of, to Rome, 109 Apostolic Canons (see Ccnoos). Arius, his excommunication reConstitutions (see Constitu- moved by Constantine, 266 ti6oss). Aries, first council of, in 314, 248, 270 Sees, primallcy of, 104, 111 second council, in 443, 93 sc. Appellate jurisdiction of Rome, sixth council, in 813, 77zc., 119 307 it., 315?a. not claimed in the primitive Arnold of Brescia on temporalities, 98 church, 119 is sacrificed by Frederic I., 36 successfully resisted when Arnoul (Emperor), oath of allefirst advancled, 120 giance to him, 40 cn. INDEX 491 Arnoul of Rheims eludes excom., 330 Bankers, Roman, protected by his imprisonmnent, 340 excommunication, 417 Arnoul of Tours and the pal- Bankruptcy and perjury, 419 lium, 140 9z. Barbarians, their control over Arsenius, St., his policy of ex- the church, 55 communication, 261 their independence of Rome, 132 Arson, punishment of, 395 they encourage episcopal juArticles, the 42 and 39, 476 risdiction, 71 Aspe, valley of, 408 troubles of the church with Assembly of Westminster, 484 - them, -291 Athalaric, his control over the Btrber of the Chhtelet, his funcchurch, 18 tions, 203 encourages immunity of cler- Bartholomew a Martyribus, 212 gy, 173 Baronius on the grant of Adrian, Athanasisus, excommutnication by, 271 87 Z. Attigny, penance of, in 822, 317 on the Sardican canons, 126 it. Atto of Vercelli asserts immunity on the donation of Louis-leof clergy, 67 9c. Debonna-ire, 157 n. Auditio, in penitence, 242 Basil, St., rejects the authority Audovera supplanted by Frede- of the West, 110 gonda, 310 on segregation of excommunAugsburg Confession, excom. in, 459 nicates, 271 Augustine, St., on judicial func- he excommunicates a village, tions of bishops, 69 3i'2 n. upholds African independ- BEasilides, case of, 120 ence, 127 Baudoin Bras-de-Fer, his appeal on Eucharistic oblation, 229. to Rome, 155 on the effects of excom., 237 -le-Chauve and the Abbey of on segregation, 239 St. Bertin, 333 affirms excom. of dead, 253 Baugency, council of, in 1104, 365 on limitations of excom., 256 Bavaria, clerical immunity in, 219?7.. on discipline of church, 259 Bavarian code, appointment of reproves general excom., 301 bishops under, 86 Aurelian and the See of Antioch, 107 on clerical immunity, 177 Autonomy of the prim. churches, 109 wehr-gilds in the, 292 n. Autun, synod of, in 1094, 364 Beaunmanoir admits clerical] imBishop of, maintains clerical munity, 184 -i., 196 immnunity, 207 on excommunication, 391, 402 *rats of, excommunicated, 411 Belisarius condemns Silverius, 173 Auxanius of Aries, receives the Benedict the Levite, his capitupal. lium, 135 laries, 62 Auxerre, council of, in 578, 177 supposed to be the author of Avignon, council of, in 1326, the Pseudo-Isidor, 62 389, 392, 427 on prohibited degrees, 313 in 1337, 421, 427 on spoliation of the church, 322 Azzo of Milan, 349 Benedict XII. collects debts by excommunication, 420 Benefit of clergy, 169 ADEGESILUS of Le Mans, 73 Benevolences enforced by excom. 479 Bailies, Scottish, subject to Berlin, complaint of, 382 kirk-sessions, 468 Bernard, St., on segregation of Bale, council of, 152, 382, 431 excolmmunicates, 380 Baltimore, second council of, in restores an accursed vine1866, 447 yard, 409 Baluze, on the grant of Adrian, 88 z. anathematizes flies, 410 Bamberg, synod of, in 1491, Bertha, Queen, repudiation of, 364 192, 374 n.., 431, 433, 450 )i. Berthair, bishop-electof Chalons, 97 Bangor, quarrel over bishopric of, 97 Berthold of Ratisbon, 80 n. 492 INDEX. Bertin, St., abbey of, quarrel Bishops, election ofover, 333 admitted by the church Bertrade of Anjou, her excom., 304 up to 850, 90 Bigaimy prohibited by Lothair I., 311 the church endeavors to Bingham, Joseph, on neglect of throw it off, 91 communion, 485 the papacy seeks to obBishoprics sold by the Merovin- tain it, 91, 96 gians, 83 the laity deprived of Bishops, political power of, 47 suffrage, 92 Frankish, threaten Gregory efforts to confine it to the IV., 61 suffra.gans, 93 their power of arbitration in customs of the Greek the early church, 68, 169 church, 93 their sentences enforced, 69 confusion under Charlescriminal justice intrusted to le-Chauve, 95 them exclusively, 79 the Metropolitans atempowered to demand extra- tempt to gain control, 96 dition, 325 the power absorbed by their jurisdiction enforced the papacy, 99 a. by the state, 326 Blanche of Castile, law of, 387 relied on by the state to en- Blind men, provision for, 188 force the law, 328 Blondel exposes the False Deereappeals from their decisions tals, 53 to the throne, 329 Boerius, Peter, on the Roman empowered to coerce incest- curia, 403 uous persons, 311, 312 Boniface, St., crowns Pepin-lemurder of, in Bavarian law, 292 Bref, 31 immunity of from accusa- his appointment to see of tions, 64 Mainz, 87 deposed for treason, 102 his efforts to extend papal reverence paid to them by jurisdiction, 136 Constantine, 170 his troubles with Roman juimmunity granted them by risdiction, 147 Constantius, 171 Boniface I., his election to the removed by subsequent papacy, 16 emperors, 171 Boniface III. obtains supremacy restored by Justinian, 173 over Constantinople, 11-5 i. jurisdiction over clergy Boniface VIII. on clerical immugranted by Justinian, 174 nity, 198 punished for improper excom.329 grants privilege to Berlin, 382 necessity of, in death-bed restricts interdict for debt, 420 absolution, 251 Boniface IX., his sale of indultheir position in Augsburg gences, 450 9. Confession, 459 Boniface of Ferentino, 296 election of Bonosus, case of, 123 originally by people and Bourbon, Pierre, refused burial, 422 clergy, 81 Bracton admits benefit of clergy, intervention of the sov- 184 n. ereign, 82 Braga, Archbishopric of, and the controlled by the Mero- pallium, 141 gz. vingians, 83 Branks for penitents, 474 the church endeavors to Brazil, excom. of ants in, 415 assert its independence, 85 Britanny, excom. for debt in, 423 but fails in both France Counts of, cases of, 298, 388 and Spain, 86 British church admits clerical appointing power exer- immunity, 175 cised by Charlemagne, 87 Brixen, synod of, 362 and by Louis-le-Ddbon., 90 1 Brochmael of Gwent, his excom., 324 INDEX. 493 Burdinus, Martin, antipope, 372 Celestin I.]3urgundians refuse clerical im- on denial of comnmunion, 237, 249 mlunity, 174 Cemetery, interdiction of, 434 Burial denied to excommunicates, Chalcedon, council of, in 451, 369, 371, 406 14, 59, 68, 104, 169, 172, 257, 258 to bankrupts, 421 Chalons, council of, in 579, 133 Burlesque of excommunication, 389 in 649, 86, 177 Byzantine emperors, their control in 813, 315 t,., 316?t. over episcopal nominations, 93 Charibert, King, his fate, 300 Charlemagne refutes image worship, 26 sc. C2ECILIANUS, trial of, 12 conquers Italy, 33 Calixtus I. and IHippolytus, 101 his donation to the church, 33 his depravity, 233 grant of Adrian I. to him, 33, 87 Calixtus II., his simnony, 52 9t. his control over the papacy, 34 and Thurstan of York, 374 his coronation as emperor, 35 Calvinist doctrine on excom., 461 associates Louis-le-DdbonCalvin's confession of faith, 462 naire in the empire, 37 code of discipline, 464 his jealousy of sacerdotal inCambrai, council of, in 1565, 441 terference, 46 Canada, pigeons excom. in, 415 permanence of his legislation, 49 Canonization, expenses of, 52 az. his supremacy over the Canon law, supremnacy of, in the church, 56 False Decretals, 62 adopts one of the Isidorian burned by Luther, 457 canons, 66 Canons apostolic, on local inde- abolishes the jurisdiction of pendence, 109 the bishops, 75 on participation in the restricts the territorial jurisEucharist, 231 diction of the church, 76 on segregation, 238 exacts military service fiom Canosa, interview of, 360 church lands, 83 Canterbury, archbishop of, in his nomination to bishoprics, 87 1293, his petition, 140 mc. he grants the right of elecsynod of, in 1640, 479, 481 tion, 89 Capitularies, how enacted, 56 exacts oaths of fidelity from of Benedict the Levite, 62 the clergy, 100 Carlonman (Duke) seeks to re- disregards the appellate juform the church, 306 risdiction of Rome, 138 Carlomnan (King) relies wholly and puts an end to its abuses, 147 on the chuirch, 328 his donation to St. Peter, 156 Carlovingian legislation, perma- he disregards the donation nence of, 49 of Constantine, 156 traditions, reverence for in his matrimonial irregulariGermany, 395 ties, 160 Carlovingians, struggles between his legislation on clerical the, 41 immunity, 178 Caroline books, 26 nc. he disregards it in practice, 179 Carthage, council of, in 348, 263 he forbids warfare to clerks, 305 in 390, 93 as., 251, 264 he uses the church as a civilin 397, 68, 172, 228 c.., izingr agency, 306 229, 232, 252, 256 his control over the sacrain 398, ments, 306 239, 248, 249, 253, 257 he enforces obedience to the in 401, 256 church, 307 in 419, 256 prohibits incestuous. marriCautinus, bishop of Clermont, 84 ages, 312 Celestin I., his control over Gal- restrains spoliationm of the lican churches, 128 church, 314 42 494 INDEX. Charlemagnes- Chlttelet of Paris, cases in the, 200 prohibits abuse of excom- Chaucer's Pardoner, 450 iz. munication, 315 Chiersy,'synod of, 90 Charles Martel is appealed to by capitulary of, 96 Gregory II., 25 Childebert II., enforces excom., 304 is offered the kingdom of Children, communion adminisItaly, 29 tered to, 231 his disposal of bishoprics, 87 Chilperic I., reproved by GreCharles-le-Chauve, his tenure of gory of Tours, 176 sovereignty, 32?Z. Chilperic II., extends territorial his nominations to bishop- jurisdiction, 75 rics, 90, 95, 96 Chindaswind, his law on clerical gives the abbey of St. Mar- immunity, 175 tin to Robert-le-Fort 95 Christ, his spirit of forgiveness, enlarges eccles. jurisdic., 79 224, 259 subjects himself to episcopal Christian emperors, their control jurisdiction, 80 over the church, 13 accuses Wenilo of' Sens, 102 Christians, early, corruptions complains of appellate juris- among the, 233 diction, 148 Christopher II., of Denmark, his connection with divorce laws of, 184 tc. of Teutberga, 160, 163 Chrysostom, St. John, his conobliged to admit clerical im- demnation, 124 munity, 182 avenged by Rome, 282 endeavors.to abrogate it, 183 on perdition of excommuniforbids warfare to clerks, 305 ac. cates'236 his extradition treaties, 325 he denounces excommunicahe enforces excom., 326 tion of the de.ad, 254 he seeks support from the on abuse of excoin., 261 church, 327 he exalts priestly authority, 271 he controls excom., 329 Church, primitive, organization proclaims the supremacy of of, 104 Rome, 330 its corruption, 233 secures his subjects' allegi- its subjection to the ance by excom., 332 Christian emperors, 13 Charles-le-Simple, his right to and to the barbarians, 55 investitures admitted, 88 so. to Charlemagne, 56 pardons the murder of Fulkl, 335 to Louis-le-DWbonnaire, 59 Charles V. (France), restricts it protects the people, 42 nc. clerical immunity, 200 necessity of its unity, 47 his laws on excom., 390 is invited to interfere beon excom. for debt, 420 tween kings and subjects, 332 Charles VII. (France), on cleri- its unprotected condition a.t cal immunity, 206 the rise of feudalism, 333 sustains the royal courts, 421 its corruptions in the middle Charles IV. (Enmp.), submits to ages, 208, 428, 434 papacy, 37 Civil cases removed from eccleenforces clerical immunity, 191 siastica.l jurisdiction, 439 fine for neglect of excom., 432 Clarendon, constitutions of, 187 Charles V. (Emp.), seeks to re- Claudius of Turin, 26 so. form the church, 211, 439 Clement III. and William of Charles I. (Engl.), his use of ex- Scotland, 374 communication, 479 singular excom. by, 416 Charta de Foresta guaranteed Clement III., antipope, his elecby excommunication, 373 tion, 362 Charters, curses attached to, 293 his death, 366 Chassande on clerical immunity, 207 Clement VII., limits excommuon excom. of animals, 411 I nication for debt, 425 INDEX. 495 Clement VIT. — Conrad, King of the Romans, 3(63 his miildness towards Fred- Consistories, their power of exeric of Saxony, 458 communication, 462 Clergy, benefit of, 169) Constance, council of, 78 i, 381 concubinage of, 148, 151 Constans II. exiles Martin I., 22 despotism of the, 210 Constantine, his control over the corruption of the, church, 13 208, 233, 428, 434 organizes general councils, 109 their separation from the donation of, 111 e., 155 laity, 290 appoints Pope Melchiades as their vices the work of God, 217 judge, 121 Clermont, council of, in 1095, 364 admits episcopal immunity, 170 Clotair I., enlarges episcopal ju- threatens Athanasius, 171 risdiction, 73 his control of communion, 266 on episcopal elections, 84, 85 Constantine Copronymus, Roexcommunictated by St. Nice- man documents dated by, 29 tins, 301 Constantine Pogonatus and the Clotair II. on episcopal elections, 85 popes, 23 his edict of 615, 177 Constantinople, council of, in 448, Cnut, his laws on benefit of 240, 258 clergy, 187 in 553, 20, 254 on excommunication, 384 9z. in 869, 260 Code of Discipline, Calvinist, 464 Constantinopolitan church,rise of, Il Cognac, council of, in 1260, 406 originally under province of Colloquy of Poissy, 28 iz. Thrace, 112 Cologne remains faithful to made second to that of Rome, 112 Henry IV. 370 attacked by Eastern churches, 112 council of, in 1266, 396 temporary triumph of AlexCommunion, original character of, 228 andrid, 113 continues to be a repast, 229 mad e equal to Rome by counbecomes obligatory and fre- cil of Chalcedon, 114, 131 quent, 231 Ronman supremacy admitted is universally administered, 231 by Phocas, 115 n. even to the dead, 232 wrests Macedonia from Rome, I 18 becomies an instrument of co- quarrel with Rome over Acaercion, 232 CillS, 132, 276, 284 effects of its deprivation, 235 humiliation of, 287 letters of, 262 symbol, the, 58 controlled by Constantine, 2066 Constantius persecutes Liberius, 17 by Justinian, 262 his la:w in favor of episcopal by Charleimagne, 306, 315 immunity, 171 by Charles-le-Chauve, 329 Constitutiones Sicularmirm, cleriby royal prerogative, 329 cal immunity in, reverence inculcated for it, 298 184 s?., 192 its disregard by the barba- excommunication in, 399 rians, 302 Constitutions, Apostolic, reprove its administration to idiots, 440 litigation, 68 enforced in Scotland, 470 on participation in cormaConcordats of Martin V. 381 nion, 231 of Leo X. 382, 390 on abandonment of convicted Concubinage encouraged by a.p- criminals, 233 pellate jurisdiction, -148, 151 on perdition of excommuniby clerical immunity, 208 cates, 236 Confession, auricular, 269 on segregation, 238 used to enforce segregation, 380 on penitence. 24l Confiscation of excommunicates, 383 on limitations of excomn., 255 Conrad the Salic disregards cleri- on lex talionis, 258 cal immunity, 191 rules of excommunication, 267 49, 6 I NDEX. Constitutions, Apostolic- AGOBERT I. appoints Dicier occupations forbidden in, 269 of Cahors, 86 Contumacy, severity of penalty threatened by Sulpicius, 297 for, 430 Damasus, his election to the paa substitute for excommuni- pacy, 16 cation, 479 false decretal attributed to, 140 se. Contumeliosus of Riez, case of, Damiani, St. Peter, on papal si132, 134 mnony, 51?Z. Convocation, Anglican, of 1562, 476 prohibits divorce of Henry of 1580, 478 IV., 346 Copyright enforced by excom., 416 reproves abuse of excom., 354 Cornelius rebuked by Cyprian, 121 Dante, on temporalities of church, 98 Coronation, sacerdotal ministra- D'Argentrd, Bertrand,. on excomtion in, 31 munication for debt, 424 of Charlemagne, 34 Dead, excommunication of the, 253 of Louis-le-D6bonnaire, 37 denied by Leo, Gelasius, of Lothair I., 39 and Chrysostom, 253 Corporal punishment for excom., 323 affirmed by Cyprian, as alternative for excomn., 244 Augustine and TheoCorruption in the early church, 233 philus. 253 fostered by appellate juris- case of Theodore of Mopdiction, 147 suestia, 254 by clerical immunity, the question remains un185, 197, 207, 212, 216 settled, 255 Cossa, Balthasar, his usury, 424 Death-bed communion, importCouncils, their subordination to ance of, 246 the state, 14 refused for certain offences, 247 Courtly toleration for emperors, 276 essential to salvation, 248 Creed of Nicea., altered by Char- varying practice of the lemiagne, 57 church, 249 Criminal jurisprudence of church, 243 ceremonial connected with it, 25 1 jurisdiction of kirk-sessions, 467 Death-punishment for heresy, 26 7 Criminals assume tonsure as safe- Debts, collection of, by excom., 417 guard, 200 invented by the popes, 417 clerical immunity for, eagerly adopted by creditors, 419 190, 197, 207, 212, 216 heirs of bankrupts excomn., 420 Curia, Roman, greed of the, restrained by Boniface VIII., 420 51 n., 403 refusal of sepulture to bankCurses to protect church pro- rupts, 421 perty, 293 questions arising from inaCyfeiliawg, Bishop, his use of ex- bility to pay, 423 comnmunication, 324 efforts to abrogate the system,423 Cyprian and Marcion of'Arles, 106 its uses and abuses, 424 his superscription of epistles, 1.07 Declaration of 1682, 442 his resistance to Rome, 120 Decretals, the false (see.Forgeries). on Eucharistic oblation, 229 papal, their influence, 50 on corruption of the church, 233 burnt by Luther, 457 on perdition of excommuni- Degradation of bishos for trenason,102 cates, 236 Degrees prohibited in imarriage, 309 on penitence, 241 Denis the Less, his collection of on deathbed communion, 249 canons, 43 on excommunication of dead, 253 Denmark, clerical immunity in, 184?n. on violation of excom., 264 Denziger, his account of Pseudoon the independence of the Isidorian theories, 48 churches, 280 Deposition of Louis-le-D6bon., 319 Cyril, his attackl on Nestorius, 112, 113 of kings by popes, 353, 354 his efforts for Alexandrian Descendants of excommunicates, supremacy, 117 punishment of, 381 INDEX. 497 Diego Gelmirez buys an arch- Ecclesiasticsbishopric, 52 it. protection accorded to, 317 excommunication by, 415 their disregard of excom., 403 n. Diet of Nurnberg complains of Edward I. abrogates clerical imappellate jurisdiction, 152 maunity, 187 of clerical immunity, 209 Edward II., clerical immunity of excommunication, 433 under, 188 Dimetian Code abolishes ecclesi- on excommunication, 385 astical jurisdiction, 73 n. Egra, constitution of, 150 Dionysius of Corinth, his epistles, 106 Egyptian bishops, their subjecDios, monastery of, 284 tion, 117 Dioscorus, his quarrel with Con- Election of bishops (see Bishops). stantinople, 112, 113, 114 Elections, papal (see Pclpal elechis tyranny at Alexandria, 117 tious). he excommunicates Leo I., 283 Elizabeth, Queen, restricts benehis condemnation, 172 fit of clergy, 190 Disabilities of penitents, 244' uses excommunication, 477' of excommunicates, 391, 397 Elvira, council of, 26 gz.., 247, 251, 263 Discipline, Calvinist code of, 464 Emannncipation of the state, 445 Dispensation and absolution, 153 Embrun, excommunication of, 404 Divorce of Teutberga., 159 archbishop of, 96 Donation of Constantine, 155 Emperors, Roman, their autois presented to Charle- cracy, 13 magne by Adrian I., 156 their power inferior to the is disregarded by Char- church, 271 lemagne, 156 Empire bestowed on Charlemagne is rejected byOtho III., by Leo III., 34 158 sz. controlled by papacy, 36 is disregarded by St. Ems, congress of, in 1786, 138 zs., HIenry II., 158 aS. 141 as. its authenticity assumed Encyclical of 1864, 446 by Chr. AVolff, 158. England, benefit of clergy in, 186, 187 of Charlemagne, 156 interdict under John, 374 az. of Louis-le-)edbonnaire, 157 laws on excommunication, 384 Donatists, their heresy, 242 controlled by the king, 385 Drogo of Metz, appellate power excom. under Henry VIII., 475 conferred on, 144 in the 39 Articles, 476 Druids, excommunication by the, 232 civil penalties of, under Duperron, Cardinal, forbids ex- Elizabeth, 477 communication of animals, 413 abuses of, 478complaints of the people, 480 protest of the Long ParliaE'AST, Emperors of, lose con- ment, 483 Et trol of papacy, 24 supremacy asserted by it, 484 Easter, divergence as to observ- decline of excomnlunication, 485 ance of, 105 Enslavement for injuries to clergy, 67 Eastern bishops- excommunica- Epaone, council of; in 517, 175 tion of, in 256, 238 Ephesus, council of, in 341, 14 Ebbo of Rheims, 38, 102, 144, 179, 321 Robber synod of, Eberhardt of Salzburg, 407 1.13, 130, 258, 283 Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, origin Epiphanius of Constantinople of, 68 submits to Rome, 286 supremacy of, 165 Episcopal elections (see Bishops). over marriage, 311 oaths, 99, 136 Ecclesiastics not competent as control of coronation, 32 as., 35 a. judges in Wales, 73 nt.., 76 as. influence in the state, 47 salutes to, enjoined by law, 303 Erasmus condemns the Bull Exmilitary hlabits of 305 surge Domine, 455 42* 498. INDEX. Ermeland, bishop of, his moderna- Felix of Aptungis, 242 tion, 458 Felix III., his excommunication d'Espeisses on the exactions of of Acacius, 132, 276, 284 Rome, 50 n. on reception of excom., 264 Z. Essenes, excom. among the, 232 n. Ferdinand (Emperor), his remnonEtablissements of St. Louis, strances at Trent, 213, 435 196. 388, 391 Feudalism, its recognition by Eucharist, original nature of the, 228 Charles-le-Chauve, 327 continues to be a repast, 229 Fidelity, oaths of, exacted from is a bond of union, 231 bishops, 99 frequency of its administra- Filioqe interpolated in creed, 58 tion, 231 Fines imposed on excom., 387, 390 veneration rendered to it, 231 z. for neglect of excom., 432, 477 administered to the dead, 232 for non-observance of Sunbecomes an instrument of day and communion, 470 coercion, 232 Firmilian, his resistance to Rome, effects of its deprivation, 235 239, 281 decline of reverence for, 244 Flavianus, murder of, 113 administered to the dying, 252 Florentines hang the bishop of reverence inculcated for, 298 Pisa, 433 money value of, 315 Florus Diaconus on episcopal administration of, to idiots,440 as. elections, 91 ordeal of; administered to on Modoin of Autun,' 181 tn. Lothair, 164 on privileges of church, 292 7. Eucharistic blood, excommunica- Folcuin, St., of Terouane, 95 tion written in, 260 Forchheim, diet of, 361 Eugenius II. takes the oath of Forgeries, the, ~allegiance, 40 Ingilram, canons of, 44 Euphemius, excommunication of, Theodosian code, interpola264, 276, 285 tion of, 76 Eusebius of Dorvlaeum, 15, 258 Donation of Constantine, 155 Eutyches, accusation of, 258 Charlemagne, 157 ln. his excommunication, 240 Epistles of Innocent I., his appeal, 130 125 n., 276 Eutychianism, proscription of, 286 of Gregory I. on marExactions of the papal court, riage, 309 t7., 313 51 n., 137, 138 7c., 140 n. on dethroning kings, 354 Excommunicates, civil disabili- Louis-le-D6bonnaire on penties of, 322 alties of excommunication, 354 exhumation of, 369 of Nicene Canons by Leo I. 114 seizure of, by demons, 433 by Juvenal, Bishop of JeruExcommunication, 223 salem, 113 Expulsion from the church, 227, 232 the False Decretals, 42 Extradition treaties of 857 and 860, 78 disseminated by Riculfus, 43 of excommunicates, 325 relations of the See of Ma.inz to the, 43, 62, 137 discredited by Hinemar, 1ABIOLA, her penitence, 242 9i. 44 c. 1 Fallibility of church, admit- theories concerning, 48 ted, 377 2. influence of, 49 False Decretals, the (see Forge- exposed by Blondel, 53 c-ies). defended by the church, 53 Fano, bishop of, prosecuted, 220 presented to Gregory Fasting of penitents, 244 IV. in 833, 61 Fecht on excommunication, 461 attributed to Benedict Fees for church services, 407 7.. the Levite, 62 for removing interdicts, 434 their doctrines of papal Felicissimus, case of, 120 supremnficy, 62 INDEX. 499 Forgeries- Fredegonda murders Pretextatus, 302 False Decretals, their doctrines supplants Audovera, 310 of clerical immu- Frederic Barbarossa, sacrifices' nity, 63, 182 Arnold of Brescia, 36 of ecclesiastical ju- reproves the papal pretenrisdiction, 77 sions, 37 of implicit obedi- enforces excommunication, 395 ence, 80 Frederic II. admits appellate juof immunity from risdiction, 150 oaths, 101 c7. admits clerical immunity, 191 of hierarchical or- limits it, 192 ganization, 103 his German laws on excom. 395 of excom., 402 his Sicilian laws, 399 they render the pallium Frederic of Cologne resists papal obligatory, 140?z. exactions, 51 ni. they insist on papal ju- Frederic of Saxony protects Lurisdiction, 141 ther, 454 are quoted by Wenilo of contempt for excommunicaSens, 145 tion at his court, 458 are established by Freedmen protected by the church, 74 Nicholas I. 147, 154 Frisia, enforcement of excom. in, 401 papal supremacy as- Fuero Juzgo, episcopal jurisdicserted by them, 160 tion in, 72?n prohibit abuse of Eucha- clerical immunity in, 194 ristic oblations, 230 excommunication in, 392 prohibitincestuous mar- Fulbert of Chartres on the pallium, riages, 313 140 az. enforcement of their Fulda, Abbey of, extent of its principles, 344 possessions, 82 7,. Forged letters of communion, 263 Fulk of Rheims and the bishopric Formula of excommunication, 373 of Chalons, 97 Huguenot, 464 murder of, 333 Fortunatus of Todi, 296 France, clerical immunity in, 195 limited in 1563, 218 (1ALL, St., of Clermont, 84 restricted in 18th century, 219 G Gallican theory of the juconcordat with Leo X. 382, 390 risdiction of Rome, 146 laws on excommunication, 386 church, liberties of, 442 first legal penalties in 1228, 387 Gaul submits to Roman suprelegislation of St. Louis, 387 macy, 128 difficulty of enforcement, 388 Gauls, excommunication among, 232 disregard of excomi., 389 Gelasius I. his definition of the laws of John II. Charles V. 390 canons, 45 disabilities of excom., 391 asserts supremacy of Rome, project of reform at Trent, 436 117, 132, 287 remonstrates against council asserts immunity of clergy, 172 of Trent, 215 as. denies excom. of dead, 253 rejects council of Trent, 439, 441 on communion with excomFranche Comtd, reception of municates, 264, 265 council of Trent in, 442 his toleration for the empeFrancis I. complains of clerical rors, 276 immunity, 207 on homicide of clerks, 318 as. limits it, 186 Gentilly, synod of, deprecates limits spiritual jurisdiction, 423 image worship, 26 az. ]Frankfort, council of, in 795, 26 az. Geoffrey Vinsauf on papal power, 376 Frankish legislation, account of, 56 George of Bamberg, reforms of, 434 az. bishops threaten Gregory IV. 61 on interdict, 398 Franks adclit clerical immunity, 176 his fees for burial, 407 500 INDEX. Germaiin, St., excom. Charibert, 300 Gregory T.Germany, clerical immunity in, on power to inflict perdition, 250 184 vc., 190 he excommunicates Maximus laws on excommunication, 394 of Spalatro, 288 weight of Carlovingian tra- his free use of excom., 293 dition, 395 he condemns its abuse, 294 laws of Frederic I. and II., 395 his explanalion as to mira.the Schwa.benspiegel, 397 cles, 295 cz. powers conferred on the he acknowledges the fifth chrllch, 398 general council, 255 reft,,rmnation in, 449 forged decretals attributed separated from Rom. church, 366 to, 309 cn., 313, 354 Geroch of Reichersperg on the Gregory II, renders the papacy donation of Constantine, 158 ic. independent, 24 Gerson on abuse of segregation, 381 appeals to Charles Martel, 25 on abuse of excom., 429 Gregory III. seeks the Frankish Gian-Galeazzo Visconti, 193 alliance, 29 Gildas on segregation, 241 cc. on death-bed communion, 252 Giles of Rheims, case of, 134 prohibits marriage in seventh God invoked to shield clerical degree, 310 vices, 217 Gregory IV. submits his election Godefroy exposes interpolation in to Louis-le-DNbonnaire, 40 Theodosian code, 77 cz. he aids the rebellious sons of Golden Bull of Frederic II., 150 Louis, 61. Golias Episcopus on Roman is driven back to Rome, 61. simony, 51cc. on oaths of allegiance, 100 Gontran refuses bribes for bish- is threatened with excomoprics, 83 munlication, 162?. enjoins respect for the church, 304 epistle attributed to, 143 his interference in the case Gregory VII. on subordination of Salonius, 133 of the empire, 31 c2. his tyranny towards bishops, 177 insists on use of pallium, 141 cc. Gordon, Nath., his execution, 473 lie raises the question of the Gotefrido of Milan, 349 investitures, 347:(rdg6s, the earliest Icelandic his struggle with Henry IV., 349 code, 63 cc., 74 c7c. his death, 362 Gratian, Emperor, grants appel- Gregory IX. and clerical conculate power to Rome, 123 binage, 152 withholds it in 381, 124 on excommunication, 396 his law on capital sentences, excommunicates Frederic II.,407 275 ct. Gregory XIII. approves the SalzGratian, letters of communion in burg code, 216 his Decretunm, 263?c.. condemns infant communion, Grosteste, Robert, on papal ava- 232 zc. rice, 51 cc. reproves ecclesiastical abuses, 440 Gregory I.., his submission to the Gregory Thaumaturgus on corsecular power, 20, 22 ruptions in the church, 234 he reproves Serenus of Mar- on the four stages of peniseilles, 26 cc. tence, 242 he protects the widow and investigation ordered by, 268 orphan, 74 Gregory of Nazianzum, 110 on the title of (Ecumenic Gregory of Tours, his relies, 298 Patriarch, 115 he reproves Chilperic I., 176 he bestows palliuml on Virgil Grindal, Archbishop, on excom., 479 of ArIes, 135 Guardianship forbidden to ecclehe maintains clerical imImu- siastics, 253 nity, 174 Guillaume Bonne-Arne and the on prohibited degrees, 309 palliumn, 141 cc. INDEX. 501 Guiscard, Robert, his hostility IIermann, King of the Romans, 362 to Gregory VII., 350 Heresy of disregarding excomassists Gregory, 362 munication, 396, 438 Gunthair of Cologne, procures debt is not, 424 the divorce of Teutberga, 160 Heretics, persecution of, 265 is condemned by Rome, 161 in Anglican church, 482 refuses to submit, 162 Hervey of Rheims excommuniis deposed by Lothair, 162 cates Winemar, 333 Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, his Hierarchy, organization of, 267 excommunication, 471 Hilary of Arles, his quarrel with Guy of Lombardy, his election, 42 is. Leo I., 128 Hilary, Pope, his activity, 131 IIincmar discredits Ingilram and TIALE, Sir M., on benefit of Isidor, 44 ~l clergy, 190 he rejects papal epistles, 45 HIlll, Bishop of Exeter, his im- on royal nominations of peachlnent, 484 bishops, 91 TItrden. gown for penitents, 474 his rigor in episcopal elections, 96 hteirs of bankrupt, excom. of, 420 on the appointment of bishops, 97 Henoticon of Zeno, 283 oath exacted from, 101 IIenry II. (St.) disregards the *he applies for pallium, 144 donation of Constantine, 158 z. he resists the appellate jurisHenry IV. (Emp.) on clerical diction of Rome, 146 immunity, 185 his disapprobation of papal his minority, 345 invective, 163 is. his quarrel with the papacy, 348 he claims clerical immunity, 183 his excommunication, 352 he ridicules papal assumphis submission, 360 tions, 331 exchanges depositions with Hincmar of Laon, case of, 183 Gregory VII., 362 Hippolytus and Calixtus I., 105 recovers his power, 363 Holy Ghost, procession of, 58 his dethronement, 368 Homicide of ecclesiastics, 317 his death, 370 Honorius (Emp.) intervenes in Henry V. (Emp.) on temporalities, 98 papal contests, 16 rebels against his father, 368 enforces arbitration of bishdigs up his father's body, 371 ops, 69 extorts abandonment of in- but limits their jurisdiction, 70 vestitures, 371 his law in favor of episcopal submits to Rome, 372 immunity, 171 Henry I. (England), his laws on Honorins III. on subjection of excomr-munication, 384 2. the empire, 31 n. his punishment for contu- Hormisdas, his triumph over macy, 374 Constantinople, 285 Henry VI., his canonization ne- his inflexibility, 287 gotiated for, 52 i. Hospitality enjoined' by law, 328 his regulations respecting Howell Dda, admits benefit of clerical immunity, 206 clergy, 184in. Henry VII., his laws on benefit Hugh of Gapengais, case of, 364 of clergy, 188 Hugh of Lyons excommunicates Henry VIII. limits benefit of Philip of France, 364 clergy, 189 Huguenots discourage litigation, 68 retains the power of the excommunication amnong, 462 church, 475 Humbert of Vienne, excommuniHenry IV. (France) refuses to cated for debt, 421 publish the council of Trent, 441 Hungary, pre-eminence of bishHenry of Salzburg on clerical ops in, 32,a. corruption, 208 clerical immunity in, 184 i. Heraclius of Saintes, 85 Hnss, his views on excom., 449 50 2 INDEX. IIussites seek to abolish clerical Innocent III.illlmmunity, 208 his estimate of papal power, 377 HIyacinth, Brother, case of, 443 uses excom. to collect debts, 418 complains of abuse of his letters, 428 BAS of Edessa, case of, 257 his treatment of Philip AuIceland, supremacy of canon gustus, 444 law in, 63 n. Innocent XII. anathematizes the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in, 74 it. Declaration of 1682, 443 clerical immunity not ad- Insane, Eucharist forbidden to,440 t. mitted in, 184 i. Inscription by accusers, 258 spiritual affinity in, 310 a. Interdict, introduction ofthe, 301, 302 burial refused to excom., 406 regulations of, 374 cc. fees for church services, 407 n. for roceiving excom., 382, 383 spiritual penalties not used - for non-enforcement of exin, 4260c.. comn., 385, 390, 391, 392, 398 Idiots, communion for, 440 cc. for questions of debt, 420, 425 Illyricum, quarrel over churches abusive use of the,- 434 of, 118 fees for removing, 434 sc. Image-worship condemned by the against sovereigns, 443 West, 26 cc. Investitures of bishops, 81, 348, 372 Immunity of the clergy, 63 Ipso facto excommunication, 430 clerical (see Beueflt of Clergy). preserved by council of Trent,437 Imperial council the tribunal for Irenmus on Rosnan primacy, 105 the pope, 17 rebukes Victor of Rome, 107, 280 crown, bestowed by the popes, 36 on corruption of the church, 233 consent requisite for the pal- on avoidance of heretics, 238 lium, 135 Isidor Mercator, or Peccator, 42 Impunity conferred by clerical Isidor of Seville on the duty of immunity, 185, 197, 207, 212, 216 the state, 304 Ineendiarism, punishment of, 395 Italian reformers, modern, 228 cc. Indestructibility of excommuni- Italy, primitive church of,t; 116 carted corpses, 408 clerical immunity establishIndulgences, abuses of, 450 ed in, 174 Infallibility of church, doubts as disregard of excom. in, 3.54 to, 377 cc. laws on exconlmunication, 398 Infants, conmmunion of, 231 Sicilian Constitutions, 399 Ingilramn of Metz, his canons, 44 Milanese legislation, 400 on the duty of the state, 321 Ivo of Chartres on royal supreInnocent I. and St. John Chry- macy, 330 sostom, 125 asserts appellate power, 125 assumes to rule the African AGGS for penitents 475 church, 116 i Jean II. his laws on excon. 390 asserts supremacy of Rome, 282 Jerome of Brandenburg, chuater on death-bed communion, 249 of, 383 on requisites for excom., 256 n7. Jerusalem, its quarrel with Anon reception of excom., 264 cc. tioch, 113 on control over marriage, 309 cc. Assises de, clerical immunity confession alluded to by, 269 cc. in, 184 cc. Innocent II. and Louis-le-Jeune, 374 Jesus, forgiveness taught by, 224 exacts an oath from Lothair Jews, expulsion from the synaII., 37 iZ. gogue, 232, 237 excosm. Montpellier, 373 indirect excommunication of, 425 Innocent III. establishes appel- John I. sent as envoy by Theolate jurisdiction, 150 doric, 18 limits clerical exemption, 198 John II, his instructions from lays interdict on England, 374 cz. Athalaric, 18 INDEX. 503 John III. and the case of Salo- Justification by faith, 452 nius, 133 Justin Marxtyr, his account of John VIII. selects the emperor, 36 Eucharist, 228 assumes control over episco- Justin I. submits to Rome, 285 pal nominations, 92, 96 Justin II. sells episcopal appointinsists on use of pallium, 141 ments, 94 assumes the pardoning power, 154 Justina, Empress, overcome by his abuse of excom., 324 St. Ambrose, -272 legislates for the Goths, 330 Justinian, his treatment of the anathematizes rebels, 332 papacy, 19 John X. admits the secular ap- enlarges episcopal jurisdicpointment of bishops, 88 zs. tion, 70 John XII: defines the sources of his legislation on clerical imimperial power, 36 munity, 173 John XXII.. his definition of im- enforces supremacy of the perial power, 36 state, 173 John XXIII. enforces usury by controls excommunication, 262 excommunication, 424 his delay in authorizing the John of Antioch, his quarrel with pallium, 135 Jerusalem, 113 Justinian II. fails to subdue the John the Faster of Constant., 115 papacy, 23 John of C'ple submits to Rome, 286 John of Philadelphia, apostolic vicar, 23 JrINGS, deposition of by popes, 354 John of England, interdict un- IK divine right of, enforced by. der, 374 as. excomnmunication, 481 Jougs for penitents, 475 Kirk-sessions, their power and its Judges, ecclesiastical, corruption exercise, 465 of, 429 Julius I., appellate power conferred on himn, 110, 122 JAITY, their separation from Jurisdiction, confusion of civil 1. the clergy, 290 and spiritual, 317 not allowed to enter the ecclesiastical, origin of, 68 church without permission, 56 not favored by Valen- not allowed to accuse the tinian III., 70 clergy, 63 encouraged by Justinian, 70 deprived of voice in episcoextended under the Bar- pal elections, 92 barians, 71 Lambert of Spoleto and the paespecially by the Wisi- pacy, 331 goths, 72 Lamubeth, council of, in 1261, 187, 385 nnder the Frannks, 73 Languedoc, estates of, their cornobjected to by the church, 73 pla ints, 206, 421 extended over freedmen Laodicaea, council of, in 320, aand orphans, 74 81, 93 is., 228 az. abolished by Charle- LatEn Sententi.a excomn., 430 alllgne, 75 Lateran, council of, in 1102, 366 enforced by the forgeries, 77 in 1215, 446?z. enlarged by Charles-le- Law, secular, subjected to the Chauve, 79, 328 canons, 62 extent of, in middle ~ supplemented by excom:,416 ages, 77 as. Legislation, imperial, on church supremacy of, 165 matters, 16 enforced by the state, 326 of the Franks, how conducted, 56 papal, evils arising from, 427 tegislative functions of the universal, claimed by Romre, 118 church, 243 of the kirk-sessions, 466 J Leo I. and the council of ChalJury of barbers, 204 cedun, 15 504 INDEX.,Leo I.- Libertinus of Foldi, 295 his legates at Ephesus, 114, 130 Libiau, bishop, his use of excom., 324 sends forged canons to Chal- Libya, governor of, his excom., 271 cedon, 114 Liegeois, burial of Henry IV. by establishes the prerogative the, 371 of Rome, 128 Limoges, second council of, in his quarrel with Hilary of 1031, 374 n., 406 Arles, 128 Linnens for penitents, 474 his doctrine as to supremacy Litterse formatae, or commendaof St. P-eter, 129 titire, 202 his absolution of Theodoret Llywelyn, Prince of Wales, 386 of Cyrus, 130 Lollards forced to worship imahis fialsiflcation of Sardican ges, 28 s. canons, 131 of Kyle, 449 his rules for penitents, 245, 246 Lochiell, his description of kirkon death-bed communion, 249 sessions, 465 on abuse of excomn., 261 Lombard law, accusations beaffirms excom. of (lead, 253 tween clerks and laymen excommunicates Dioscorus, 283 in, 66 forbids general excorn., 301 benefit of clergy in, 178 Leo II. restrains warlike ardor rights of church under,. 291?1. of clerks, 305 Lombards assist Gregory II., 25 Leo III., his servility to Charle- their reception of Henry IV., 359 magne, 34 Lombardy, clerical immunity in, 193 is tried by Charlemagne, 34 London, council of, in 1342, 385. crowns Charlemagne, 35 citizens of, complain of exinvades the imperial juris- communication, 480 diction, 38 Lothair I. crowned by Paschal I., 39 vainly resists the insertion reduces Romne to subjection, 40 of filioquee in the creed, 58 receives promise of obedience admits the secular appoint- from Leo IV., 61 iment of bishops, 88 Im. prohibits bigamy, 311 sub mits to imperial jurisdic- his edict of 824, 157 tion, 179 donation to John of Trieste, 75 sb. Leo IV. promises obedience to he deposes Louis-le-D6bonthe imperial laws, 61 naire, 319 admits the royal nomination he protects Ebbo of Rheimrs, 144 of bishops, 91 he pledges the state to enLeo X. on clerical immunity, 207 force excommunication, 318 his concordat with France, Lothair II. restores innocent 382, 390 II., 37 ii. excommunicates Luther, 453 Lothair of Lothanringia forbidden Leo (Emlp.), his law on clerical to influence episcopal elecimmunity, 172 tions, 91 Leo the Isaurian, 24 his marriage with Teutberga, 159 excom. by Gregory II., 25 he abandons her for Walobtains the churches of Illy- drada, 100 ricum, 118 is arraigned by Nicholas I., 161 Leptines, council of, in 743, 87 submits to the papal decision, 163 Letters of communion, 262 endeavors to elude it, 163 papal, abuses arising from, 427 admitted to ordeal by Adrian Leudovald of Ba-yeux, first inter- II., 164 diet by, 302 dies at Piacenza, 165 Lever, Ralph, on abuses of ex- Lonis-le-Ddbonnaire declares communication, 478 against image worship, 27 at. Lex talionis applied to excom., 258 crowned king of Aquitaine Liberius, persecuted by Con- by the pope, 33 stantius, 17 crowned emperor, 37 INDEX. 505 Louis-le-Ddbonnaire- Lutherreduces Leo III. to subjec- slow progress made by, 449 tion, 38 his ninety-five propositions, 451 sends Lothair I. to Italy, 39 his sermon on excom., 452 his supremacy over the church, 59 he asserts the right of pridethroned by his sons, 61 vate judgment, 453 forbids accusations between his excommunication, 453 clerks and laymen, 66 his treatise on the captivity legislation protecting the of the church, 455 clergy, 67 he denies sacramental ordihe grants the right of epis- nation, 455 copal election, 89 he excom-municates the pope, 456 but exercises the right of ap- and burns the bull and canon pointment, 90 law, 457 disregards the appellate ju- final doctrines of his followrisdiction of Rome, 139 ers, 459 his donation to St. Peter, 156 Lutheran doctrines as to church his disregard of clerical iml- and state, 459 munity, 179 as to excommunication, 460 ecclesiastical cases tried by Lyndesay, Sir David, on clerical him, 181 immunity, 210 grants the Roman law to on indulgences, 451 az. Lombard church, 291 Lyons, council of, in 517, 303 submits to penance at At- in 567, 134 tigny, 316 extends and enforces spiritual jurisdiction, 317?/ACEDONIA, quarrel over is degraded and subjected to IY churches of, 118 penitence, 319 bishops of; complain of Rome, 1 25 forged decree attributed to, 354 Macon, council of, in 581, 177 Louis II. attacks Nicholas I., 162 in 585, 74, 179 a,., 303 his claims on Lothbaringia, 331 Magna Chlarta guaranteed by exLouis-le-Germanique, his control communication, 372 over the church, 60 Mainz, see of, its relation to the Louis-le-Begue, oaths given at forgeries, 43, 62, 137 his coronation, 101 clergy of, resisting Rome, 51 -s. Louis VII. and Archbishop of council of, in 813, 60, 312, 315 ls. Bourges, 374 in 847, 60, 65 Louis, St., on clerical immunity, 196 in 851, 65 as. his laws on excom., 387, 391 Mapes, Walter, on Roman avaon excom. for debt, 419 rice, 51 9t. Louis X. on clerical immunity, 197 Marca, P. de, on the grant of on excommllunication, 388 Adrian, 88 as. Louis XIV. creates mixed tribu- Matrcion, his appeal to Rome, 119 nals, 218 Marcion of Arles, his heresy, 106 his independence of the Marcion (Emp.) and council of church, 442 Chalcedon, 131 Louis II. of Bourbon procures suppresses Alexandrian inburial for his father, 422 subordination, 283 Lucius III. uses excommunica-.Marcovefa, her fate, 300 tion to collect debts, 418 Margaret of Parma forces the Lull, his death for disregarding council of Trent on the the church, 297 Netherlands, 439 Lull, St., appeals to Rome, 137 reproves abuse of excomn., 441 neglects to apply for palliunm, 138 Marriage, relatimons of early Lupus of Ferrinres on papal si- church to, 309 mnony, 51 z. control gradually acquired Luther on clerical immunity, 209 over it, 309 43 506 INDEX,. Marriage- I Miracles necessary for protection incestuous, prohibited, 312 of church, 294 doctrine of spiritual affinity, 310 character of Italian, 295 prohibited during penitence, 245 of Frankish, 297 during exconm., 405 of the Eucharist, 230 cc., 231?z. use made by the church.of Modoin of Autun disregards cleits power over, 346 rical immunity, 181 M3arried clerks subjected to secu- Monitoires, 417, 443 lar courts, 198, 200 Montanus on unpardonable sin, 242 immunity granted them at Montpellier, consuls of, excom., 373 Trent, 215 Muratori on the donation of Marsiac, council of, in 1326, 421 Louis-le-D]bonnaire, 157 9z. Martial, case of, 120 Murder justified by Urban IT., 371 Martin I., exile of, 22 Myrc's, John, formula of excom., 373 appoints an apostolic vicar, 23 Martin V. on appellate jurisdiction of Rome, 78?z. ]TANTINUS of Angouleme, his on clerical immunity, 192 IN fatte, 299 excom. Peter de Luna, 38tI Naples, appellate jurisdiction of his concordats, 382 Rome in, 150 Martin, St., of Tours, delegates clerical immunity in, 192 his judicial functions, 69 excom.munication in, 399 Martin of Arles on excommuni- Napoleon I. adopts the Declaracation of animals, 413 tion of 1682, 443?zo Martinus Polonus, his Chronol. Nature, excommunication of, 408 Pontificull, 89 9n. Netherlands, remonstrances Mary Magdalen, church of St., 383 against council of Trent, "Mary, Queen, restores benefit of in the, 215 7c. clergy, 190 reception of council of Trent Matthew of Vendlome on papal in the, 439 power, 376 Neustrian bishops, their letter Mathia.s of Hungary restricts ec- to Louis le Germanique, 91 clesiastical jurisdiction, 77 9i. on oaths of allegiance, 101 Maurice (Einp.), his control over New Grenada abolishes clerical the church, 20, 22 immunity, 220 Maximus (Emp.) excommuni- NicTea, council of, in 325, caited by Ambrose, 272 93cc., 111, 243, 249, 257, 264 7c., 280 Maxilmus of Valence, case of, 128 in 787, 58, 93 Maximus of Spalatro, 288 Arabic canons of, 267 Meilleraie, Duc de la., case of, 443 Nicene creed, alteration in, 57 Melanehthon, his apology for Nicephorus Phocas sells bishopAugsburg Confession, 460 rics, 94 Melchiades (Pope) appointed Nicetins, St., of Treves, 300 judge by Constantine, 121 Nicholas I. asserts the freedom Meletius, St., of Antioch, 15 of episcopal elections, 91 Merovingians, their contempt for confines them to the clergy, 92 excommunication, 303 his vigor in'the case of Ebbo, 145 their control over the church, 55 in the case of Rothadus, 146 sale of bishoprics by, 83 adopts the False Decretals, Metz, synod of, condemns Teut- 147, 154 be rga, 159 his domineering spirit, 159 cc. [Mexico abolishes clerical immu- exalts the pardoning power nity, 220 of Rome, 154 MIilan, equality of, with Rome, 116 interposes in favor of Teutclerical immunity in, 193 berga, 161 schism in church of. 349 condemns Gunthair and la.ws of, on excointlmunication, 400 Thietgaud, 161 Military habits of clerks, 305 is attacked by Louis II., 162' INDEX. 507 Nicholas I.- Otho the Greattriumphs over the Lotharin- legend of his death, 339 gian prelates, 163 Otho III., his control over the excommunicates Waldrada, 164 papacy, 89?. establishes supremacy of ec- he denies the donation of clesiastical jurisdiction, 165 Constantine, 158. ct. asserts clerical immunity, 1S3 Otho IV. and the laws of CharleNicholas de Claminges on the magne, 49 papacy, 99 se. admits appellate jurisdiction, 150 Norman kings of Naples and the Outlawry of excommunicates, appellate power, 150 354, 384, 395 Normandy, clerical immunity in, 186 of heretics demanded by Leo Novatians, their heresy, 236.t., 242 X., 454 Noyon, council of, in 1344, 199, 200 Owen of Gwynnedd and bishopNiirnberg decree of Frederic I., 395 ric of Bangor, 97 diet of, grievances of the 152, 209, 425, 433 D AGAN mockery of excom., 261 X Pallium, use of the, 134 0ATH of a.llegiance esxacted of Pallium introduced in aid of the popes and Romans 40 papal jurisdiction, 134 exacted of bishops and at first requires consent of clergy, 99 emperor, 135 its significance, 100 powers bestowed with it, 135 gradcual change in its St. Bonifiace endeavors to character, 136, 140 n. revive it, 136 release from, by the popes, 154 complaints of papal exactions Obedience, implicit, claimed for in its bestowal, 137 the church, 80 reluctance of prelates to apenjoined by the state, 304 ply for it, 138 Oblations, Eucharistic, their na- privilege of appeal attached ture, 229 to it, 139 Occupations forbidden to Chris- alluded to by Theodulf, tians, 269 102 7t. Odoacer, his law on church pro- John VIII. tries to make it perty, 17 obligatory, 141 his control over papacy, 82 az.. its utility in establishing (Ecumenic patriarch, title of 114 papal supremacy, 140ac. Opstalboom, clerical immunity in delay in adopting it, 140 7,. laws of, 184 I. objections to it in 1786, 141 nz. Orange, council of, in 441, 252, 264n. Papacy rendered independent of Ordeal of Eucharist administered Constantinople, 24 to Lothair, 164 cause of its elevation in the Ordenamiento de AlcalI, 73 n. seventh century, 23 Ordination, sacramental, denied its subjection to the Carloby Luther, 455 vingians, 34 Organization of primitive church, 104 strives for independence, 39 Origen excom. after death, 254 concentration of authority Orleans, council of, in 511, 55 in, 426 in 538, 176 its inevitable abuses, 427 in 541, 176 its pretensions to- day, 447 in 554, 56 Papal a pocrisarii at Constantiin 849, 84 nople, 21 Orphans protected by the church, 74 autocracy denied by Hinemar, 45 Ostrogoths, their control over claims of control over genethe church, 17 ral councils, 15, 20 Otho the Great, his control over over episcopal nominabishoprics, 88 as. tions, 92 508 INDEX. Papal- Patriarch of Constantinopledegradation in the tenth his relations with empecentury, 167 rols, 112 elections, control of by the Patriciate of Rome, the, 33 sovereign, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, Patrick, St., enforces episcopal 33, 34, 38, 40, 88 n., 89 n. jurisdiction, 71 exactions, 51 co., 137,138 a.,141?z. Paul, St., encourages arbitration, 68 excommunication despised, his teachings, 226 162 z,, 331, 334 on segregation of sinners, 237 jurisdiction (see Appellate Paul of Samosata, 107 annd Popes). Paul of Bernried on subjection letters, abuses of, 427 of the empire, 31 zn. reception of, forbidden Paul III., his project of r:formain France, 444?,. tion, 152 monitoire annulled in Alsace, 443 excommunication by, 417 power of dethronement, 354 Paulinus of Aquileia, 57 supremacy established, 166 Pavia, synod of, in 876, 330 absoluteness of, 376 Pazzi, conspiracy of the, 433 Pardoners, descriptions of, 450 co. Pelagius I. appointed by JustinPardoning power assumed by ian, 21 Rome, 154 decretal attributed to him, 141 b. conceded by the Welsh Pelayo, Alvarez, 37, 81c., 195, 378 laws, 155 Penitence, 240 Paris, council of in 557, 85 its enforcement, 241 in 615, 85, 177, 179 fe. simplicity of, in early times, 241 in 825, 27 zc. its four stages, 242 in 882, 90 ~ tendency to increased sein 1105, 365 verity, 242 Huguenot council of, in 1565, 462 expands into a criminal code, 243 Parker, Archbishop, on excom., 476 lengthened terms of penance, 244 Parlement of Paris, enforces see- penalties and disabilities ular jurisdiction, 202, 205 added, 244 on excom., 388, 391 indelible character of, 245 Parliament (Eng.) curtails benefit it enhances sacerdotal auof clergy in 1402, 188 thority, 246 Long, on excommunication, 483 alleviations of, for the rich, 316 retains control over church, 484 inflicted on Louis-le-D6b., 31.9 Parliament, Scotch, removes civil on Henry IV., 360 penalties of excommunication, 475 in Scottish kirk, 473 Partidas, Siete, clerical immu- stool and pillar of repentnity in, 184 as., 195 ance, 473 on eccles. jurisdiction, 72 cc. the harden- gown, 474 on excommunication, 393 the branks, 474 Paschal I. deprecates imperial the jaggs, 475 resentment, 39 Penitents, disabilities of,' 244 crowns Lothair I. 39 ineligible to holy orders, 246 Paschal II., his venality, 52 n. safeguards for, 317 he absolves Philip of France, 365 Pepin-le-Bref and the church, 30 denounces a new heresy, 366 he disapproves of images, 26 n. releases Henry V. from his his grant to the Roman Reoaths, 369 public, 32 forced to abandon the inves- he confirms clerical immutitures, 371 nity, 178 Paschasinus of Lilybheum, 15, 114 his policy with regard to the Paschasius Radbertus, his ac- church, 306 count of the forgeries, 61 he enforces excom., 308 Patriarch, powers of the, 267 he prohibits marriage in of Constant., his legal title, 115 fourth degree, 311 INDEX. 509 Pepin of Italy, crowned by the Pius IS. maintains clerical impope, 33 munity, 219 he requires oath of allegi- forbids mnedical aid to heretics, 446 ance, 100 Poissy, colloquy of, 28.i. his laws on clerical imm-a- Poitiers, council of, in 1100, 365 nity, 178 Poland, clerical immunity aboPerjury justified by Urban II. 368 lished, 218 Persecution by Christian empe- excommunication in, 400 rors, 26600 Politics, control of the church Peru, excom. of ants in, 415 over, 447 Peter, St., bestows the imperial Polyearp and Anicetus, 105 crown through the popes, 36 Polycrates of Ephesus asserts his Jewish exclusiveness, 237 independence, 280 Peter Mougus of Alexandria, 283 Pontyon, synod of, in 876. 79 Peter of Braga and the pallium, Poor of the church, fed on Eucha141 n.. rist, 230 Peter de Luna, excom. of, 381 Popes not consecrated without Philip I. (France), his excom., 364 consent of emperor, 38 his submission, 365 to be tried by imperial counPhilip II. on clerical immunity, 195 cil, 17 Philip III. on clerical immunity, 196 supreme original jurisdicon excommunication, 388 tion of, 279 Philip IV. declares ecclesiastics not recognized in early incompetent as judges, 74 ns. church, 280 on clerical immunity, 196 assumed in the dissenon excommunication, 389 sions of the East, 282 Philip VI. restricts ecclesiastical asserted over Constantijurisdiction, 77?Z. nople, 284 complains of clerical immu- abolished by Justinian, 288 nity, 198 asserted in the west, 288 restricts it, 200 case of Maximus of SaPhilip II. (Spain), his control of lona, 289 the church, 442 omnipotence of, 376 Philip Count Palatine, excom- are gods on earth, 378 munication of, 375 Portugal, reforms suggested by, Philippo-Maria Visconti, 194: at Trent, 212 Phillips defends the Isidorian Powder and ball, exorcism of, 414in. theories, 53's. Prague, council of, in 1365, 199 Phocas admits the supremacy of Prerogatives, supernatural, Rome, 115?Z. growth of, 29 Photius, excommunication o'f, 260 Pretextatus of Rouen, 134, 302 Piacenza, council of, in 1095, 364 Priesthood denied by Luther, 455 Pierre of Bourbon, burial refused Primitive church, organization to, 422 of, 104 Pisa, bishop of, hanged by the Prohibited degrees of marriage, 309 Florentines, 433 Property, church, guarded by Pistes, capitulary of, in 862, 327 curses, 293 edict of, in 864, 328 excom. for recovery of, 417 Pithou, Pierre, his liberties of Propitiation, penitence assumed GallicaLn church, 442 as a, 246 q.. Pius III., his Bull of Reforma- Proscription for excom., 397 tion, 211 Provisors, statute of, 385 Pius V. urges the suppression of Pseudo-Isidor (see Forgeries.) concubinage, 217 Purgatory, rise of doctrine of, 250 forbids medical aid to the Puritans, complain of excom., 478 unconfessed,' 446 c. endeavor to retain it,' 484 Pius VII. excommunicates Na-' Pyrrhus of Constantinople, expoleon, 443 n. communication of, 260 43* 510 INDEX. UARTODECIMAN contro- Rodolph of Hapsburg admits apQ versy, 280 pellete jurisdiction, 150 Quiqisext ine Trucllo rejects the Rodolph of Suabia, his designs, 355 supremacy of Rome, 115 cc. elected emperor,. 361 Quintianus, St., of Auvergne, 83 his death, 362 Roisel, Jean, case of, 391, 402 Roman bankers protected by exABELAIS on the decretals, 50 communication, 417 Rinfroy of Rheims, case of, 182 Roman bishopric, primacy of, 104 Ravennaz assumes equality with causes of its influence, 105 Rome, 116 honorary rather than synod of, in 877, 141, 184, 325 nz. potential, 105 Raymond of Nismes on clerical its liberality, 105 abuses, 199 its superiority contested, 106 Reading test in benefit of clergy, its influence with the empe188, 190 rors, 107 Rebellion, the Great, its influence its progress in the Arian conon excommunication, 485 troversy, 110 Reception of excommunicates, 263 its contest with ConstantinoReform, project of, at Trent, 215, 436 ple, 111, 114, 115, 131, 276, 284 character of the Tridentine, 437 its opportunities in the eastReformation attempted by the ern.quarrels, 112 church, 211 supremacy admitted by PhoReformation, controversy on cas in 607, 115 image-worship in the, 28 n. its efforts in the West, 115 gradual progress of, 449 its claim to universal jurisReformers, their assaults on the diction, 118 church, 209 based on the Sardican Relics, reverence inculcated for, 297 canons, 122 Remission of sins, Luther on, 451 asserted by Innocent I., 125 Remy, St., Testament of, 32 c. denied by the African Remy of Coire introduces the for- church, 126 geries, 46 submitted to by Gaul, 128 Rheims, council of, in 625, 86 confirmed by ValentiRhys of Wales, excom. of, 375 nian III., 129 Riceaswind, laws of, on episcopal rejected by the East, 130 jurisdiction, 72 established in the West, 131 Richard II. on excommunication, 385 overthrown by the BarRichardot of Arras defends cleri- barians, 132 cal immunity, 215 zc. attempts to resuscitate urges reception of council of it by the pallium, 135 Trent, 439 endeavors of Bonifface, 136 deplores abuse of excom., 441 Charlemagne disregards Richstich Landrecht on papal the claim, 138 power, 378 it is renewed by the false Riculfus of Mainz introduces the decretals, 141 false decretals, 43 established by Nicholas Rimini, synod of, in 360, 14 I., 145 Ripuarian law, rights of church evils of the system, 147 under, 291 cc., 292 pardoning power assumed Robber synod of Ephesus, by, 154 113, 130, 258, 383 jurisdiction (see Po pes). Robert-le-Fort obtains abbey of appellate (see Appellate). St. Martin, 95 Roman curia, exactions of, Robert the Good of Naples, 208 51. c., 137, 138 cc., 141 cc. Rodez, Bishop of, sells pardons, 202 its overgrown business, 427 Rodolph of Bourges perinits civil its spirit at Trent, 436 suits of clergy, 182 Empire, autocracy of, 13 INDEX. 511 Roman — Saxons defeated by IIenry IV., 348 law, church privileged to use fresh rebellion of, 356 the, 291 Saxony, Charletmagne's organizaRepublic restored by Pepin, 32 tion of, 306 Rome, sack of, by Guiscard, 362 School-boys fed on remains of synod of, in 384, 264 zc. Eucharist., 230 in 488, 244 Schwabenspiegel, founded on laws in 498 and 502, 17 of Charlemagne, 49 in 501, 18 papal supremacy in, 31 qz. in 863, 161 clerical immunity in, 1849s., 191 in 877,.332 excommunication in, 397 in 1075, 348 Scotland, accusations between in 1076, 352 clerks and laymen forbidin 1080, 362 den, 66 sz. in 1102, 366 clerical immunity in, 184 9. Rothadus of Soissons, case of, 145 tyranny of kirk-sessions in, 465 Ruffec, council of, 419 civil penalties of excommuRufinus, his account of council nication abolished, 475 of Nitema, 170 Sebastian of Portugal, reforms suggested by, 212 Secular power, enforcement of SABBATH, rigidity of, in Scot- excommunication by, 380 land, 469 under Merovingians, 304 Sacerdotal power, commencement under Carlovingians, 307 of the,. 235 in England, 384 intervention denied by Lu- in Wales, 386 ther, 452 in France, 386 Sacrificial meats, 231 in Spain, 392 Sacraments (see Euchaarist and.in Germany, 394 Corzns2Z'nioz c). in Italy, 398 power obtained through the, 223 in Poland, 400 allowed during interdict, 374 e. in Sweden, 401 Sackcloth for penitents, 474 interference of, prohibited at Sagittarius of Gap, case of, 133 Trent, 438 Salutes, synod of, in 579, 299 resistance to this by the Salonius of Embrun, case of, 133. state, 439 Salic law, wehr-gilds under, 292 se. Secularization of excom., 405 Salzburg, council of, in 1418, 434 yi. Segregation of excommunicates, in 1456, 407, 432, 450 t.. 227, 235 in 1548, 211 origin of, 237 in 1569, 438 enforced by Stephen I., 238 its code of discipline, 216 becomes the general practice in 1573, 440 of the church, 239 Sardica, council of, in 367, examples of it, 240 81, 108, 26491. effects of it, 241 canons of, in favor of Pope revived by Carlovingians, 308 Julius, 110 deprivation of intercourse nature of the canons, 122 and assistance, 380 they are disregarded, 123 punishment for its infracare revived by Rome, 126 tion, 381 and attributed to council of reforms attempte4 at ConNicsaa, 126, 131 stance and Bale, 382 are rejected by the churches, 127 complaints of citizens of BerSaumur, synod of, in 1596, 68 lin,. 382 Sawtree, Win., tried fdr Lollard- ulterior consequences, 384 ism, 28 9z.. mildness of, in Spain, 394 Saxon emperors, their control, severity of, in Germany, 398 over papacy, 89 it. in Scottish kirk, 471 512 INDEX. Seignorial "droits de justice," Spoliationorigin of, 75 increases under the later CarSeligenstadt, council of, in 1018, 149 lovingians, 321 Senlis, council of, in 1326, 392 in Gothic code, 330 Sepulture, interdiction of, Spottiswoode, John, his excomi., 472 406, 421, 434 St. Andree, Bishop of, on usuriers, 407 Serenus of Marseilles destroys St. Andrews, kirk-sessions of, 470, 475 images, 26 i. St. Macra, synod of, in 881, 35 9t. Sergius I. defies the emperors, 23 St. Martin, Abbey of, bestowed Sergius II. asserts the jurisdic- on the Ca.pets, 95 tion of Rome, 144 monks of, their trial, 180 Sicily, appellate jurisdiction of St. Riquier, Abbot of, case of, Rome in, 150 391, 402 clerical immunity in, 192 St. Savin, Valley of, 408 excommunication in, 399 St. Tiberius, council of, in 1389, 205 Siegfrid of Mainz and the pal- Staphylus, Fred., his remonstrance lium, 140 it. at Trent, 213 his excommunication, 352 State, the, seeks support from the Siete Partidas, las (see Pcartidas). church, 326 Sigebert II., his control over the subjection of, tp the church, church, 56 in 1869, 447 Sigebod of Narbonne, his com- Statute of Provisors, 385 plaint, 330 Stephen I. appealed to by the Silvan-us of the Troad, 70 Lyonese, 106 Silverius buys the papacy, 19 his contest with the Spanish his condemnation, 173 church, 120 Simony of the Roman curia, with Cyprian, 280 51 i., 137, 138 z., 141it. on segregationtof excommuprotected by excom., e 403 nicates, 238 Siricius, authority of his decre- Stephen II. crowns Pepin-le-Bref, 32 tals, 116 and Charlemagne, 33 he disclaims appellate juris- appealed to by Boniface, 137 diction, 123 Stephen IV. crowns Louis-le-Ddon death-bed communion, 249 bonnaire, 37 Sixtus IV., his abuse of excom- Stephen, St., of Rungary, his munication, 430 reverence for bishops, 32?. excommnunicates Florence, 433 he forbids accusation of Soissons, council of, in 744, 87 clergy, 67 wZ. in 853, 182 he grants clerical immuSpain, ecclesiastical jurisdiction nity, 184 lb. in, 72 lz. Sterility caused by excom., 409 resistance to Rome in 253,'120 Stoning houses of excom., 383 its submission to Rome,;- 132 Strangers, letters of communion clerical immunity in, 184:./,` 194 required by, 262 proposes reforms at Trent, 212.Suabian code (see Schszvabeensspiegel). laws on excommunication in/,392 Sulpicius, St., of Bourges, 297 influence of Gothic laws, — 392 Sulpicius Severus on authority the Fuero Juzgo, 72wb., 194/393 of bishops, 107 the Siete Partidas, Sunda:y, observance of, in Scot72w9., 184wi., 195, 393 land, 469 Spanish rule ig Milan, 194 Supervision, minute, in the Spandel, Chris., on clerical vices, church, 268 217 w. in the Scottish kirk, 469 Spiritual affinity, doctrine of, 310 Supremacy, papal, established authority all deleg'ated from by Adrian II., 166 the pope, 426 Supreme jurisdiction of Rome,. Spoliation of the church, re- 279, 37 A pressed hy Charlemagne, 314 Suze, Henri de, excoim. by, 404 INDEX. 513 Swveden, clerical immunity in, 184 c. Theodoric, anti-pope, 366 punishment of excom. in, 401 Theodoric of Mainz summoned Syllabus of 1864, 220, 446 by the Vehmgericht, 192 Symbol, Nicene, altered by Theodoric of Utrecht excommuCharlemagne, 57 nicated for debt, 418 Symmachus, his.'contest for the Theodorus and Proculus of Tours, 83 papacy, 17 Theodosian code, forgery insertSynesius complains of his judicial ed in, 76 functions, 69 foisted on Charlemagne, 77 excommunicates Andronicus, persecution in, 266 240, 270 Theodosius the Great excommuhis formula, 264 nicated by Ambrose, 273 his conscientiousness, 274 z. his law on capital punishTALIO, application ofto excom- ment, 275 munication, 258 Theodosius II. on the confirmaTarragona, council of, in 516, 72 tion of bishops, 94 Tarragonensian bishops, their transfers the churches of I1appeal to Rome, 131 lyricum, 118 Tarasius of Constantinople on Theodulf of Orleans, his imprithe creed. 58 n. sonment, 102 Tedaldo of Milan, 349, 351 Theophilus attacks Chrysostom, Temporal penalties of excom., 477 112, 113 Temporalities of the church, 82 excommunicates Origen, 254 their evil influence, 445 Theutmir and Dungal, 27zi. Territorial jurisdiction of vassals, 75 Thietgaud of Treves released from restricted by Charlemagne, 76 his oath, 154 Tertullian, his resistance to Rome, 108 condemned by Roman synod, 16G Testimony ofexcom. refused, 245, 391 submits to the sentence, 162 Tetzel and his indulgeuces, 450 Thionville, council of, in 845, Teutberga, the divorce of, 159 60, 90, 181 married to Lothair, 159 Thomas a Becket and Bishopric divorced by synod of Aix, 160 of Bangor, 98 appeals to Rome, 160 he vindicates clerical iimmuis taken back by order of nity, 187 Nicholas I., 163 asserts clerical supremacy, 375 entreats to be separated from Three Chapters, the, 19, 118, 254 him, 164 Thurstan of Yorlk, case of, 374 Tewdwr of Brecknock, his ex- Tithes, enforced by Charlemagne, 306 communication, 324 by excommunication, 434 Theft, excommunication for, 335, 417 Toledo, council of, in 400, Theocratic constitution of the 239, 252, 269 church, 267 in 589, 58, 175 inevitable results of, 427 in 675, 72, 175, 248nt, 250 Theodatus imposes Silverius on in 633, 58, 73, 301 i., 393.. the Roman church, 19 in 681, 87, 329, 392, 393 I. Theodebert of Metz and St. Ni- Tolls, excommunication for colcetius, 300 lecting, 431 Theodora, her treatment of Vi- Tonsure as proof of clerkship, 1J98 gilius, 19 assumed to obtain immuTheodore of Canterbury, 67 I. nity, 199, 201 Theodore of Mopsuestia, case of, 254 respect claimed for it, 203 Theodore (Pope) excom. Pyrrhus, 260 Tours, bishop of, under the MeTheodoret of Cyrus, case of, 130 rovingians, 83 Theodoric controls papal elections, 17 council of, in 567, 177 sends John I. as envoy, 18 in 813, 312, 315 w7. enforces submission of church, 173 Trade forbidden to penitents, 245 on denial of sepulture, 421 1 to Christians, 269 514 INDEX. Travellers, letters of communion Valentinian III.required by, 262 confers universal jurisdiction Trent, council of, on image wor- on Rome, 129 ship, 27 cc. his laws on episcopal immuon appellatejuriscldiction, 153 nity, 171 reforms requested of, Vannes, council of, in 465, 244 212, 435 Vehmgericht disregards clerical reactionary spirit of, 436 immunity, 192 device for eluding re- - Verberie, synod of, in 752, 311 formation, 213, 436 Vermin, exorcism of, 414 conservative character Verneuil, synod of, in 755, of reforms, 214, 437 178, 308, 312cc. opposition to reception in 844, 60, 90, 181, 322 ns. of the council, 218, 439 Viaticum, not always efficacious, 253 Trial of Leo III. by Charlemagne, 34 control of, by Charlemagne, 306 of animals, 411 neglect of, 440 Tribur, council of, in 895, 149, 184 Vic-en-Bigorre, excommunicadiet of, in 1076, 356 tion procured by, 417 Trieste, jurisdiction of, granted Victor I. and the Asian bishops, 106 to bishop, 75 zc. rebuked for his pretensions, 280 Troyes, synod of, in 878, 330 Vienne, council of, in 1311, 450 gv. Truce of God, clerical infrac- Vigilius, Pope, his career, 19 tions of, 185 is excommunicated by Africa, 118 Turin, council of, in 401, 264 cc. bestows the pallium on AuxaTyre, council of, in 335, 14 nius, 135 on excommunication of dead, 254 Virgil of Arles receives the palITDO of Treves and Henry IV., 356 lium, 135 U Unction, extreme. neglect of, 440 Visconti, they limit clerical imenforced by Pius IX., 446 munity, 193 Urban II. excommunicates the on excommunication, 400 Imperialists, 363 Vislitza, statute of, 400 excomnmunicates Philip I. of Vitoduranus on temporalities, 99 France, 364 Vladislas II. restricts ecclesiasannuls oaths to excommuni- tical jurisdiction, 77 cs. cates, 368 justifies murder, 371 Urban IV. uses excommunication RWTAGER of battle offered by to collect debts, 419 ~V Lothair, 164 Urban V., his dread of excom., 429 forbidden to ecclesiastics, 180 Urraca of Castile, case of, 374 Wala presents the forged decreUrsinus, the antipope, 16 tals to Gregory IV., 61 Utrecht, Bishop of, excommuni- Walafrid Strabo on image worcated for debt, 418 ship, 27 cn. Waldrada, a concubine of Lothair, 159 AISON, first council of, in is married to him, 160 442, 248, 257 is separated by Nicholas I., 163 Valence, clergy of, appeal to Boni- obliged to go to Rome, 164 face I., 128 Wales, ecclesiastics not competent council of, in 855, 95 as judges in, 73 cz. Valentinian II. rebuked by Am- pardoning power of Rome brose, 272 admitted, 155 Valentinian III. and the council laws on excommunication, 386 of Ephesus, 14 on benefit of clergy, 184 c?1., 186 legislates in favor of bishops, 64 Weddings, regulations of, in Scotlimits the episcopal jurisdic- land, 469 tion, 70 Wehr-gilds for ecclesiastics, 292 INDEX. 515 Weldon, Sir Andrew, on Scottish Witchcraft, persecution of, in discipline, 466 Scotland,. 468 Weissenberg, Abbot of, 375 Witnesses, numbers of, required Wenilo of Sens, his treachery, 102 in charges againlst clerks, 66 he appeals to false decretals, 145 penitents ineligible as, 245 Westminster, assembly of, 484 excommunicates ineligible as, Wiberto of Ravenna, 354 245, 391 becomes antipope, 362'Wolff, Christian, on the donation his death, 366 of Constantine, 158?t. Wickliffe, his opinion of decretals, 53 Wolsey endeavors to reform the of Roman supremacy, 11l a. church, 189 of excommunication, 448 Worms, assembly of, on church Widows protected by the church, 74 spoliation, 314 Willenberg on excommunication, 461 council of, in 1176, 351 William of Bavaria reproaches Writ de excommunicato capithe church, 211 endo; 384, 477, 482, 485 William II. of Montpellier, 373 de contumace capiendo, 485 William of Scotland, case of, 374 Wulfa.rius of Rheims appears in William of Sicily admits appel- secular courts, 179 late jurisdiction, 150 Wijrdtwein on appellate jurisciicWillinam of Utrecht, his death, 355 tion, 153 Willibert of Chalons, 96 Willibrod sent as missionary by Sergius, 1,35 7OIRK, synod of, in 1640, 479, 481 Winchester, council of: in 1142, 35 nz. Winemar murders Fulk cf Rheims, 333 disregards excommunication, 334 Z/ACHARY, Pope, authorizes Wisigoths insert filioque in the L the dethronement of the creed, 58 Merovingians, 31 enlarge episcopal jurisdic-' his description of Frankish tion, 72 clergy, 305 refuse clerical immunity, 174 Zeno, his HI-enoticon, 283 invoke the church in politi- papal tolerattion for him, 276 cal compacts, 301a. Zimiskes, John, renounces the on duty of state to enforce sale of bishoprics, 94 censures of church, 204 Zozirnus, his deceit as to Sa.rdilaws on sacrilege, 330 can canons, 126 BY THE SAMBE AUTHOR-Just Published. I SUPERSTITION AND FORCE: ESSAYS ON THE WAGER OF LAW, THE WAGER..F BATTLE, THE ORDEAL, AND TORTURE. In one handsome volume, royal 12mo., of 406 pages, extra cloth, $2 50. The copious collection of facts by which Mr. Lea has illustrated his subject shows in the fullest manner the constant col:fCt and varying success, the advances and defeats, by which the progress of humane legislation has been and is still marked. This work fills up with the fullest exemplification and detail the wise remarks which we have quoted above. As a book of ready reference on the subject it is of the highest value - Vestmi'aseter Review, Oct. 1S67. When —half in spite of himself, as it appears-he sketches a scene or character in the history of legalized error and cruelty, le betrays so artistic a feeling, and a humor so fine and good, that he makes us regret it was not within his intent, as it was certainly within his power, to render thle whole of his thorough work mole popular in mnanner.-Atlantic M7Ionthly, Feb. 1S67. This is a book of extraordinary research. MIr. Lea has enteired into his subject con antore: and a more striking record of thle cruel superstitions of our unhappy Middle Ages could not possibly have been compiled.... As at work of curious inquiry on certain outlying points of obsolete law, "Superstition and Force," is one of the most remarkable books we have smet with.-Londo~n Athence'cm, Nov. 3, 1S66. A scholarly and very eloquent treatise —an excellent gathering of curious thought put together with enlightened liberality.-London E.Examiner, Oct. 26, 1867. One of the gloomiest chapters in the history of mankind is that of the miseries which htave resulted from their errors in the search for truth, and the failse methods adopted to discover it. And there are few more striking episodes in this chapter thlan that which Mr. Lea has set before us in his excellent volurne. —iVorth Americann Review, Oct. 1866. II. AN HISTORICAL SKETCH OF SACERDOTAL CELIBACY IN THE CHRISTIAN CIIURCH. In one haudsome octavo volume of 600 pages, extra cloth, $3 75. This subject has recently been treated with very great learning and with admnirable impartiality by an American author, Mr. Henry C. Lea, in his li.sltory of Sarcerdotal Celibacyc, which is certalinly one of the most valuable works thact America has produced. Since the great history of Dean Silman, I know no work in English which has thrown more light on the moral condition of the Middle Ages. al)d none wlichl is more fitted to dispel the gross illusions concerning that period which Positive writers and writers of a certain ecclesiastical school have conspired to sustain.-Leclky's HIistory of Earoperan loralsC, Chap. V. In freshness and exactness of detail; in conscientious citation of authorities, in the impartiality with whiich all possible sources of information have beeon searched, in learning and scholarly finish, it is absolutely unapprotclhed by any similar treatise which has issued from the American press. Indeed, the number of foreign historical works which have equalled it in these particulcars inight be readclily counted on the fingers.-Q sar-terly Jocturnal of Psychologiccal 1lecdicicne, Oct. 1867. Altogether, the work is an extremely creditable addition to the literature of church history, and may challenge comparison witll the best monograzrphs which the German scholarship of our day has produced in tlis department. —f. Y. N~atione, June 27,'67. This exhaustive treatise of Mr. Lea upon ecclesiastical celibacy we take to possess, like his excellent work upon "Superstition and Force," all tlse capital requisites of an historical monograplh-an immense body of inforlmation and of reference on the subject in hand, a sufliciently cool and dispassionate manner of presenting facts, and a strict adclherence to the central question. The amlount of research, and, indeed, (,f scholarship, involved in the preparation of the volume is such as to command the warmest recognition.-Atlantic Monthlpy, Sept. 1S67. Thus, his chapter on the Anglican church is perhaps the most connected and most satisftactory account of our own Reformation,, as to the question of celibacy or Isarriage, thIat could be found.-Qvcarterly Review, Oct. 1869. J, B. LIPPINCOTT & CO.-Philadelphia,