YALE
DIVINITY SCHOOL
LIBRARY

Gift of
Prof. Williston Walker

Zbt international tEbeological Xibtarp.
PLANNED AND FOR YEARS EDITED BY
The late Professor CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt.,
AND
The late Principal STEWART D. F. SALMOND, D.D.
THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES.
By ANDRE LAGARDE.

International Theological Library
THE LATIN CHURCH
IN THE
MIDDLE AGES
tL"Tu vm€ [, CIo5-e-ph ~}
BY
ANDRE LAGARDE

translated by
ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER, Ph.D.

NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1915

PREFACE

In the middle of the fifth century the Western Church
occupied a position without precedent in the Roman Empire.
It ruled the emperor and gave him its orders. They were
orders directed especially to the extermination of all religious
rivals. It required the emperor to suppress the worship of
idols, and he closed the pagan temples ; sometimes he even
authorized their destruction. The Church wished to be rid of
dissenting sects ; and the emperor forbade heretical meetings.
Paganism being driven from the towns, sought refuge in the
country. Heresy went into hiding : the Church was victorious.
And while it employed the imperial sword to discomfit its
enemies, it used the same weapon to strengthen its inner
constitution and to centralize its government. From the time
jof Gratian, the bishop of Rome had an authority over his
colleagues in the Occident which the civil power recognized
and sanctioned. Valentinian III. by an edict in 445 a.d.
completed the work of Gratian. Henceforth the Latin
Church was a monarchy within the Empire, with the Pope
at its head.
Thus, under the Empire, the Church was strong, but
the Empire was falling into decay. The Barbarians knew
that its life was failing, that the old organism was worn out,
and they hastened to take possession of the remains. From
every direction they came for the spoils. The Saxons and
the Angles settled in Great Britain; the Franks invaded

VI PREFACE
Northern Gaul; the Visigoths made Spain and the region
south of the Loire their own ; the Burgundians took possession
of the upper valley of the Rhone ; the Vandals made conquests
in Africa. The Ostrogoths and Lombards were waiting for
their turn to come. Among these new;, invaders, some were
heretics, others were pagans. What is to become of the
Church ? Are its days numbered, and is the Empire to
bring it down as its companion into an open tomb ?
No, the Church will not descend into the tomb. It will
survive the Empire. It will have to pass through days of
distress. It will witness calamity after calamity, ruins heaped
upon ruins. But in the midst of the greatest sadness, it will
receive precious consolations. One after another, these
barbarian peoples will submit to its laws, and will count it
a glory to be the Church's children. The frontiers of the
Church will be extended; its institutions, for a moment
shaken by the Barbarians, will be consolidated, developed, and
will adapt themselves to their surroundings. The papacy,
most sorely tried of all, will make a new advance. At length
a second empire will arise, and of this empire the Pope will
be the master — more than this, he will be the master of
Europe. He will dictate his orders to kings who will obey
them. Such is the picture of which this book is intended to
be the outline.

CONTENTS

CHAP. TXQX
Preface ....... v
I. The Expansion of the Latin Church . . .1
II. The Christian Life : Sacraments and Devotions . 32
III. History of the Monastic Life . . . .83
IV. The Pontifical Election ..... 126
V. The Pontifical State ..... 153
VI. The Papacy and the Empire .... 185-
VII. The Political Advance of the Papacy . . .216
VIII. The Religious Advance of the Papacy . . . 253
IX. The Pontifical Exchequer ..... 304
X. The Episcopal Elections ..... 345
XI. Ecclesiastical Celibacy ..... 382
XII. Speculative Heresies ..... 415
XIII. Antisacerdotal Heresies ..... 445
XIV. The Conflict with Infidelity and Heresy : Crusades,
Inquisition, Councils ..... 481
XV. Ecclesiastical Studies ..... 617
XVI. Ecclesiastical Writers ..... 546

THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE
MIDDLE AGES

CHAPTER I
The Expansion of the Latin Church
A Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, 4 vols., 3rd edition, Leipzig,
1906. . A. Lap6tre, Le pape Jean VIII., Paris, 1895. A. Ozanam, La
civilisation chrMienne chess les Francs, vol. iv. des oeuvres, Paris, 1 869.
During the first four centuries the Church had spread
throughout the empire, and had gone even beyond the
frontiers. At the end of the fifth century this effort at
expansion was partially hindered by the barbarians. The
work had to be begun anew. The Church began it anew.
It subjected the barbarians to its laws ; it taught them its
doctrines. Not content with repairing the losses caused by
invasion, it extended its domain and enlarged its frontiers.
Missionaries, who were often warriors armed with axe and
spear, gradually invaded all the countries of Europe. In this
persistent advance, for the sake of clearness in exposition,
three periods may be distinguished which lie between the
death of Charlemagne and the first crusade.
first period
After the fall of the Roman empire, the first conquest
made in the barbarian world by the Church was the nation
of Franks.1 And this conquest, in which a king was the
chief agent, was in the last analysis the work of a woman.
1 Knrth, Clovis, i, 302-331, Paris, 1901 ; Hauck, i. 110 ; Ozanam, p. 64.

2 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Clovis, a pagan king, married Clotilde, a Catholic princess,
and to please his consort had his first two children baptized.
One of these children died ; the other, after having been at
the point of death, recovered. Witnessing this only partial
good fortune, Clovis had only a partial confidence in the
God preached to him by Clotilde ; yet he reserved the right,
in case of emergency, to make use of God's services. An
occasion soon arose. In a.d. 496, Clovis engaged in battle
with the Allemani, which threatened disaster to his army.
At this alarming juncture he invoked the " God of Clotilde,"
and promised to become a Christian if God would grant him
the victory. He defeated the Allemani ; and then, faithful to
the agreement, received baptism at the hands of the bishop,
Remi, at Reims (Christmas, 496). Three thousand warriors
followed his example. Thus entered into the Church the
people which was to found the pontifical state, raise the Pope
to royal rank, and by establishing the Carolingian empire,
constitute the Christianity of the Middle Ages.1
The bishops of Gaul welcomed with enthusiasm the con
version of " the new Constantino " as he was called by
Gregory of Tours.2 Constantine had governed the Church
of the Roman empire ; Clovis governed the Church of the
Franks. By his orders a Frankish council met at Orleans
(511); and the bishops having deliberated, submitted their
decisions for the approval of the king, to whom they
addressed the following letter : " Swayed by the zeal which
you feel for the Catholic religion, you have ordered the
bishops to meet for the examination of important questions.
In conformity to your commands, we send you the answers
which we have thought should be made to the articles which
you have proposed to us. If these regulations seem right to
you, we trust that the approbation of so great a king may
contribute a new authority to the decision of the bishops." 8
After the ceremony at Reims, heresy still remained
mistress south of the Loire and in Burgundy ; but this state
1 The work of Clovis was completed by an edict of Childebert forbidding
pagan worship. See Hauck, i. 124.
2 Historia Francorum, ii. 31. * Concilia cevi merovingici, p. 2.

THE EXPANSION OP THE LATIN CHURCH 3
of things was soon changed. Gj^gory_jof_Tours, closes his
account of the conversion of the Franks with this naive
admission : " Since then many Gauls have ardently desired to
be under the dominion of the Franks." x Clovis was aware
of these sympathies, and took advantage of them. One day,
referring to the Visigoths, he said to his soldiers : "I am
distressed to see these Arians occupying a part of Gaul.
With the help of God, let us march and take possession of
their country." 2 He marched, met Alaric at Vouille\ killed
him, put his army to flight, and obliged the Visigoths to take
refuge in Spain (507).3 This victory, which drove heresy
from south-western. Gaul, caused Gondebaud, king of the
Burgundians, to reflect. Having been conquered by Clovis,
Gondebaud maintained himself upon the throne, but not
without difficulty. The progressive invasions of his terrible
neighbour dictated to him a programme of religious policy.
While still remaining Arian he granted great liberty to the
Catholics of his kingdom. His son Sigismund went farther
and abjured heresy. In short, in 520 almost all Gaul was
Catholic ; Narbonne and Provence, however, were not. These
two provinces, which at one time were under the dominion of
the Visigoths, belonged after 508 to Theodoric, king of the
Ostrogoths, who favoured Arianism. But about 533 the
situation changed.4 The Franks took possession of Narbonne
and Provence (533—536) ; and from that time the whole of
Gaul, except the region where paganism flourished for a I
long time, professed Catholicism.
The Ostrogoths, led by Theodoric, took possession of
northern Italy in 488, and professed Arianism. From 533,
Belisarius for twenty years, followed by Narses, waged against
them a war in which they were overcome. But from a
religious point of view their defeats had only a passing result.
Indeed, in 568 the Lombards invaded Italy. These new
barbarians adhered to the doctrines of Arius. Through them
the Catholic Church lost the ground which had been gained
1 Historia Francorum, ii. 36. * Greg. ii. 27.
8 A. Malnory, Saint Cisaire &' Aries, pp. 91, 159, Paris, 1895.
* Id., ib.

4 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
by the Byzantine conquest. Yet it was not for long. Less
than twenty years after the invasion, Queen Theodelinde,
daughter of a Bavarian duke, professed Catholicism. She
was the Clotilde of the Lombards. Married first to Autharis
then to Agilulf, it is believed that she converted her second
husband ; in any case, she secured his favour for the Catholic
Church. It is true that after the death of Theodelinde,
Arianism made a momentary reappearance ; but, beginning
with Aribert (653), all the Lombard kings were Catholics,
and the Arian heresy disappeared definitely from the kingdom.
In the last years of the sixth century the Catholic
Church had an accession of two nations, one Arian, the other
pagan: the Visigoths of Spain and the Anglo-Saxons of
Great Britain.
The Arian king Theodoric, who from 511-526 governed
Spain, granted great liberty to the Catholics of that country,
and the majority of his successors followed his example.1
They professed Arianism, but were benevolently tolerant of
the Catholics. In 568, Leovigild put an end to this tradition
which eighteen years before had been temporarily interrupted
by Agila. A militant Arian, he wished to impose his
religion by force upon the people of Spain, and he perse
cuted the Catholics. His son Hermenegild thought to put an
end to this religious war and to give freedom to the
Catholics ; in a word, to become the Constantine of Spain.
He was under the double influence of his wife Insonde, and
of Leander, the bishop of Seville. His zeal was not inspired
exclusively by faith. He raised the standard of revolt against
his father, and did not fear even to ask help from Constanti
nople. He failed, and was condemned to death (584). At
the request of Philip n. the Church placed him on the roll
of martyrs. In 587 his plan was once more adopted, and
this time was carried to a successful conclusion. Leovigild
died, and was succeeded by another of his sons, Recarede.
He had hardly ascended the throne when he gave his
adherence to the Catholic Church, after having previously
spread the report that his father Leovigild had on his death-
1 Leclercq, L'JEspagne chritienne, pp. 235, 254, Paris, 1906.

THE EXPANSION OF THE LATIN CHURCH 5
bed also abjured the Arian error.1 Then following the
example of Clovis, he assembled his bishops in council at
Toledo (589), and in concert with them he actively favoured
the advance of the Catholic faith. The Spain of the
Visigoths had at last found its Constantine. The Suevians
of Galicia had preceded it, whose king, Mir, converted in 5 6 2
by Martin of Braga, renounced Arianism.
Thus at the close of the sixth century the Catholic
religion controlled the entire Iberian peninsula. It con
trolled it, but was not alone. By its side, in groups here and
there, idolatry and Judaism had their partizans. These two
rival cults appeared to be dangerous ; their death was
decided upon. The council of Toledo, 589, enjoined on the
clergy and civil judges to work together for the exter
mination of idolatry.2 Twenty-one years later the king,
Sisebut (612—621), deported the Jews who refused to be
converted.8 This last legislation, it is true, was condemned
by Isidore of Seville at the council of Toledo, 633.* But the
scruples of Isidore were not contagious. The councils of Toledoi
of 681 and 694 subjected the Jews to renewed persecutions.5
The conversion of the Anglo-Saxons was the work of
Pope Gregory I. One day (about 586) Gregory, crossing
the market-place at Rome, saw mingled with the cattle
some young slaves whose slender forms, light hair, and blue
eyes inspired him with lively sympathy. It was told that
these young men were Angles. "They are angels," he
replied, playing upon the word ; and he at once determined
to go and carry the faith to the Angles. Detained in spite
of himself at Rome — he was at that time a deacon — he did
not forget his project. After he became Pope he carried it
out by sending in his stead the monk Augustine, accompanied
by forty companions. This occurred in 596. It was at
this date that the evangelization of the Anglo-Saxons began.6
1 Leclercq, L'Espagne chrttienne, p. 275, Paris, 1906.
3 Canon, 16 ; Mansi, ix. 977 ; Hefele, iii. 52. * Leclercq, p. 299.
* Canon, 57 ; Mansi, x. 612 ; Hefele, iii. 85. • Leclercq, pp. 343, 345.
• Bede, Hist. eccl. Anglorum, ii. 1 ; Paul diacre, Vita Gregorii, 17 j
F. Homes Dudden, Gregory the Great, i. 196, London, 1905 ; Ozanam, p. 147.

6 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
It made rapid progress. In 597, Ethelbert, king of Kent,
asked to be baptized : many of his subjects followed his
example. The kingdom of Kent became Christian. Some
years later (about 600) a second kingdom, Essex, was con
quered for the Christian faith. A quarter of a century
afterwards (627), Northumbria, with King Edwin at its head,
gave itself to Christ. It was followed by Wessex (634), then
by East Anglia (same date), then by Mercia (653). At the
end of a half-century the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy had aban
doned idolatry. Sussex, which up to that time had escaped
the movement towards conversion, entered the Church thirty
years later (682). Yet although it was rapid, the Christian
propaganda met with difficulties. About 630 the king of
Mercia Penda, a stern pagan, made a successful war on North
umbria, and destroyed the work of the Christian missionaries.
Thirteen years afterwards (643) he invaded Northumbria
with fire and sword. In 655 he fell for a third time upon
the unhappy country with his army. But he could arrest
only temporarily the Christian idea, which had its revenge by
invading Mercia Penda's own kingdom. On the whole the
harvest rewarded the zeal of the labourers. But who were
these ?
The earliest, as has already been said, were those monks
who set out from Rome (596) by order of Pope Gregory,
and who landed the following year (597) on the island of
Thanet, which was subject to the king of Kent. Augustine,
the leader of this small army, after baptizing Ethelbert, passed
to the Continent, received episcopal ordination from the
bishop of Aries, then returned to England and fixed his see
at Canterbury, the capital of the king of Kent. He died
about 604; but before leaving the world, he witnessed the
arrival of a second company of Roman missionaries sent by
the Pope. One of these new auxiliaries, Mellitus, evangelized
Essex and became bishop of London; another, Paulinus,
laboured in Northumbria, and occupied the see of York.
On their journey, some of these Romans were joined by certain
priests of the Franks ; such an one was Felix, bishop of
East Anglia.

THE EXPANSION OF THE LATIN CHURCH 7
For thirty years the Celtic clergy, confined to Wales and
to Ireland, refused absolutely to help Augustine and his
companions, who were dependent wholly upon themselves.
In 633 the situation changed. The Celtic monk Aidan
set out from Iona abbey in Ireland, and came into
Northumbria, whither King Oswald, successor of Edwin, had
called him. He took up the work planned by Paulinus,
which had been checked by the inroads of Penda; he was
the real apostle to Northumbria, where he founded churches,
monasteries, and schools, to which he carried the gospel for
twenty years, until he died in 651.
The Celtic apostle Aidan was succeeded by the Anglo-
Saxon agitator Wilfrid. He was successively monk at Ripon,
bishop of York, again monk at Ripon, bishop of Mercia, then
of Canterbury, a second time bishop of York, then a second
time deposed, subsequently made a prisoner, then apostle to
Sussex, and, lastly, again a monk. In the midst of all these
changes he made the journey to Rome four times. He was
at heart a Roman. He tolerated about him only the Roman
chants, the Roman liturgy, the Roman usages. Just as the
Celtic apostle Aidan introduced his Celtic liturgy into
Northumbria, so Wilfrid worked actively to extirpate it.
He succeeded in irritating the Celtic monks, whose customs
he disturbed. Stirred by the conflict which he wished to
appease, Oswy the Northumbrian king summoned before him
Wilfrid as well as his adversaries the Celtic monks. This
was the famous Whitby conference. Oswy gave orders to
each of the parties to plead their causes. His sympathies
were with the Celtic monks ; but these adversaries of Roman
usages admitted that St. Peter, the first bishop of Rome, had
received the keys of heaven. This admission caused Oswy
to reflect : " Since St. Peter is the porter of heaven," said he,
" I do not wish to stand ill with him, lest he may close the
door to me when I present myself before him." He decided
the cause in Wilfrid's favour, and from this time on the
Roman liturgy had possession of Northumbria.
After the agitator came the organizer, and he came from
Rome. In 667 the kings of Kent and of Northumbria

8 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
asked Pope Vitalian to appoint a bishop to the see of Canter
bury. Vitalian chose the Greek monk Theodore, born at
Tarsus, and versed in ecclesiastical law. Theodore arrived at
r Canterbury in May 669 with very extensive powers, and
although he was a septuagenarian he worked with ardour.
For the meddlesome activity of Wilfrid he substituted
methodical administration. He dismembered the dioceses to
an excessive extent: he founded new ones; he called a
council at Hertford (673), another at Hatfield (680); he
gave ecclesiastical legislation to England, where he developed
a taste for intellectual culture. When he died (690) the
Anglo-Saxon Church had emerged from chaos ; it was organ
ized. Above all, it was animated with a lively spirit of
proselytism which it seems to have derived from the sister
Church of Ireland, with which its relations were intimate.
Both of them independently sent to the Continent hosts of
missionaries ; such men as Willibrord, Columban, Pirmin, and
Boniface. Willibrord was the apostle to Frankish Frisia : not that
he preceded all other evangelical labourers in that country.
Two generations before him the Gallo-Roman Amand had
come from Aquitania to the border of the Scheldt.1 He
settled at Ghent (about 626). After many wanderings he
obtained the bishopric of Maestricht (647). Later (about
650), Cunibert, bishop of Cologne,2 and Eloi, bishop of
Noyon,8 with the suppport of Dagobert and by his orders,
continued the work planned by Amand. Still later (678)
the famous Wilfrid,* whom we have already encountered on
the highways of England, displayed his wandering disposition
in the country of the Frisians. In 686 the Anglo-Saxon
Egbert6 endeavoured to carry Christian civilization to these
barbarians, and being unable to realize his project, sent
his disciple Wigbert in his stead. But all these more or less
wandering labourers accomplished no serious result. Amand,
himself the most ardent of all, Amand who had wished to
1 Acta Sanctorum, S. Benedicti, ii. 678 ; Hauck, i. 322.
2 Boniface, Ep. 109 ; Hauck, i. 328. r Hauck, ib.
* Bede, Hist. Angl. iv. 12, v. 19. • Ib. v. 10 ; Hauck, i. 432.

THE EXPANSION OF THE LATIN CHURCH 9
baptize the Frisians by force, failed. He left the land of
Ghent, discouraged, and later in a new access of discourage
ment he quitted Maestricht to go and shut himself up in the
monastery of Elnon, near Arras. Willibrord, who arrived
only in the sixth rank, found nothing accomplished.
He was born of Anglo-Saxon parents in the county of
York.1 In 664 he passed some time in the monastery
of Ripon under the direction of Wilfrid. In 690, at the
moment when a missionary's life was open to him, he was
under the orders of Egbert. It was Egbert who sent him
with twelve companions to take up again the work uselessly
undertaken by Wigbert, and to evangelize the Frisians. At
this date (690) Pepin of Heristal was master of Frisia
as far as the Rhine. On the right bank of this river the
country escaped Frankish influences, and its king was Radbod.
Willibrord settled in Frankish Frisia, and began by asking
the protection of Pepin, who hastened to grant it. Assured
of the prince's favour, Willibrord desired the approval of the
Pope ; for this disciple of Wilfrid had learned the cult of
Rome in the school of his master. He therefore went to
Italy, presented himself to Pope Sergius, and laid his plan
before him : he obtained all the authorizations which he
wished to have. Then, fortified with the pontifical investiture,
he returned to plough his field. The harvest was abundant.
The powerful duke of the Franks rewarded those who became
Christians : and crowds presented themselves to receive
baptism. Pepin witnessed with joy this spiritual conquest,
which also served his political interests, and he set to work
to encourage it. But how ? Willibrord knew only one
system of organization, that which he had before his eyes in
England, where the archbishops from the time of Augustine
received from the Pope with the pallium the power to conse
crate bishops. From Pepin he, himself obtained a mission to
Rome (695). On his arrival there he appeared before Pope
Sergius, who had already seen him three years previously.
He asked and obtained archiepiscopal consecration, which
together with the pallium gave him power to consecrate
1 Hauck, i. 433.

10 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
bishops. On his return to Frisia he received from Pepin the
city of Utrecht as his episcopal see.
As archbishop of Utrecht, Willibrord pursued with ardour
his apostolic labours. Gifts poured in from every direction.
He was in a position to do good, and he did it. He built
churches, founded monasteries, and enlisted a native clergy.
This went on well until the death of Pepin of Heristal (714).
At this date Radbod became active, and taking advantage of
Charles Martel's embarrassment, he invaded Frankish Frisia,
destroyed churches, overthrew monasteries, drove out the
priests, and restored to honour the worship of idols. But
his triumph did not last. Four years later (718), Charles
Martel took his revenge, and repulsed Radbod, who died
shortly afterwards (719). Willibrord returned to Utrecht
and restored the heaps of ruins. When he died (739),
Frankish Frisia was won for Christianity. He had sought
to convert independent Frisia as well as Denmark; but
he had felt the disappointment of the man who sows his seed
in a stony place.1
Columban and Pirmin, one of Irish, the other probably of
Anglo-Saxon origin, separated from each other by a century,
evangelized Allemania, that is the country which to-day
includes Switzerland, Alsace, and Baden. Columban penetrated
there in 610, on the morrow of the day when Thierry n.,
king of Burgundy, had driven him from Luxeuil, and had sent
him into exile. At the invitation of Theodebert, king of
Austrasia, he went and settled south-east of the lake of
Constance, at a place called Bregenz. Although in the fourth
century it had been visited by Christian missionaries, this
country was almost wholly pagan, and the few Christians
there were hardly Christian except in name. Columban made
a fierce war on the worship of idols. His biographer assures
us that many pagans asked baptism, and that Christians who
had been misled returned to the right way. But in 612,
Theodebert, king of Austrasia, was defeated by Thierry, king
of Burgundy. Columban then passed into Italy and settled
at Bobbio, where he died in 615. His disciple Gall, who
1 Alcuin, Vita Willibrordi, pp. 10-14,

THE EXPANSION OF THE LATIN CHURCH 11
refused to follow him, continued to preach the Christian faith
on the border of Lake Constance, and founded the famous
abbey of St. Gall.
A century later (724), Pirmin came into that region
to work as a missionary, and settled on the island of Reichenau,
in the north-western part of Lake Constance. Under the
protection of Charles Martel he laboured successfully. But
at the end of three years (727) an uprising in the country
against the rule of the Franks obliged him to leave. He
went to Alsace, where he founded monasteries, and died in 753.
Boniface, the greatest missionary of the Middle Ages,
was an Anglo-Saxon, born about 680 in Wessex, — now
Devonshire, — and was monk at Exeter, afterwards at Nursling.
In 716, seized like many of his contemporaries with the
apostolic fever, he left his own country and went to evangelize
independent Frisia.1 The moment was badly chosen, for the
duke Radbod, an obstinate pagan, had just defeated Charles
Martel and had driven Willibrord from Frankish Frisia.
Boniface quickly understood that there was nothing to be
done, and returned to his monastery. Later he came back to
independent Frisia and was an apostle there, but only long
enough to suffer martyrdom. It was not in this country that
his life was to be spent : ib was in Thuringia, in Hesse until
735, in Bavaria until 742, then in Austrasian France
until the eve of his martyrdom. Elsewhere will be noticed
the great work which he accomplished in the Frankish
Church ; here, where it is a question only of the missionary,
one has to do with his stay in Thuringia, Hesse, and Bavaria.
These countries did not have to await his coming to
receive the seed of the gospel. Conquered in 531 by
Thierry I., king of Austrasia, ThuriDgia had since that time
been open to Christian influence. Moreover, since the
seventh century it had received the visits of the monks who
were the Irish companions and disciples of Columba. One of
these, Kilian, suffered martyrdom at Wiirzburg.2 As for
1 Willibald, Vita Bonifacii ; Hauck, i. 442 ; Ozanam, p. 171.
2 Fr. Emmerich, Derheilige Kilian, Wiirzburg, 1896 ; " Vita TSM[a.m," Neues
Archiv, xxviii. [1902] 232 ; Hauck, i. 386.

12 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Bavaria, it felt in the seventh century the influence of
Luxeuil, which sent monks there, notably Eustasius.1 At
the opening of the eighth century it was evangelized by the
Frankish bishop Rupert (Hrodbert), who was stationed at
Salzburg.2 But neither Kilian nor Rupert nor the Irish monks
nor the Frankish missionaries exercised a profound influence.
Beneath a veneer of Christianity, Thuringia and Bavaria
were still pagan countries when Boniface visited them. He
came to Thuringia in 719 and presented himself as a
delegate of the Pope, as he actually was. This Anglo-Saxon
had a devotion to the Pope like that of his seniors, Wilfrid
and Willibrord, who had inoculated him by both precept and
example. He believed he could undertake nothing without
the approval of Rome, without its authorization. Before
launching himself upon the apostolic career he insisted on
making the pilgrimage to Rome (in the autumn of 7 1 8). He
passed several months in the company of Pope Gregory n.
From this pontiff he received full powers for the evangeliza
tion of Thuringia. It is probable that he even received his
name from Gregory n., for at first he was called Winfrid, and
did not take the name of Boniface until about 719.3
Hardly had Boniface arrived in Thuringia when he
learned that the champion of paganism in Frisia, Radbod, was
dead. He believed the moment had come for him to resume
the apostolate begun two years before ; and he betook him
self to the venerable Willibrord. But he soon understood
that his place was elsewhere. He came back into Thuringia
and set to work. The results were marvellous. Thousands of
pagans asked and received baptism. A fold was needed for
this flock; pastors were needed. These were lacking.
Boniface sent a messenger to inform the Pope, and to ask
instructions. The response of Gregory n. was to summon
him into his presence: so in 722, Boniface again made the
journey which he had already taken in 718. For a second
time he went to Rome, received episcopal consecration
1 Hauck, i. 369. s M a. 372.
8 Willibald, 5 ; Hauck, i. 458.

THE EXPANSION OF THE LATIN CHURCH 13
(30th November 722),1 drew up in writing an oath of sub
mission to the Apostolic See, to its maxims and its usages.
He was the Pope's man ; he was also Charles Martel's man :
upon his departure from Rome (723) he made his way to the
powerful Frankish duke, declared himself to be his faithful
subject, and obtained his protection. This double patronage
gave him, upon his return to the forests of Thuringia and
Hesse, a wonderful ascendancy. Conversions were multiplied.
Informed of this, Pope Gregory in. sent the laborious
missionary the pallium which made him an archbishop, and
conferred on him the power to consecrate bishops (732).
England, for her part, procured him money, ornaments,
fellow-workers, both men and women. Boniface founded
monasteries, built churches, and provided them with priests.
Still he was not satisfied. Beyond Hesse, beyond
Thuringia, lay Bavaria. Boniface (735) decided to evangelize
Bavaria. But hindered by the duke Hubert, he yielded to
discouragement. The eyes of this apostle were then turned
towards Saxony. He dreamed of making that country
Christian, and for a third time he went to Rome to ask of
the Pope authorization to preach the gospel to the Saxons
(738). Was he to go to Saxony? No, Gregory m. was
interested in Bavaria. By command of the Pope, then,
Boniface returned to the country from which he had come.
He founded the episcopal sees of Ratisbon, Frisingue, Salz
burg, and Passau (740). When this had been done he
returned to Thuringia, where he founded the bishoprics of
Buraburg, Wiirzburg, and Erfurt (741).2 The year following,
Eichstadt, too, acquired a bishop. Then this indefatigable
apostle, at the invitation of Carloman, devoted himself to the
reform of the Frankish Church, until the day when, seized
once more by the fever of proselytism, he left the episcopal
see of Mayence, which he had occupied since 745, and went
among the Frisians, a course which gained for him a martyr's
crown (5 th June 754).3 After he died, paganism again
reigned in northern Frisia ; but its domination was approach-
1 Hauck, i. 464. 2 Lettres de Boniface, 50.
8 Hauck, ii. 368.

14 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
ing its end. Gregory, Lindger, Willehad, Alberic continued
the work begun by Boniface. Charlemagne put his power at
their disposal. The result was that at the opening of the
ninth century, Frisia was Christian.
At this date Saxony, too, was conquered for Christianity.
For a long time it had been the objective point of the
missionaries. Boniface had wished to carry the gospel into
that country. Before him, certain Anglo-Saxons had brought
it there : after him, others did the same. But Boniface died
before he had realized his plan, and those who penetrated
into Saxony had obtained nothing except, at times, martyr
dom.1 The Saxons regarded Christianity as the mark of
Frankish domination. They remained obstinately pagan,
because they wished to remain independent. Yet in 772
there arrived among them a missionary who was to shatter
their opposition. This man, the method of whose apostolate
overthrew all barriers, was Charlemagne.2
Upon his first expedition into Saxony, Charlemagne
destroyed the fortress of Eresburg, and cast down the
national idol Irminsul, whose temple he pillaged. Was he
already thinking of subduing the Saxons, and imposing
Christianity upon them ? Perhaps ; yet the measures to
which he confined himself give the impression that he wished
only to punish turbulent neighbours, and to inflict retalia
tion. However this may have been, the religious question
was raised four years later, with greater precision. The
Saxons (776), who for the third time had attacked the
Frankish frontier with fire and sword, felt the hand of
Charlemange descend upon them heavily and terribly. Their
only plank of safety was submission. They did submit ; and
as a pledge of their good disposition, they asked to be
baptized. Charlemagne took them at their word, and had
those baptized upon whom he had laid his hand.8 But at
that time the work could be only begun. The year follow
ing (777), at the great assembly of Paderborn, it was fully
carried out. From all parts of Saxony multitudes hastened
1 Hauck, ii. 368. 2 Id., ib. 370 ; Ozanam, p. 229.
3 Hauck, ii. 374.

THE EXPANSION OF THE LATIN CHURCH 15
and had themselves baptized in the sight of their master.
Saxony was Christian; there remained only to fortify its
faith, and for that purpose, to instruct it. Such was the idea
of Charlemagne. By his orders numerous missionaries —
among whom were Sturm, abbot of Fulda, and Willehad —
brought the gospel to the new converts, destroyed the pagan
sanctuaries, and replaced these by churches. While the
apostles of Christ were engaged in this pious work,
Charlemagne went to wage war in Spain.
He did not long remain there. Indeed, hardly had he
left Saxony when Widukind entered the country. Widu-
kind was the champion of national independence. He had
fled to Denmark so as not to surrender to the powerful
king of the Franks. When the favourable moment came,
he appeared in the midst of his countrymen, aroused their
courage, implored them to shake off the alien yoke, and at the
same time to abandon a religion imposed by the foreigner.
His appeal was heard. At this call the Saxons, heedless of
the promises which they had made at baptism, armed them
selves, drove out or killed the monks and priests, destroyed
the churches, and devastated the country as far as the Rhine.
Charlemagne hurried from Spain, dispersed the rebels, who
fled at bis approach, re-established order in the regions
across the Rhine, and then went into Italy, where his
presence was needed (781). The year following, Widukind
(782) reappeared, and by a ruse of war defeated an army
of Franks on the banks of the Weser. This success met
with a terrible retaliation. Charlemagne caused more than
four thousand Saxons to be beheaded, and then declared war
without quarter against the rebels. This savage suppression
ended in triumph. After three years of desperate conflict,
Widukind surrendered. Accompanied by the principal
Saxon leaders, he appeared before Charlemagne at Attigny,
made his submission, and received baptism (785).
This gave great delight to Charlemagne. He at once,
informed Pope Adrian of the happy event of which the
Church of Attigny had been the witness. At his request,
festivals and actions of grace were celebrated throughout the

16 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Western Church. Now that Widukind had become a
Christian, the conversion of Saxony was complete. In conse
quence of this, Charlemagne adopted certain administrative
measures. About 787 he founded the bishoprics of Minden,
Bremen, and Verden; and at that time granted to
Saxony the statute generally known as Capitulatio de
partibus Saxonice which required all Saxons upon pain of
death to be baptized, and forbade them under the same
penalty to engage in pagan practices, and which by means
of the tithe provided for the support of the priesthood.1
Some years later he discovered that his expectations,
while not altogether unfounded, were too optimistic.
Southern Saxony accepted its lot with resignation, but such
was not the case with the northern region. In 792 a
formidable rebellion broke out there. This' uprising was
not at all the work of Widukind, who, on the contrary, after
his own conversion, had been wholly devoted to the cause of
the Franks. The discontent of the people came from the
policy of oppression to which they were subjected, and above
all from the tithes: "the tithes," admits Alcuin, "have
destroyed the faith of the Saxons." 2 In asking these con
verts of yesterday to provide for their priests, Charlemagne
had too much presumed on their goodwill and on their faith.
What was now to be done, and what was to be the end of
the conflict ? Evidently he could not yield. Here, as in all
his undertakings, he insisted on having the last word. He
had it, beyond a doubt. By his orders thousands of Saxons,
men, women, and children, were banished from their native
land, and transplanted either into Swabia or into the country
of the Franks: and this exodus, which began in 795, lasted
until 804. At this date one-third of the population had
been uprooted. Those who remained derived profit from the
lesson, and obeyed the commands of their master. Saxony
became definitely Christian. To the three bishoprics founded
about 787, Charlemagne added two others, that of Miinster
and that of Paderborn (about 804).8
1 Leges, ii. 48 ; Hauck, ii. 386 ; Hefele, iii. 635.
J Alcuin, Ep. 107. 3 Hauck, ii. 406, 408.

THE EXPANSION OF THE LATIN CHURCH 17

SECOND PERIOD
In the course of the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries
the Roman Church re-entered England from which it had
been driven by the barbarians ; and it extended its eastern
frontier from the Scheldt to the Elbe. In the three centuries
which followed, were opened to it, Denmark, Sweden,
Norway, Bulgaria, Moravia, Pannonia, Bohemia, Poland, and
Hungary. As to Russia, which at that time also began to
become Christian, its conversion was the work of Constanti
nople. This, however, does not concern us here.
From 823, Louis the Debonnair undertook the evangeliza
tion of Denmark, confiding this mission to Ebbon, archbishop
of Reims, whom he had previously sent to Rome to ask of
Pope Pascal I. full powers in conformity to the precedent set
by the Anglo-Saxon missionaries. Harold, the Danish king.
whose throne was threatened, had asked the support of th$
Franks. It was thus certain that he would give a welcome
to the apostle of Christ.1 He received him, indeed, with
open arms, and at MayenCe, three years afterwards, he was
baptized in the presence of Louis the Debonnair. On his
return he took with him the pious monk Anschair, who
aspired to the martyr's crown. The evangelization of
Denmark was begun under the happiest auspices. But the
realization did not correspond to the promise. Harold had
scarcely come into his kingdom when he was driven out
(827). Ebbon, discouraged by difficulties, could hardly do
more than appear in the country which had been confided to
him ; and he soon sought a pretext of returning to France
(826). Anschair, it is true, was a man of a different
sort. He worked with untiring energy. And Louis the
Debonnair, who appointed this holy man as archbishop of
Hamburg, asked Pope Gregory IV. to grant him the pallium
(831), and, in a word, did all in his power to help him.2 It
was a useless endeavour. Hamburg (846) fell a prey to
pirates, and Anschair was forced to retire to Bremen. The
1 Hauck, ii. 669 ; Jaffe, Begesta pontificum romanorum, Lipsiae, 1886, 2553 j
Ozanam,' p. 276. z Jaffe, 2674.
2

18 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Danish king Eric the Old, who had protected him, died, and
his successor was an enemy of Christianity. After several
trying years, Anschair succeeded in gaining the sympathy of
his persecutors ; but he left this world just as he was about
to reap the fruits of his long and painful labours (865).
Two generations were to pass before another archbishop of
Hamburg, Unni, should resume the conversion of Denmark
(935). And Christianity did not really take possession of
that country until the days when the Danish king Suenon
and his son Canute (1035), both of whom were converted in
England, required it of their subjects.1 Denmark was then
under the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Hamburg, who
alone had the canonical right to consecrate its bishops.
Canute sought to shake off this yoke, — a yoke which was
grievous since Denmark was thus delivered over to German
influence, — but he did not succeed. About 1060 the king
Suenon II. tried again to accomplish the same thing ; but
was unsuccessful. In 1104, however, Pope Pascal n. decided
to make Lund an archbishopric. From that time on
Denmark was freed from German guardianship.2
The origins of Christianity in Sweden are closely
associated with those in Denmark. Like the latter country,
Sweden was first evangelized by Anschair (830); then a
second time by Unni, archbishop of Hamburg, who died at
Birka (936). But notwithstanding the efforts of these two
missionaries, Sweden remained almost wholly pagan until
the beginning of the eleventh century. The situation was
changed (1008) when King Olaf Schooskoenig, the Clovis of
Sweden, submitted to baptism. His example led his subjects
to follow him ; and Christianity took root in a country which
nevertheless remained partly pagan until the day when the
king Inge (1075) vyaged war on idols. It was then that
Sweden became Christian. But as yet it did not make its
own bishops; it received them from Hamburg, and was
therefore merely a satellite of Germany. In 1152, Pope
Eugenius in. endeavoured to sever this bond, and ordered his
legate Nicholas Breakspear to found an archbishopric in
1 Hauck, iii. 660. 2 Id. ii. 683, iii. 80, 636.

THE EXPANSION OF THE LATIN CHURCH 19
Sweden ; but he failed. Twelve years later, Pope Alexander
III. was more successful. He established the archbishopric
of Upsala. Sweden escaped the influence of Frederick
Barbarossa. That was Alexander's intention.1
It may be said that the Norwegians went of their own
accord to seek the faith among the Christians of England,
Ireland, and France, with whom they came in contact on
their warlike incursions. In the tenth century the Christian
idea thus succeeded in gaining a number of adherents in
Norway. Among these disciples of Christ was King Haakon
the Good (middle of the tenth century). He endeavoured to
propagate his belief among his people. His project failed,
but a half-century later the kings Olaf Tryggwason (1000)
and especially Olaf Haraldson (1030) worked among their
people with the same end in view. Olaf Haraldson, who
resorted to violence, fell a victim to the hatred which was
excited by his immoderate zeal ; but after his death Norway
was Christian. Like its two neighbours it gravitated
towards Hamburg, but like them it acquired its freedom.
The pontifical legate Nicholas Breakspear, who has already
been mentioned, founded the bishopric of Drontheim (1152).
Thus the Norwegian Church was detached from German
influence twelve years before the Swedish Church, which, as
we have seen, was not freed until 1164. Finally, it may be;
said that the two Olafs evangelized their nations by the help J
of priests whom they had invited from England.
About 860, Boris, king of Bulgaria, desiring to gain the
sympathy of the Frankish princes, determined to introduce '
Christianity into his kingdom. This innovation was not
liked by his subjects, who were joined to their idols, and
wished to keep them ; but their resistance was drowned in
blood : soon all the Bulgarians, that is, all who had not been
slaughtered, received baptism. After this, Boris took pains
to find preachers to instruct his people, and he asked for them
at Ratisbon, Rome, and Constantinople. Pope Nicholas I.
hastened to respond to the invitation, so that Bulgaria was
evangelized by Roman priests with the bishop Formosus at
1 Hauck, iii. 80.

20 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
their head. But the Latin Church was not long in losing
this field, which it had begun to cultivate. Boris wished to
make Formosus archbishop of Bulgaria ; but the Pope
opposed it. Then the wily Bulgarian, who insisted on having
an archbishop, asked for one at Constantinople, and at once
his wish was gratified. From this time (870) Bulgaria was
separated from Rome for ever.
In 846, Moravia was still pagan. In that year Louis
Germanicus, no doubt preoccupied with the conversion of his
country, put at its head Rastiz, a Christian, who obliged the
Moravians to be baptized, and sent German missionaries to
teach them. But after some years (855) Rastiz entertained
the idea of making Moravia an independent kingdom. Con
sequently he drove out the German missionaries, and at
Constantinople asked for apostolic labourers ; and his request
was most welcome. Cyril and Methodius, two brothers, were
sent to him. They came (864), said mass, employing the
Slav language, which gave them immense popularity. Mean
while throughout all the East resounded the cry of Photius
against Rome (866). Pope Nicholas I., in the presence of the
vast conflagration which broke out under his very eyes,
hastened to take part, and summoned the two missionaries
from Moravia.1 They responded to the invitation of the
pontiff, and came to Rome (868). They were the centre
of attentions, and when Methodius — Cyril died at Rome —
returned to the Slavs, he put his prestige at the service of
the Pope. Moravia remained faithful to Rome; but this
did not last long. In 906 the Bohemians and the
Hungarians, who were still pagans, subdued that country,
and divided its territory between them. Moravia relapsed
into paganism. Later it returned to Christianity and was
united to the Church of Prague. It was endowed with an
archbishopric — Olmiitz — in the second half of the eleventh
century.* The evangelization of Pannonia is intimately connected
with that of Moravia. These two works were due to
1 Lap6tre, pp. 91, 92, 109 ; Hauck, ii. 699.
2 Hauck, iii. 199, 734.

THE EXPANSION OF THE LATIN CHURCH 21
the same labourer. To reach Rome, Cyril and Methodius
crossed Pannonia. Chozel, the duke of this country, received
them with honour, and at first expressed a desire to have
missionaries who had been trairied by them : then he asked
the Pope to send Methodius to him.1 Circumstances favoured
his wishes. Rastiz, king of Moravia, was at this very time
dethroned by his nephew Swatapluk (870). Temporarily
leaving the Moravians in revolution, Methodius on his way
from Rome went into Pannonia. He counted on being an
apostle to this great branch of the Slav family. This he
actually was, but not without great trials, and for the
following reason. When Charlemagne established the arch
bishopric of Salzburg (798), he put Pannonia under its
jurisdiction. Chozel asked and obtained from Rome an
archbishopric for his missionary, so that he might evangelize
the country and give it a religious organization, without
depending on the Germans. The Pope, indeed, saw the
difficulties which this measure would raise, and to avert them
he imagined an ingenious expedient. He restored the metro
politan see of Sirmium which had not existed for centuries :
he gave it to Pannonia, and appointed Methodius as its
titular archbishop. The latter was thus regarded as occupy
ing a see far more ancient than that of Salzburg, and as
continuing an order which had been interrupted by an
irregular encroachment. But the Germans were not deceived
by this fiction. From their point of view the archbishop
Methodius was an intruder, whose presence in Pannonia was
an outrage on the most indisputable rights of the archbishop
of Salzburg. In 870, Methodius was summoned before the
Bavarian council.2 There he was insulted, ' stricken,' de
posed, and condemned to prison. But he was energetically
defended by Pope John viu., who resisted the German bishops
and Louis Germanicus, their protector, and he finally re
mained master of the situation. At the end of a year and
a half Methodius regained his liberty, went back to Pannonia,
and to Moravia, which he successfully evangelized. But the
1 Hauck, ii. '699.
1 Lap6tre, pp. 116, 118; Hauck, ii. 208, 701.

, 22 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Germans did not surrender. They denounced Methodius to
Pope John vm. ; and accused him of employing the Slav
language when he said mass. This new campaign failed,
however, as the former had failed. The death of Chozel was
necessary to bring Pannonia again under German control.
In 848, fourteen Bohemian princes came to Ratisbon,
presented themselves to Louis Germanicus, and asked to be
baptized. In taking this step they wished simply to avoid
being considered and treated as barbarians by the emperor
of the Franks. The motive of their conversion was purely
political ; moreover, they did not succeed in carrying their
people with them. Thirty years later (873), Borisvoi, who
was regarded as the first duke of Bohemia, fearing to share
the lot reserved for barbarians, had himself and bis family
baptized by Methodius. In this way he avoided being
swallowed up by his powerful Western neighbours. But he
could not rescue his people from their patronage ; for in
875 his eldest son Spitignef went to Ratisbon and recognized
the suzerainty of Arnulf. This humiliating situation had
its proper consequences. The Bohemian nation hated the
Germans, who sought to oppress it ; consequently it hated
the idea of Christianity, which the Germans represented and
propagated. In 926, upon the death of Wratislas, the second
son of Borisvoi, a pagan revolution occurred, fomented by
Dragomir, the widow of the dead king. Christian priests
were banished ; churches were destroyed. This anti-Christian
movement was also intended to be anti-German ; that was its
ruin. In 929, Henry I., the German emperor, sent his army
into Bohemia. All resistance gave way before him. He
entered Prague as a conqueror, and deprived the queen
Dragomir of her powers. In the place of the mother he set
the son Wenceslas, a young man who was hardly twenty
years of age. Nominated by the emperor, he was the
emperor's man, recognized his sovereignty, and behaved as
his devoted vassal. He was at heart a German; he was
also a Christian. It was owing to him that the priests were
recalled from exile, that churches were rebuilt, and that
Bohemia was ploughed over by missionaries, who preached the

THE EXPANSION OF THE LATIN CHURCH 23
gospel there. It was ploughed over by soldiers who
obliged it to embrace the Christian faith. For Wenceslas
followed the example set by several of his associates ; he
made the acceptance of the gospel compulsory.
This reign of force lasted for six years, at the end of which
time that took place which had taken place in 926 — with a
murder to boot. A general discontent was manifested. It
was exploited by Boleslas, a brother of the king. The
latter assassinated Wenceslas, took his place, and restored
the religious policy of his mother Dragomir to a place of
honour. And this reaction had the same fate as that
attempted by Dragomir. At the end of fourteen years,
Otto L came into Bohemia, conquered it, and united it to
Germany (950). From this time Boleslas, far from opposing
the Christian propaganda, favoured it (967). His son,
Boleslas II. (967—999), worked with ardour for the spread
of the gospel; yet Bohemia was without a bishop until 978.
At this date the emperor Otto II., after consultation with
Pope John xm., gave it a bishop, whose see was fixed at
Prague. But it can be understood in what a state the work
of evangelization was found, after a quarter of a century of
compulsion. The first bishop, Deothmar, died discouraged,
declaring that his people were under the rule of the devil.
His successor, the famous Adalbert, disheartened by the
immorality of those in his diocese, took refuge first at Rome
(988). Returning to Prague by order of his superiors (992),
he left again almost directly, and after a second stay at
Rome went to evangelize the Prussians, who granted him a
martyr's crown (997).
Poland1 in the middle of the tenth century was still
pagan. In 986 its duke Mieczylas (Miseco) married Dom-
browka, daughter of Boleslas, king of Bohemia. Dombrowka
was a Christian, and had a great ascendency over her
husband. At the end of a year of married life, Mieczylas,
persuaded by his wife, received baptism, and ordered his
subjects to be baptized (967). After this time Poland was
Christian. 1 Ch. Schiemann, Bussland, Polen und Lief land, i. 383 ; Hauck, iii. 202.

24 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
The priests whom Dombrowka called to baptize herself
and her people came from Bohemia. They used the liturgy
of Methodius the great missionary. Thus Poland made its
entry into Christendom under the auspices of the Slav rite.
But this it soon abandoned, and for the following reason.
Mieczylas, threatened by the Wen des, had asked for the
protectorate of the emperor Otto I. The latter, anxious
for political reasons to be of service in the conver
sion of Poland, founded the bishopric of Posen, which he
committed to Jordan, a German, and which he annexed to
the archbishopric of Magdeburg (968). Moreover, in 977,
Mieczylas lost Dombrowka his wife, and then married Oda, a
princess of German origin. Wherever it was possible, Oda
substituted German for Slav priests. Thanks to German
influence, Christian Poland was drawn into the Roman orbit
from which the first missionaries had kept it aloof.
Provided with a bishopric since 968, Poland shortly
afterwards obtained an archbishopric under the following
circumstances. In 997, Boleslas the Brave, duke of Poland,
having learned that Adalbert, archbishop of Prague, had
suffered a martyr's death at the hands of the Prussians, had
bis bones collected and buried at Giessen. Three years later
the emperor Otto in., who was greatly devoted to Adalbert,
went to pray at his tomb, and to honour his memory, founded
an archbishopric at Giessen (1000). This measure, which
separated Poland from the archbishopric of Magdeburg,
separated it in like manner from German influence and
prepared the way for its complete independence.
The Hungarians l invaded the valley of the Danube in
862, and for almost a century ravaged the country and
terrorized all Central Europe, notably Bavaria and Moravia.
After 944, Germany, which had been terrorized, fought several
victorious battles, resisted the Hungarians, and then, conscious
of its force, gradually assumed a threatening attitude towards
them. Rendered prudent by danger, the Hungarians gave up
their career of pillage, adopted customs which were more or
1 Hauck, iii. 150, 166, 175, 180 ; K. Schrbdl, Passavia Sacra, p. 77,
Passau, 1879.

THE EXPANSION OF THE LATIN CHURCH 25
less civilized, and sought to gain the friendship of their
formidable Western neighbours. After the year 973 they
were successful in this. The emperor Otto n. had friendly
relations with the Hungarian duke Geysa. This relationship
had as its immediate consequence the evangelization of
Hungary by Piligrim, archbishop of Passau. Piligrim
wished to carry the Christian faith to the barbarians who
for three generations had been ravaging Germany. At first
he sent them priests ; then he resolved to risk his own
person, and he went into the midst of the Hungarian
populace. His efforts were rewarded, and in a short time
five thousand Hungarians received baptism at his hands,
while many others gave hope of conversion. Piligrim then
formed an extensive plan. He had the idea of establishing
bishoprics in Hungary — of establishing them himself, and
consequently of obtaining the pallium, and of transforming
the bishopric of Passau into an archbishopric. The matter
would have been very simple if only the emperor Otto II.
had deigned to intervene. But Piligrim met with no
support from that quarter. Reduced to reliance on himself
alone, and on his own ability, he used fictitious literature,
which was then in great vogue, to attain his object. To
Pope Benedict vi. he presented a series of pontifical docu
ments manufactured from beginning to end, the purport of
which was that an archiepiscopal see situated at Lorch had
previously existed, extending its jurisdiction over the whole of
Hungary, that the rights of Lorch had passed to Passau, and
that to grant an archiepiscopal see to the latter city was to
restore to it its former rank (973). This fiction did not
have the success expected. Rome took no action, and
Piligrim did not receive the pallium which would have put
him at the head of an ecclesiastical province. Moreover, the
political events which had at first favoured his apostolate were
shortly afterwards adverse to it. Piligrim left much to be
accomplished. Hungary was not converted to Christianity
until the time of the prince Stephen (997-1038). To him
Pope Sylvester n. granted a royal crown.

26 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
THIRD PERIOD
After the twelfth century the Church of Rome penetrated
into Pomerania, Livonia, Esthonia, Courland, Prussia, and
Lithuania. Several of its missionaries, notably Francis
of Assisi and Raymond Lully, endeavoured to evangelize the
Mussulmans. But they were not successful. Francis of Assisi,
who went to Damietta, having treated the Egyptian Soudan
with severity, was contemptuously dismissed (1219); and
Raymond Lully, after various fruitless wanderings, was stoned
to death at Tunis (1315).
The evangelization of Pomerania began in 1124.1 It was
undertaken by Otto the German bishop of Bamberg ; but the
initial step was taken by Boleslas Hi., duke of Poland, under
the following circumstances. For a long time coveted by the
Danes and Poles, Pomerania at the beginning of the twelfth
century fell definitely into the power of Poland. In 1120
the duke Boleslas, who had first subdued the Pomeranians,
promised to leave them in peace, provided they became
converted to Christianity. The condition was accepted, and
Boleslas sought missionaries. He applied first to the Polish
clergy and asked for men, but in vain — we have seen that
the Church of Poland had hardly been a century in existence.
An adventurer, the Spanish bishop Bernard, who volunteered,
made a wretched failure. Despairing of the cause, Boleslas
turned to Germany, and made an appeal to Otto, the zealous
bishop of Bamberg. This time his wishes were complied with.
In May 1124, Otto, armed in advance with the authorization
of Rome and of the empire, went among the Pomeranians.
The pomp which he displayed in the presence of the barbarians
gave him immense prestige. Moreover, the chief men of the
country who were allied to Boleslas used their influence
energetically. The success was complete. In less than a
year Otto, aided by those who accompanied him, administered
baptism to more than 22,000 persons, and founded eleven
churches. He set himself at once to the task of providing a
bishop for Pomerania. But even before the new diocese was
1 Hauck, iv. 569, 588.

THE EXPANSION OF THE LATIN CHURCH 27
founded the German archbishop of Magdeburg and the Polish
archbishop of Gnesen had a dispute concerning it. As always
happens in such cases, the conflict had a dilatory effect.
For fifteen years Pomerania had no bishop. At length
(1140) Innocent H. hit upon an excellent solution of the
problem. He decided that the Pomeranian diocese should
be dependent neither on Magdeburg nor on Gnesen, but on
the Holy See. Consequently he consecrated the first bishop
Adalbert, whose see was fixed at Wollin, then — as Wollin was
shortly afterward destroyed by the Danes — it was transferred
to Kammin. In 997 x the Prussians settled east of the lower Vistula
received a visit from Adalbert of Prague, who came to
evangelize them. At the end of ten days they killed him.
Twelve years afterwards (1009) they did the same to Bruno
of Gerfurt and his eighteen companions who had renewed the
attempt of Adalbert. These savage acts cooled the zeal of
the missionaries. It was only at the beginning of the
thirteenth century, that is, two hundred years later, that
apostles carried the gospel to the Prussians. At this time
two Polish prelates, Gottfriec and Christian (1207), came to
preach the Christian religion to the descendants of men who
had formerly assassinated Adalbert of Prague and Bruno of
Gerfurt. They were armed with the approval of Innocent
HI., and what was of more practical value, they were protected
by the Polish duke Conrad of Mazovia. Gottfried died a
short time afterwards. Christian, who remained at his post,
laboured actively. Aided by companions who came from the
monasteries, he preached and won over some men of importance
among the Prussians whose example had influence upon the
people. Being aware of these excellent results, Innocent m.
appointed Christian bishop of Prussia (1215). But suddenly
a pagan reaction occurred. The inhabitants of the diocese of
the new bishop, thinking perhaps that the religious apostolate
of which they were the objects concealed a plan of conquest,
made war upon the Christians. Christian, alarmed at this,
1 Petrus de Dusburg, Clironicon terroe Prussia; scriptores rerum prussi-
carwmx i. 31-213 ; Hauck, iv. 6*2-652,

28 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
appealed to Pope Honorius in., who summoned the Germans
and the Poles to a crusade against the Prussians" (1217).
The crusaders came, but failed. Then Christian and his
friend Conrad, duke of Mazovia, called the Teutonic knights
to their aid. The latter went into action (1230), killed as
many Prussians as they could, introduced German colonists
into the country, and founded cities. This double labour of
extermination and colonization lasted fifty years. In 1283,
Prussia was Christian ; as for the Prussians, they had well-nigh
disappeared. After 1243 the country was divided between
four bishoprics, Culm, Pomerania, Ermland, and Samland.
Rome had assumed the suzerainty, and had given it in feudal
tenure to its vassals the bishops and the knights. Under
the supreme jurisdiction of the Holy See the bishops
possessed a third of Prussia ; two-thirds belonged to the
Teutonic knights.
Until the eleventh century, Livonia, Courland, and Esthonia
were below the Christian horizon.1 At this time the arch
bishop of Bremen undertook their evangelization, and sent
them a bishop. The attempt failed. For several generations
the countries situated north of the Niemen, which the great
archbishop of Bremen may be said to nave discovered, were
forgotten. In the middle of the twelfth century it was
traders from Bremen and Liibeck who again drew attention
to these countries. Apostles were forthcoming. In 1184
the monk Meinhard arrived in the village of Yakull, situated
on the bank of the Duna. He promised the inhabitants to
build a fortress, provided they were willing to receive baptism.
His proposal was accepted. A part of the population was
baptized, and the fortress was built. This sort of arrangement
was adopted elsewhere with a like result. Then Meinhard
visited the archbishop of Bremen, gave evidence of his
apostolic commission, and was consecrated bishop (1186).
After this ceremony the new bishop went back to his diocese.
There he met with a painful disappointment. During
his absence the people in the diocese had returned in a body
1 Heinrici, Chronicon Lyvonice, M. G. Scriptores, xxiii. 231-332 ; Hauck,
iv. 627.

THE EXPANSION OF THE LATIN CHURCH 29
to paganism, and would hear no word about the Christian
religion. Meinhard, finding that gentle measures were of no
avail, determined to adopt a more energetic policy. At his
request Pope Celestine HI. called the Germans to a crusade
against the Livonians ; but the pontifical summons was
unheeded. Meinhard died without having obtained the help
which he had asked (1196).
The archbishop of Bremen appointed the Cistercian monk
Berthold as his successor. As soon as he had received
episcopal consecration, Berthold went to take charge of his
diocese. He met with threats of death. He retired tem
porarily, recruited a small army, and when he saw that he
had a sufficient force, returned to his diocese. A battle was
fought on the banks of the Duna (1198). Berthold, who rode
as a brave captain at the head of his troops, fell in the fight ;
but his cause was at last victorious. The Livonians suffered
a crushing defeat. To save their lives they surrendered,
received baptism, and asked to have a bishop sent to them.
After every one had been baptized, the army of the crusaders
departed. But scarcely had this happened when the Livonians
apostatized, bathed in the waters of the Duna to purify them
selves from their baptism, and forced the Christian priests to
sacrifice to idols. The work of Berthold had to be begun

It was begun again, and this time was brought to a
successful conclusion. The archbishop of Bremen chose his
nephew Albert to succeed Berthold, and consecrated him
bishop (1199). At once Albert asked of Innocent in. a bull
authorizing a crusade against the Livonians. This was gener
ously granted. On his own account he raised an army and a
fleet as well as money. Then when all was ready, he began
the conquest of his diocese with twenty-three ships (1200).
It was a gradual undertaking, and in spite of its success at the
beginning, Albert had some reverses to meet. He had to secure
a camp and a permanent army. He established the camp
at the mouth of the Duna in 1201. It was the city of Riga.
He organized the army in 1202. It was the order of the
Knights of the Sword. Events followed according to his

30 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
wishes. In 1207, after seven years of unequal conflict, the
Livonians consented to receive baptism. Ten years later,
Esthonia, decimated by repeated massacres, also accepted the
Christian religion. And about 1225, Courland, treated with
the same persuasive measures, followed the example of its
neighbours. All the eastern shore of the Baltic was at length
evangelized. Albert established his episcopal see at Riga, a
city of which he was the father. There he died in 1229.
When he left the world, his work had taken an unexpected
direction. At an early date Rome had crossed and over
thrown his plans. The Knights of the Sword, who owed their
existence to him, had become his rivals, thanks to the diplo
macy of the Holy See, and they counterbalanced his authority.
By virtue of two other pontifical decisions the bishop of Riga
was removed from the jurisdiction of the archbishop of
Bremen, had the power to consecrate bishops on all the
eastern shore of the Baltic, but still had no jurisdiction over
these prelates. Albert and the bishops whom he had conse
crated remained beyond the archiepiscopal organization, and
were directly dependent on the Apostolic See.
In the thirteenth century the Lithuanians, called upon
by the Teutonic knights to receive baptism, resisted, and
adhered to paganism until the middle of the fourteenth
century. They were baptized (1387) under the following
circumstances.1 Their duke, Jagellon, asked the hand of the
princess Hedwig, heiress to the throne of Poland. His
request was granted on condition that he would embrace
the Christian faith. Glad to become king of Poland,
Jagellon, who henceforth called himself Ladislas DX, was
baptized, and married Hedwig (1386). Then passing through
Lithuania, he overthrew the pagan sanctuaries, destroyed the
idols, urged his subjects to become Christians, and promised
woollen clothing to those who took his advice. The apostolic
mission of the prince, and especially the woollen clothing, had
an irresistibly persuasive effect. The Lithuanians came in
crowds to be baptized. The nobles were baptized one at a
time ; as for the lower classes, according to the order of
aG. Dlugosz, Historia polonica, lib. x., Cracovise, 1803.

THE EXPANSION OF THE LATIN CHURCH 31
Ladislas, they were divided into groups, which were sprinkled
with holy water. Shortly after this comforting ceremony,
Lithuania, received a bishop whose see was fixed at Wilna, and
whom Pope Urban VL placed under the direct jurisdiction of
the Holy See. Several historians state that half a century
afterwards, the Lithuanians were at heart pagans, and sought
to set up their idols once more.

CHAPTER II
The Christian Life: Sacraments and Devotions
E. Martene, De antiquis Ecclesice ritibus, 4 vols., Antuerpise, 1736 ;
L. Duchesne, Origines du culte chre'tien, 5th edition, Paris, 1909 ;
Dictionnaire d'archologie chre'tienne et de liturgie (dom Cabrol and dom
Leclercq).
The Christian life had as its principle and its support certain
religious acts, some of which were performed once only, while
others were or could be repeated. Those acts, which had a
symbolic character and possessed a power to sanctify, were
designated by the term sacraments. The others went simply
by the name of devotions.
I. Sacraments. — The number of sacraments was not
definitely fixed until rather a late date. St. Augustine, who
at times treats all religious ceremonies as sacraments, at
other times reserves the name for baptism and the eucharist.
He recognized then two major and an indeterminate number
of minor sacraments. In the seventh century, Isidore of
Seville inserted confirmation between baptism and the
eucharist. He thus obtained three sacraments, or perhaps
even four ; for he seems to have reckoned as two sacraments
the body and blood of the Lord ; as for the minor sacra
ments, he left them out of view, and did not mention
them. In the ninth century the classification of Isidore
had considerable vogue. Raban Maur, the greatest theologian
of that period, explains that the sacraments are " baptism,
unction, the body and blood " ; and he adds that the body and
blood constitute "the two last" sacraments which end the
list. Yet there were those who did not agree ; for example,
Amolon, who enumerates five sacraments, namely : " exorcism,
32

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 33
baptism, unction, the eucharist, and the imposition of
hands." On the whole, the theory of Isidore of three
sacraments — of four, when the eucharist is counted as two —
was dominant in the Carolingian period, but it was not the
law.1 Its decline began in the eleventh century. Then rites
hitherto unknown or but little considered attracted attention
and were surrounded with respect. It was necessary to
justify these newcomers and inscribe them on the list of
sacraments. The matter would have been simple if the
doctors had been able to agree. Unhappily, for more than a
century they seemed to be eager to differ. Each one drew
up a list according to his preferences which were not those
of his neighbour. Pierre Damien enumerated three major
sacraments (prsecipua sacramenta): baptism, the eucharist,
and orders. Nicholas of Clairvaux, in a sermon often attri
buted to Pierre Damien, taught that the sacraments were
twelve in number : baptism, confirmation, the unction of the
sick, the consecration of bishops, the unction of kings, the
dedication of churches, confession, the sacrament of canons,
the sacrament of hermits, the sacrament of monks, the
sacrament of nuns, the sacrament of marriage. Geoffroy of
Vendome places among sacraments, the investiture by ring
and crosier. Bonizo distinguishes two sacraments of divine
origin : baptism and the eucharist ; two of apostolic origin :
the sacrament of salt received by catechumens, and the
sacrament of oil ; and, lastly, sacraments of ecclesiastical origin
of an indeterminate number. Hugh of St. Victor also gives
a threefold division, but in a way unlike that of Bonizo. In
the first category he places the sacraments necessary to
salvation ; these are two in number : baptism and the
eucharist. In the second category he puts the sanctifying
sacraments : the water of aspersion, the receiving of ashes,
the blessing of palms, the sign of the cross, the insufflation
of exorcisms, the spreading out of the hands, genuflexion,
1 St. Augustine, Ep. liv. 1, lv. 32-35 ; Isidore, Etymologies, vi. 19, 39 ;
Ep. i. 8 ; Raban Maur, De institutimie clericorum, i. 24 ; Amolon, Ep. ii.,
Migne, cxvi. 88.
3

34 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
invocation of the Trinity, the act of beating the breast, the
bowing of the head. Then in a third class he includes the
sacraments which are of service in performing the others : to
which belongs the sacrament of dedicating churches, of which
he gives a long description. Peter Lombard enumerates
seven sacraments. Peter Comestor, in a sermon attributed to
Hildebert of Tours, reckons eight or nine. Roland, who wrote
after Peter Lombard, places at the head of the sacraments
that of the Incarnation : when he became Pope with the name
of Alexander in. he made mention of the sacrament of the
consecration of virgins. Alger of Liege and certain other
conservatives remained faithful to the list of Isidore. In
short, throughout the twelfth century the theology of the
sacraments was in chaos, a chaos which lasted until the first
years of the thirteenth century, for in 1200 we find the
council of Vienne still putting holy water among the sacra
ments.1 A fortuitous circumstance assured the victory of the
list of Peter Lombard. This is how the result was achieved.
Following the example of several of his contemporaries,
Peter Lombard had drawn up a theological synthesis entitled
Sentences. His book was characterized by clearness and
conciseness, which drew attention to him and gave him con
siderable vogue, especially at Paris, where Peter had been a
professor. In the second half of the twelfth century, Peter
Lombard had disciples who took the Sentences as their guide,
and borrowed from them the list of the seven sacraments.
Yet this vogue had not been sufficient to cause the disap
pearance of the other lists. But in the first years of the
1 Pierre Damien, Opuseul. vi. 9 ; Nicolas de Clairvaux, among the sermons
of Pierre Damien, Serm. lxix. ; Geoffroy de Vend6me, Ep. iii. 11, Migne,
clvii. 215 ; Bonizo, Libellus de sacramentis ; Hugo of St. Victor, De sacramentis,
i. 9, 7, voir aussi ii. 5, 7, et ii. 9, 1 ; P. Lombard, Sentential, iv. 2 ; Pierre Comestor,
among the sermons of Hildebert, Serm. cxxxii., Migne, clxxi. 927; Roland,
Die Sentenzen, p. 156 (Gietl) ; Alexander in., Ep. cxxx., Migne, cc. 197 J
Alger, De sacramentis corporis et sanguinis dominici, i. 8, iii. 4, Migne, clxxx.
761, 836 ; Hugues of Rouen, Dialog, v. 7-16, Migne, cxcii. 1199-1211 ; Council
of Vienne (1200), Mansi, xxii. 710 (sentence of interdict: "non ponantur extra
ecclesiam vasa cum aqua benedicta nee clerici ferant aquam benedictam, quum
omnia sacramenta ecclesiastica prater ilia duo qua; excepts sunt, constet esse
prohibita ").

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 35
thirteenth century, Alexander of Hales and Albert the Great
made their appearance. They followed the movement, and
regulated their teaching by the Sentences. These two doctors
exercised in the theological world a sort of dictatorship which
was shared by their disciples St. Thomas Aquinas and St.
Bonaventura, who also commented on the Sentences, made
it, in a way, their gospel. After that, the lists made by
Augustine, Isidore, Hugh of St. Victor, and the rest had no
importance. They passed for ever into oblivion. The seven
sacraments of Peter Lombard were universally admitted ; and
these seven were : baptism, confirmation, the eucharist,
penance, extreme unction, orders, marriage. The most that
happened was that for a while the divine origin of some of
these was denied. But this negation was soon abandoned.
In the sixteenth century all the sacraments were derived
from Christ. And the council of Trent raised this belief to
the height of a dogma (sess. vii. canon 1) : "If any one says
that all the sacraments of the new law have not been insti
tuted by Christ ... let him be anathema."
Let us examine the sacraments in succession. Baptism 1
consisted in an immersion repeated three times in the name of
the Three Persons of the Trinity. It purified the soul from
all stains, and transformed him who received it into a
Christian. The ceremony took place on Easter Saturday, or
rather on the night which separated that Saturday from
Easter Day ; a second ceremony was performed on the
Saturday before Pentecost for those who had been unable to
present themselves on Easter Saturday. Whoever had been
baptized could not be baptized a second time ; in other words,
baptism was never repeated. Besides those two dates, at no time
could any one be baptized unless he was in danger of death. No
one was admitted to baptism except after a preparation described
as the catechumenate. This preparation comprised two periods :
the period of distant, and the period of near preparation.
The period of distant preparation involved only the presence
at the part of the mass called mass of the catechumens. It
1 Martene, cap. i., De ritibus baptismi; Duchesne, chap, ix., L' Initiation
ehr&ienne.

36 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
lasted one or two years according to local usages, or merely
some months ; but by many of the catechumens it was pro
longed indefinitely, for they recoiled before the obligations of
the Christian life, and did not have themselves baptized until
the hour of death. The near preparation began some weeks
before Easter, that is to say, during Lent. It included
reunions at the church, which were called scrutinies. These
scrutinies had a threefold purpose. They served to teach the
catechumens, designated by the name of competents or of elect, the
creed as well as the Lord's Prayer, to exorcise them in order to
drive the devil from their bodies, and to acquire information
as to their outward conduct, in order to exclude the unworthy.
The scrutinies were thus at once, courses of instruction,
stances of magic, and inquiries. It need not be said that, as
a rule, adults only were admitted to baptism. Children were
baptized only when in danger of death.
This discipline was shaped slowly between the second
and the fourth century. In the fifth century, with certain
local differences upon which we need not dwell, it governed
the Western Church. But from the sixth century, and even
shortly before that time, it underwent a gradual limitation,
the principal agents in which were the conversion of the
barbarians and the baptism of infants. The conversion
of barbarians whenever it was effected had a national
character. A whole people, following its chief, renounced
idols and gave itself to Christ. To these collective move
ments the traditional rules were not applicable. Thousands
of men could not be treated as some dozens of individuals
were treated. They could not be subjected to the same
delays, nor have the same instruction given to them. It was
necessary to act quickly, and to utilize the enthusiasm of the
first days without waiting for the feast of Easter. It was at
Christmas that Remi baptized the Franks; it was also at
Christmas that the baptism took place of ten thousand Anglo-
Saxons of whom Pope St. Gregory speaks in his letter to
Eulogius (viii. 30). In both cases alike the instruction was
necessarily summary. In the eighth century, Boniface, who
was in haste to evangelize Germany, was also constrained to

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 37
shorten the delay and to reduce the amount of preparation.
Under Charlemagne and his successors, there was even
greater expedition. It may be easily imagined that these
repeated infractions of the rule disturbed the baptismal
discipline. The baptism of infants completed the work of
destruction. Until the sixth century, infants were baptized
only when they were in danger of death. About this time
the practice was introduced of administering baptism even
when they were not ill, a practice the existence of which is
proved by the canon of the council of Macon (585. 3) and
that of the council of Auxerre (590. 18). After the usage
came the law. The latter made its first appearance in England,
where (691) an assembly presided over by the king Ina
ordered, under penalty of a fine, the baptism of infants
within thirty days after their birth. From England the law
passed into the Frankish countries. In the assembly of
Paderborn (785), Charlemagne commanded the Saxons, under
penalty of a heavy fine, to have their infants baptized during
their first year.1 In the face of these innovations the
hierarchy did its best to maintain the traditional date.
Several councils forbade the administration of baptism except
in the case of danger of death — unless at the feast of Easter.
It was in vain. In spite of the prohibitions of councils,
inferior clergy at the instance of the faithful baptized all the
year round. The theologians ended by surrendering. A day
came when they declared the practice to be praiseworthy,
which they had not succeeded in suppressing. Robert Pulleyn
recommended parents to have their children baptized as soon
as possible. In his commentaries on the Sentences, St.
Thomas uses the same language. Then, as always happens,
the law of the highest bid performed its work. In the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, various provincial councils
decided that infants should be baptized during the first days
following their birth.2
Compared with other modes of baptism, immersion dis-
1 Diet. d'archCologie chretienne (Catechumenat), ii. 2609 ; Hefele, iii. 349
(English council, 691), iii. 637 (assembly of Paderborn, 19).
2 Robert Pulleyn, Sentential, v. 21 ; St. Thomas, In Sent. iv. 4, 3, 2.

38 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
played remarkable stability. For a long time submerging
infants as well as adults in water was regarded as a duty,
except in the case of illness, when they were to be baptized.
Immersion was thus the only regular mode of administering
baptism ; infusion, that is, the act of pouring water on the
head, was an exception, a kind of dispensation for the sick.
It was only in the twelfth century that this state of things
began to change, and that one dared baptize by infusion,
children who were not ill. The innovation made slow pro
gress. In the thirteenth century, St. Thomas referred to it
as a practice little diffused, and little to be recommended.
According to him, immersion is the most common, the most
praiseworthy, and the surest. In the fifteenth century the
situation was reversed. Then baptism was most commonly
administered by infusion. Yet immersion was still practised
in certain countries. It did not disappear until the
eighteenth century.1
Confirmation2 came after baptism. Let us first say a
word as to its origin. Baptism was administered by the
bishop, surrounded by his clergy. It was a long and
fatiguing ceremony, especially when the catechumens were
1 F. Funk, "Die Enstehung der heutigen Taufform," in Kirchengeschicht-
liche Abhandlungen und Uhtersuchungen, i. 478 ; St. Thomas, Summ. theol.
iii. 66. 7 ; ib. ad. 2 ; Infusion was declared legitimate by Stephen n., 754,
Migne, lxxxix. 1027. Notice that the present form is comparatively recent :
" I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost." During the early Middle Ages the form consisted of the following
dialogue: (Priest): " Dost thou believe in God?" (Candidate): "I believe."
(Priest): "Dost thou believe in the Son?" (Candidate): "I believe."
(Priest) : " Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost ? " (Candidate) : " I believe."
Each response was followed by an immersion ; see dom Puniet, in Diet.
d ' archiologie chrCtienne (Bapteme), ii. 322-341.
2 Martene, cap. ii., De ritibus ad saeramentum confirmationis spectantibus ;
Duchesne, chap, ix., L 'Initiation chritienne; Bede, Vita Cuthberti, 29;
Germanic council 742, canons, and letters from Boniface to Cuthbert :
*' Statuimus ut singulis annis unusquisque episcopus parrochiam suam sollicite
circumeat populum confirmare " ; Diet, d'arcJie'ol. chrit. (chorevSques), iii.
1447-1451 ; Raban Maur, De inslitutione clericorum, ii. 39 ; Honorius, Gemma
animce, iii. 112, Migne, clxxii. 673 ; Durand, Rationale, vi. 84 ; Robert Pulleyn,
Senten. v. 23 ; St. Thomas, In Sent. iv. dist. vii. qusest. 3, art. 2 ; Catechism
of the council of Trent, part ii. chap. iii. 15 ; on Pope Gregory, HinscMus,
Kirchenrecht, iv. 56,

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 39
numerous. Therefore, in the large churches like Rome and
Carthage, the bishop almost always allowed the inferior
clergy do everything, reserving to himself the final rite, which,
according to local usage, was sometimes the laying on of
hands, sometimes the anointing on the forehead. Gradually
this rite was regarded as a liturgical act added to baptism
but distinct from it, and having special efficacy. There was
a persuasion that bishops alone were authorized to lay hands
upon the new Christians, or to anoint them on the forehead,
and that priests did not have this right without episcopal
delegation. Thus arose the sacrament of confirmation, a
simple branch which, detached from the tree, lived an inde
pendent life and itself became a tree. It was what botanists
call growth by grafting.
Having become a sacrament, confirmation kept its tradi
tional place in the liturgy for Holy Saturday. On emerging
from the font of baptism, the new Christians were led, or
if children, were carried before the bishop, who laid his hands
on them, or anointed their forehead with oil. Confirmation
therefore directly followed baptism. The rise of rural
parishes created for it a new fact and a new danger. Con
firmation was separated from baptism ; that was the fact.
It threatened to disappear ; that was the danger. The fact
was unavoidable ; for the country priests were authorized to
baptize, but had not the right to confirm. The danger was
great ; for Christians baptized by the priests were admitted
to communion. Having the same rights as other Christians,
they must be inevitably led to forget the rite which they had
missed. To obviate this danger, three expedients were
imagined: the institution of country bishops {chorepiscopi),
the " pastoral circuit," and the journey of Christians to the
episcopal city. The chorepiscopi were priests invested with
power to confirm dwellers in the country. For some time
they executed their mission, but soon they gave offence to
the bishops, who suppressed them. The " pastoral circuit "
was a journey which the bishop made periodically in order to
confirm those in bis diocese. Boniface caused the Frankish
councils (742, 744) to publish rules obliging the bishops to

40 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
make this journey of which the English bishop Cuthbert had
lately given an example. But these rules were often dis
regarded. Many bishops preferred to oblige their people to
come themselves to seek confirmation at the episcopal city
on the eighth day after the baptismal ceremony of Holy
Saturday. Such was the discipline vouched for by Raban
Maur, then three centuries later by Honorius of Autun,
which Durand of Mende still preached at the end of the
thirteenth century. In order to conform to this legislation,
parents were obliged to carry to the bishop their infants,
who at this period were baptized a few months after their
biith. It was indeed the theologian Raban Maur who
taught that children should be confirmed at a very early age.
The bishop of Paris, Eudes de Sully, the council of Canter
bury (1236), the council of Worcester (1240), legislated
according to that opinion. But the parents made no move.
When the theologians saw that the people refused to agree
to these principles, they made the principles bend, to put
them in agreement with the people. In 1280 the council
of Cologne (canon 5) forbade the bringing of infants to con
firmation before the age of seven years. This rule, which did
away with the discipline of the early Middle Ages, answered to
the desires of the faithful. That is why a new discipline was
founded. Many councils, especially from the time of the six
teenth century, forbade the presentation of infants for confirma
tion before the age of seven years, and advised that they should
wait until reaching a more advanced age. The catechism of
the council of Trent, while avoiding the formulation of com
mands, expressed the same opinion. To the separation de
facto from baptism was thus added separation de jure. Con
firmation was no longer linked with baptism of which
formerly it had been an integral part.
And this evolution was not the only one. In the course
of the century the rites of confirmation underwent various
changes. The anointing of the forehead, when it was not
already practised, was added at an early day to the laying
on of hands, and ended by becoming the essential element.
The formulae also varied. Finally, the bishops, who in former

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 41
times had sometimes authorized the priests to give confirma
tion, — Pope Gregory granted this authority to the priests of
Sicily of which he was the metropolitan, — assumed gradually
an uncompromising attitude, and reserved to themselves the
absolute monopoly of anointing the forehead. The only
souvenir that confirmation preserved of its former connection
with baptism was that it could not be repeated. The
repetition of confirmation was always forbidden, even as in
the time when it terminated the ceremony of baptism. As
for the scholastic theologians, they were slightly embarrassed
by the lack of harmony between the old texts and the rites
in force in their own time. But with subtleties and syllo
gisms, they succeeded in arranging everything. Besides, they
were not aware of the greater part of the evolution which
had been accomplished.
Let us return to the liturgical discipline of the fifth
century.1 When the baptismal ceremony was finished the
new Christian attended the celebration of the holy mysteries,
as the mass was already called. At the end of the mass, the
consecrated bread and wine were presented to him. He ate
the bread and drank the wine. That was called receiving
the eucharist or communion. The eucharist therefore came
after baptism. It was a sacrament, an august mystery.
When the Christian had received it he was " incorporated " in
Christ, that is why the consecrated bread and the wine were
called the body and the blood of Christ.
As has just been said, the eucharist incorporated the
Christian in Christ. A Christian who died without re
ceiving the eucharist had no right to enter heaven. Such
was the doctrine which is to be met with about 495, in the
'Martene, cap. iii. -v. ; Gelasius, Ep. ad episcopos per Picenun constitutes;
Thiel, p. 329: "Nee ausus est aliquis dicere parvulum sine hoc Sacramento
salutare ad seternam vitam posse perduci " (he had just cited the passage,
John vi. 54) ; St. Augustine, De peccatorum meritis, i. 27, 34 ; Fulgentius,
Ep. xii. 24, Migne, lxv. 390 ; Paschase Radbert, De corp. et sang, xix., Migne,
cxx. 1328 ; Lanfranc, Ep. xxxiii., Migne, el. 533 ; Theodulf, De ordine
baptismi, Migne, cv. 239 ; Leidrade, Migne, xciv. 866 ; Magne, Migne, oii.
984 ; William of Champeaux, De Sacramento altaris, Migne, clxiii., 1039 j
Rupert, De operibus Spiritus Sancti, iii. 1, Migne, clxvii. 1641 ; Honorius,
Gemma animce, iii. 113, Migne, clxxii. 673.

42 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
writings of Pope Gelasius, — a doctrine which, moreover, was
derived from St. Augustine. Let us remark, however, that
all did not think in this way. When consulted by a deacon
as to the case of a Christian who had died suddenly after
baptism, but before communion, the bishop Fulgentius
answered that incorporation in Christ was procured by bap
tism, and that baptism was therefore sufficient for salvation.
This divergence of opinion lasted for a long time. Paschase
Radbert in the ninth century, Lanfranc in the eleventh, took
the side of Fulgentius; while Theodulf, Leidrade, Magne,
William of Champeaux, and Rupert made salvation conditional
on the reception of the eucharist. Practically they acted as
if the eucharist was necessary to salvation, and gave the
communion to infants as soon as they had been baptized;
more exactly, after confirmation, so long as the bishop
crowned the ceremony by anointing the forehead ; but before
confirmation, when for reasons pointed out above, this sacrament
was postponed. It is thus that Honorius of Autun shows us
new Christians incorporated in Christ (sic Christo incorpor-
antur) by receiving the eucharist, and eight days later
receiving the episcopal unction.
Little children were incapable of eating the bread, and it
was considered sufficient for them to receive the wine.1 This
was explained very clearly by Robert Paululus at the end of
the twelfth century. This is what he says : " This sacrament
should be given to newborn infants, under the species of
blood, with the finger of the priest, which infants naturally
suck" (digito sacerdotis quia tales naturaliter sugere possunt).
Consequently, at the end of the twelfth century little children
still made their communion after baptism by sucking the
finger of the priest, which had been dipped in the consecrated
wine. But then this practice began to make the theologians
uneasy, who were anxious to guard the eucharist from any
irreverence ; and we find a trace of this uneasiness in the
1 Robert Paululus, De officii* ecclesiasticis, 20, Migne, clxxvii. 392 ; Council
of Treves (1227), canon 3 ; Council of Bordeaux (1255), canon 5 ; Martene, De
ritibus baptismi, art. xv. 14; Gratian, De consecratione, dist. ii 36 j P. Lom
bard, Sent. iv. 9. 1.

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 43
recommendation of Robert Paululus not to give the wine to
infants if any danger was to be feared. Under the control of
these theological preoccupations, several councils forbade the
communion of infants ; but this prohibition had the grave
fault of striking a blow at a rite with which the faithful had
become familiar. Once again the theologians and the people
were in conflict. Here is the nice solution devised by the
inferior clergy : the priests continued to give wine for the
infants to suck after baptism, but it was wine which had not
been consecrated. This practice was still in use at the end
of the sixteenth century. It need not be said that the old
doctrine of the necessity of the eucharist to salvation had
been long since forgotten. This oblivion began on the day
when the communion of infants had become suspect to the
theological leaders. By a very opportune coincidence the
theologians then found a text of St. Augustine which declared
the communion of infants to be useless for their salvation.
Of course, St. Augustine had said nothing of the kind, and
the text attributed to him was not from him but from the
archbishop of Canterbury, Lanfranc. But without being
arrested by this detail, Gratian, Peter Lombard, and other
schoolmen proved by St. Augustine that the eucharist was
not necessary to salvation, and that nothing obliged them to
give the eucharist to infants.
Baptism and confirmation were not to be repeated. The
eucharist, on the contrary, was received frequently, and the
communion, that is, the reception of the eucharist, was always
one of the principal acts of the Christian life.1 In the fifth
'Gelasius, Ep. 37, Thiel, p. 452: "ant integra sacramenta percipiant, aut
ab integris arceantur, quia divisio unius ejusdem mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio
non potest provenire " ; Eusebius, Historia Eccl. vi. 44 (History of the Old
Man Serapion) ; Ordos (published by Mabillon), x. 22, Migne, lxxviii. 1016 :
"Tradat ei sacerdos eucharistiam dominici corporis intineti vino"; John
of Avranches, De officiis ecclesiasticis, Migne, cxlvii. 37, authorizes the dipping,
" summa necessitate timoris sanguinis Christi effusionis " ; Micrologias, Migne,
cli. 989, disapproves of it, and also Humbert, Adversus Grcecorum calumnias,
32, 33, Migne, cxliii. 951 ; Pascal n., Ep. 535, Migne, clxiii. 442 ; see also the
note of Mathoud in Migne, clxxxvi. 1139 ; Robert Pulleyn, Sent. viii. 3,
condemns it, but admits that " pleraque per loca, panis intinctus porrigitur " ;
see Martene, cap. iii. art. x. 13.

44 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
century the Christians of the West, with the exception of
the Irish monks, no longer brought the eucharist into their
dwellings : the communion except in case of sickness, of
which we shall speak presently, was made in church at the
close of mass. In order to commune, as much as possible of
the consecrated bread and wine was consumed. Pope Gelasius,
learning that certain Christians communicated with bread and
without wine, severely condemned this practice, which he
described as "sacrilege." Communion made with only one
of the two elements was therefore an incomplete communion,
and there was no excuse for it, except the impossibility of
taking the two elements. To render this impossibility less
frequent, and therefore to facilitate complete communion, the
bread was dipped in the wine ; that was called wetting (in-
tinctio). In the Church of Alexandria of the third century,
the eucharistic bread was dipped in water before being ad
ministered to the sick. The dipping is thus of ancient origin.
In the period with which we are occupied, and in the Latin
Church, the first testimony as to dipping is probably the text
of the council of Macon (585, canon 6) relative to the
eucharistic bread which was left after the communion of the
faithful. The council ordered that these remains (reliquias
sacrijiciorum) should be moistened and given thus prepared,
to the little children, who were assembled for this purpose on
the Wednesday and Friday of every week. Although dipping
originated in this way, we know by canon 1 of the council of
Braga (675) that it was practised in Spain in the seventh
century. From the end of the ninth century it was univer
sally the custom in the Frankish countries. And it is easy
to account for this vogue. The drinking of wine caused
repulsive incongruities, — incongruities which were, moreover,
unavoidable, since all the faithful, including aged people and
infants, drank from the same chalice. The dipping did away
with this. It therefore corresponded to the requirements of
cleanliness and hygiene. But theologians who did not under
stand the principle uttered cries of alarm. They recalled the
fact that Christ had given His body and blood separately to
His disciples, and they denounced dipping as a transgression

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 45
of the divine law, — a transgression which was damnable except
when it was dictated by absolute necessity. Popes Urban II.
in the council of Clermont, canon 28 (1095), and Pascal n.
(about 1110) approved the protests of the theologians, and in
ordinary cases rendered obligatory the separate uses of the
bread and wine. Urban n. tolerated — his statement can at
least be so interpreted — dipping as an exception ; but
Pascal n. ordered that the sick and infants alone should
communicate with wine, or receive the eucharistic bread
without wine.
At the beginning of the twelfth century, dipping was
therefore plainly prohibited.1 But in spite of the pontifical
prohibition, it remained for nearly fifty years a practice in
most of the churches. Yet about 1150 a compromise move
ment was apparent among the clergy. Rome condemned
dipping ; it was given up. Rome wished the communion to
be given, except in the case of the sick and infants, with the
bread and wine separate : the clergy remained obstinate on
this point and gave the communion to the faithful, employing
only the bread. This innovation gradually advanced. In
the middle of the thirteenth century the use of the chalice
by the laity had disappeared in a great number of churches.
At the end of the fourteenth century the evolution was
everywhere and for ever accomplished. Therefore, when
Bohemia thought that it would enforce the former discipline,
it paid dearly for this pretension.
The communion, as has already been said, took place at
the close of the mass.2 In the first centuries all Christians,
all those who had received baptism and Lad not been
excommunicated for public faults, made their communion. It
JSt. Thomas, Summ. theol. iii. 80. 12, says: "Est multarum ecolesiarum
usus in quibus populo communicante datur corpus Christi sumendum non autem
sanguis " ; but a little farther on we read, ' ' in quibusdam ecclesiis " ; Paludanus,
In Sent. iv. dist. II. i. 1, says that in his time (about 1335) the ancient custom
was still in force in certain churches.
2 Bede, Ep. ii. to Egbert, Migne, xeiv. 666 ; Theodulf, cap. xli., xliv., Migne,
cv. 204 ; Strabon, De rebus ecclcsiasticis, 20, Migne, cxiv. 940-942 ; Nicolas, Ep.
xcvii. 9, Migne, cxix. 983 ; Jonas, Institutio laicalis, ii. 18, Migne, cvi. 202 ;
Chrodegang, Regula canonicorum (text of Labb£, which is the only authentic
one), 14, Migne, lxxxix. 1104.

46 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
seems that it was so in Africa in the time of St. Augustine,
and continued for a long time to be so at Rome. But in
Gaul and elsewhere there was a tendency to neglect the holy
table. There was voluntary attendance at mass, without
communion, and people left before communing. To put an
end to this centrifugal movement, the council of Agde (506)
ordered those who wished to remain Catholics to make at
least three communions a year (canon 18). Of course, the
theologians desired more frequent communions. Bede would
have liked to see the faithful receive the eucharist every
Sunday, and on all the festivals of apostles and martyrs.
The council of Cloveshoe (747) recommended frequent
communion. Theodulf of Orleans required people to
commune every Sunday in Lent, the last three days in Holy
Week, and on Easter Day. Walafrid Strabon advised daily
communion. He even permitted those who heard several
masses the same day to communicate at every mass ; and
Pope Nicholas I., writing to the Bulgarians, exhorted them to
communicate every day during Lent. That was the theory,
the ideal. This is the reality. Bede tells us that the most
pious of the English laity made their communion only at
Easter, Christmas, and Epiphany. About 830, Jonas of
Orleans observed that most Christians communicated at the
three principal festivals of the year. The law of the council
of Agde was obeyed ; but that was all, so far as the laity was
concerned. The monks communicated more often. Theodulf
tells us that daily communion was in force among them.
Yet it seems that those who took the communion every day
were the exception, and that the majority communicated only
on Sundays and feast days. In any case it was to this
regime that the canons were subjected by the rule of
Chrodegang. In the Carolingian era some attempts were made to
oblige the faithful to communicate every month, or even every
Sunday.1 The attempts failed completely, and the law of the
1 Council of Ratisbon (799), canon 6 ; Monum. Germanics, Concilise, ii. 52 ;
Council of Aix-la-Chapelle (836), iii. 32 ; Herard, Capitula, 53, Migne, oxxi.
768 ; Reginon, De ecclesiasticis disciplinis, ii. (questionnaire, 56), Migne cxxxii

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 47
council of Agde remained in force. To it were adapted the
ecclesiastical rules of the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth cen
turies. At length, however, it was modified, not as being too
strict, but as being too lenient : it was modified by mitigation,
not by aggravation. The reform was accomplished by the
Lateran council (1215), which instead of the three traditional
communions was content with one to be made at Easter. This
was but little ; but it was still too much for the mass of
Christians, for Durand, the bishop of Meaux, testifies that in
his time — the first half of the fourteenth century — the Lateran
law was observed by few of the faithful (et adhuc pauci inveni-
untur). Yet the piety of Christians had at that time reached
its highest point. But it did not turn towards the eucharist.
Forsaken by the people, the monasteries, confraternities, and
third orders were the refuge of the communion ; and even
there it scarcely prospered. Moreover, the doctors while
recommending the communion, placed conditions upon it
which restricted the practice of it. St. Bonaventura thought
that one communion a week was sufficient for the holiest
souls. St. Antonine and Denis of Chartreux regarded monthly
communions as frequent. The statutes of the first confra
ternity of the Rosary (1470) ordered the members to confess
four times a year.
When the hour of death arrived, all Christians regarded it
as a duty to communicate.1 The duty was so imperious that
for several centuries communion was administered to the
dead, those to whom the communion could not be administered
while they were yet alive, even to those who had communi
cated before their death. St. Benedict, the patriarch of the
monastic life, himself committed the eucharist to certain
laymen, with directions that they should place it on the breast
285 ; Lateran council, Decreta, cap. xxi. ; Durand, In Sent. iv. 12, qusest. 5 ;
Bonaventura, Deprofectu religiosorum, ii. 77 ; see also Begula navitiorum, 13 ;
Antoninus, Summ. theol., pars. iii. xiY. 12. 5 ; Denys le Chartreux, In Sent.
iv. 12. 6.
1 Gregory, Dialog, ii. 24 ; Amalaire, De ecclesiast. officiis, iv. 41, Migne,
cv. 1236 ; see Menard in his notes on the Sacramentarium, Migne, lxxviii. 473 ;
Gauthier of Orleans, Capitula, 7, Migne, cxix. 734 ; Rodolfe of Bourges,
Capilula, Migne, cxix. 707 ; Reginon, De ecclesiast. discipl. i. 120.

48 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
of a monk who died outside the monastery. In his life of
St. Cuthbert, Bede cites a similar instance. He tells us that
before carrying the body of the holy bishop into the monastery
the monks placed the eucharist upon his breast. Undoubtedly
the practice was condemned by several councils ; it was there
fore not an expression of the official theology. But it expressed
the belief which prevailed in the monasteries. This belief
was still dominant in the eighth century, then it gradually
died out. That explains the fact that the passage from the
writings of the Bede disappeared from the manuscripts which
have come down to us. It was embarrassing ; and it was
suppressed. We know it only through Amalaire, who read it
in the manuscripts of his day and reported it. Communion
was no more administered to the dead but to the dying,
including infants of tender years. The parish priests were
obliged to have always in reserve portions of the eucharist in
order to be ready on all occasions to give the viaticum — as
the eucharist administered to the dying was called — to those
who needed it. Throughout the greater part of the early
Middle Ages they did not ordinarily go themselves to carry
the communion to a dwelling, they simply took at the church
portions kept in reserve, dipped them in wine and entrusted
them to laymen, who brought the precious gift to those who were
dying. This was practised until the end of the ninth century.
After that time repeated rules enjoined upon the priests to
administer the viaticum themselves, without resorting to
laymen. The consecration of the eucharist took place at mass in
the presence of all the people.1 By virtue of legislation
begun by the council of Elvira (300), determined by the
councils of Agde (506), Orleans (511, 538), of Macon
(585), developed during the Carolingian era, all the faithful,
unless prevented by distance from coming, were obliged to
hear mass, and to hear it in full. And this legislation was
put into practice. All attended mass. Moreover, from the
thirteenth century disobedient Christians, when an occasion
1 Reginon, De ecclesiast. discipl. ii. 57, 64, 69 ; A. Villien, Histoire des com-
mandements de VEglise, pp. 33-51, Paris, 1909.

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 49
was presented, were reminded by fines that they should
observe their duty. When the mendicant monks appeared,
they attracted to their chapels people who often neglected
the parish mass in order to hear the mass of the Franciscans
or of the Dominicans. The secular clergy defended what
they called their rights, in reality their interest. Hence
there was a conflict in which the clergy at first victorious
(bull of Sixtus iv., 1478), were at length defeated. In 1517,
by the bull Intelleximus, Leo x. authorized the faithful
to attend the mass of the monks on Sundays and feast
days. Every one of the faithful when he went to mass was
obliged to bring with him his " sacrifice," that is to say, the
bread and wine necessary for the communion.1 Certain
Christians communicated without bringing anything; but
Caesarius of Aries protested against this indelicacy. We find
an echo of this protest in the council of Macon (585), which
forbade coming to mass without offering bread and wine ;
and we hear the council of Toledo (693, canon 6) ordering
that loaves of bread should be brought, and condemning the
employment of pieces that had been cut. But we do not
know whether this order was in force outside of Spain
However that may have been, the offerings brought by the
faithful were collected after the reading of the gospeL In
large churches the operation was long and laborious. The
ministers shared the task. Some collected the bread in a
cloth or in a sack — either morsels or small loaves ; others
carried a basin and poured into it the wine contained in the
cans which the faithful handed to them. All was subse
quently placed before the altar. , This rite was practised up
to the ninth century. But at this time the faithful, who
more and more neglected the communion, gradually ceased to
bring the bread and wine. The ceremony of receiving the
offerings fell ii.to disuse, or at least was curtailed. This
1 Cyprian, De opere et eleemosynis, 15, reproaching a rich woman for coming
to church " sine saerificiis " ; Csesarius, Serm. cclxv. 2 (appendix to the
sermons of St. Augustine) ; Duchesne, Origines du culte Chretien, chap. vi. ;
Diet, d'archeol. chr&lienne, iii. 1479 (Chrismale), i. 3254 (Azymes); Raban
Maur. Tie mst. cler. i. 31 (panem infermentatum).

50 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
evolution led to another. The eucharistic bread when
brought by the faithful was common bread, that is to say,
fermented ; it gradually gave place to unleavened bread.
The use of unleavened bread appears to have been of Irish
origin. In any case the Irish were the first to feel the need
of a eucharist not subject to decay, since their priests and
monks were authorized to carry the eucharist to their homes.
Moreover, it is from the writings of Bede and Alcuin, who
were neighbours of the Irish, that we meet with the first
testimonies concerning this practice. About 820 unleavened
bread — as we learn from a passage in Raban Maur — was
employed in the Frankish Church. In the eleventh century,
when the Greek schism occurred, the use of unleavened bread
was supposed to be of apostolic origin.
When the bread and wine had been brought, these
elements were placed upon the altar. Then began the rites
of the mass, properly so called.1 They were the most august of
all rites. The mass was a drama designed to commemorate
and to represent the sacrifice of the redemption accomplished
on Calvary. It was the sacrament — that is to say, the
symbol — of the passion, the sacrament of redemption, the
sacrament of the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.
When the drama was finished, the prayer taught by Jesus
Himself, the Pater noster, was recited. Then the ministers
proceeded to break the bread, while the choir, from the
seventh century and wherever the Roman usage was followed,
sang the Agnus Dei. Finally, there was the communion ; the
faithful received the bread and wine. This bread, and this
1 St. Augustine, Contra Faustum, xx. 21, distinguishes the types of the
sacrifice of Christ (Old Testament), the reality of this sacrifice offered on
Calvary {per ipsam veritatem), and the sacrament or symbol of this sacrifice,
intended to recall it to memory (per sacramentum memoriae) ; De Triniiate, iii.
10, where mention is made of " sacramentum corporis et sanguinis ejus,"
which is consecrated by a mystical prayer (prece mystica) in memory of the
passion (in memoriam pro nobis dominicce passionis), and which is sanctified by
the Spirit of God (operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei). Elsewhere he affirms that
the Church is the mystical body of Christ, that the Christian who worthily
receives the eucharist is mystically incorporated in Christ. These statements
inspired all the literature of the early Middle Ages. Raban Maur, De instit,
cler. i. 81 ; see hereafter, Chapter XII.

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE : SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 51
wine, which had served to commemorate the sacrifice of
Calvary, represented the body and blood of the divine victim :
they were the sacrament — or sacraments — of the body and
blood of the Saviour. And all this was not purely symbolic,
for the following reason. The Holy Ghost or the Word —
here there was some fluctuation of opinion — descended into
the bread and wine, impregnated it with His substance.
Thus being deified, the bread and the wine deified all those
who communicated.
The mass was therefore the sacrament (symbol) of the sacri
fice on the cross. The eucharist was the sacrament of the divine
body and blood. That was the expression when one wished
to be exact. But conformably to a general law of language,
one often made use of abbreviated locutions which were
more concise, and it was currently said that the mass is the
sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, that the eucharist is
the body and blood of Christ. Under the influence of these
equivocal formulae, the people grew gradually accustomed to
believe that the consecrated bread and wine were no more
bread and wine, but that beneath the appearances of these
elements was concealed Christ with the body and blood which
He had during His sojourn on earth. This is what is called
transubstantiation. This belief in the ninth century had
numerous adherents in the monasteries. Among others was
Paschase Radbert, who made it his mission to defend it and
popularize it. It spread progressively : at the end of the
eleventh century it became the official doctrine of the
Church, while the ancient belief which had been taught by
Augustine, Fulgentius, St. Gregory, and Raban Maur was
placed in the class of heresies. The idea of the mass and of
the eucharist had undergone evolution.
This first evolution led to a second.1 Since the mass
1 Mabillon, In ordinem romanum commentarius prcevius, Migne, Ixxviii. 901,
thinks that Baronius slightly exaggerates the expansion of the doctrine which
attributed the consecration of the wine to mingling or to infusion ; but he
himself makes considerable admissions (p. 899 : "in monasteriis etiam gallicanis
plerisque vigebat eadem sentontia"). Besides, he cites in opposition to this
doctrine, texts of the thirteenth, and even of the sixteenth, century (p. 900) ;
Micrologus, 14.

52 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
was intended to commemorate the sacrifice on the cross, and
caused the Holy Ghost or the Incarnate Word to descend
into the eucharistic elements, these elements were consecrated
by a "mystical prayer" — to use St. Augustine's words —
ordinarily called the " canon," and by numerous signs of the
cross interpolated in that prayer. In case of necessity, the
wine could be consecrated more expeditiously, simply by
pouring some drops of consecrated wine or by dipping a
consecrated Host into the unconsecrated wine. Such was
the ancient ritual of consecration. In its place the dogma
of transubstantiation put a new ritual, which consisted in the
utterance by the priest of these words : " This is my body
. . . this is the chalice of my blood." These words, formerly
designed only to recall the ceremony of the Supper, had the
magical power of bringing the body and blood of Christ in
the likeness of the bread and wine which had disappeared.
Nevertheless this new order of things was not instantaneously
established. In the eleventh century, partizans of transub
stantiation were to be found who, like the author of the
Micrologue, attributed this miracle to the sign of the cross.
Moreover, so far as the wine was concerned, the ancient
practices persisted for a long time. Throughout the twelfth
century the wine was still consecrated by dipping a conse
crated host, or by pouring consecrated wine into it. On this
point we have the admission of Baronius (ad annum, 1192,
24 fin.). After telling of a eucharistic miracle in which
water had been transubstantiated by touching the body of
Christ, he adds : " Quod semper fieri in vino quum commixtio
intercederet tota antiquitas existimavit."
The Christian fell, sooner or later, into sin. He stained
his soul, and was therefore obliged to purifiy it. He could
not seek this purification in baptism, since this sacrament
was not to be repeated. His sole resource was penance.
Practised since the origin of Christianity it took its place
slowly among the sacraments ; hence its right to be mentioned
here. Penance went through several phases, two of which have
special importance, and first demand attention. We may

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 53
call them the regime anterior to confession, and the regime
of confession ; or the old and the new regime.
In the old regime the great dividing line of sins was
scandal.1 Non-scandalous sins were distinguished from
scandalous sins. To each of these two categories corre
spond a special system of penance. Non-scandalous sins were
subjected to private, scandalous sins to public penance.
Private penance consisted in practising, independent of
all ecclesiastical supervision, acts which were more or less
painful, notably fasting, abstinence, prayer and almsgiving.
The absence of supervision was the essential characteristic of
this penance. The bishop, or the priest his representative,
intervened only as a preacher, exhorting from the pulpit the
faithful to expiate faults by fasting and by the other exercises
which have been mentioned. The faithful went to church
and listened to the preaching, which proved to them the
necessity of penance. When they came home they conformed,
as they thought proper, their conduct to the theological
instructions ; but they did not make known the state of their
conscience either to the bishop or to the priest ; God alone
was a witness of their faults, a witness of their repentance
and expiation. Nevertheless the episcopate succeeded in
making Lenten fasting almost obligatory. And for most of
the faithful penance consisted only in observing the quad-
ragesimal fast collectively and semi-publicly. The penance
of Christians was therefore not always done in the presence
of God alone ; it remained private, however, in that it was
supervised by no one, and in that the faults which led to it
were revealed to no one. And then — this is a point of
importance — this penance did not oblige the culpable to
abstain from the eucharist. The Christian who had only
non-scandalous faults on his conscience could lawfully receive
the eucharist, after having previously asked God's pardon, by
almsgiving, fasting, or prayer. The bishop at the council of
Macon, who ordered the faithful to bring to mass the bread
and wine needed at communion, taught them that in
1 A. Lagarde, in Revue d'histoire et de la litlirature religieuses, 1912, p. 160 ;
1913, pp. 266, 640 ; 1914, p. 26.

54 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
making this offering they obtained the remission of theii
sina Public penance was done under the eye of the clergy;
that was its characteristic. It was introduced between two
liturgical ceremonies, one intended to inaugurate, the other
to complete it. The ceremony of inauguration was designated
as the imposition of penance, the closing ceremony as the
reconciliation. In the first instance the sinners kneeled
before the bishop, who was surrounded by his clergy, admitted
their faults, consequently made their confession,- — a summary
confession which, moreover, had as its object, as has been said
above, scandalous sins, that is, sins known by all the faithful
or by a great number of them. After having acknowledged
their guilt, they asked penance. The bishop laid his hands
upon them, prayed, and begged the people to pray for them.
At times he performed other rites, which varied in different
churches. When the ceremony was finished, the sinners
received penance ; they were penitents, that is to say,
they were excommunicated. The imposition of penance
was, in fact, excommunication. Penitents had no right to
participate in the communion ; they had not even the right
of taking a place among the faithful at the liturgical
assemblies. At church they occupied separate places, and
wore mourning; some local customs even prescribed their
confinement in a monastery. It belonged to the bishop to
fix the duration of the penance, and to end it by granting
the sinners reconciliation. Nevertheless, at Rome and in
countries which followed the Roman usage the reconciliation
was appointed for Holy Thursday.1 On that day the
penitents came once more to kneel before the bishop, who
once more laid his hands upon them and prayed to God for
them. Reconciliation was the counterpart of the imposition
of penance. It restored the sinner to his place among the
faithful ; it authorized him to participate in the communion ; it
put an end to the excommunication. Let us add that
public penance, with its two rites of excommunication and
reconciliation, was not to be repeated. The scandalous
' Duchesne, chap. xv.

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 55
sinner was admitted but once to claim the benefit of
reconciliation. Public penance was performed at Rome, in Italy, in Gaul,
in Spain, in Africa, indeed in the whole Latin Church except
in Great Britain, where, as we learn from the penitential of
Theodore of Canterbury, it was unknown. It need not be
said that its performance was not uniform. Zealous bishops
like Csesarius of Aries, adjured scandalous sinners to submit
to the humiliation of penance, and obtained some results.
Careless bishops waited for conversions without doing anything
to effect them, and conversions left to the grace of God were
rare. This is the spectacle presented to us in the Frankish
countries at the beginning of the seventh century. Public
penance, which few bishops attended to, was decadent.1 But
at this time the Frankish Church was confronted by a new
penitential regime of which we have now to speak.
The regime of confession consists in the obligation
imposed upon the sinner to reveal all his faults, private as
well as public, to a priest called a confessor. Confession was
established about the middle of the fourth century by
Pacomius, the founder of cenobitic life. It produced good
results. Monks told their temptations and their falls to
other monks who were often not priests, but who had a
reputation for sanctity. From their confessors they received
encouragement and advice. And from these confidences,
from this. encouragement and from this advice, they derived
a surplus of force for their conflict with the devil. During
the fifth century the institution of Pacomius, under the
patronage of Cassian, Palladius, and others, emigrated from
Egypt to the monasteries of the West, even so far as to the
Christian Celtic monks. The Celtic monks, instead of living
remote from the world, as was the case in other countries,
were in contact with the people, and exercised the ministry
which elsewhere the secular clergy exercised. Accustomed to
confession themselves, they imposed this regime on their
parishioners, who obeyed with docility. They confessed. Only
for the encouragement and counsels which the confessors of
1 Jonas of Bobbio, Vita Columbani, xi.

56 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Thebais gave to their penitents they substituted fines, fasts
more or less prolonged, recitation of psalms, and exile. At
first these penal measures were fixed arbitrarily. Then gradually
rules were enacted, penal codes called "penitentials" were drawn
up, — codes in which every sin was subjected to a definite pun
ishment. The r61e of the confessor was that of the customs
officer, who must know the tariff and how to apply it. This
was the case in the Celtic countries, that is, in Great Britain
and Ireland. The Churches of these two Christian com
munities had no knowledge of public penance, but from the
middle of the fifth century they knew and practised con
fession. Isolated from the rest of the world which did not
know them, they had no means of giving the law to the
churches on the Continent — nothing except that missionary
fever which, like faith, removes mountains. That made up for
everything. During the closing years of the sixth century (about
590), Irish monks led by Columban went and established
themselves in the Frankish countries in the region of the
Jura.1 They led a life of austerity and mortification ; for
them religion was, above all, a moral life, a spirit of penitence.
For the Franks, on the contrary, religion was hardly anything
but a magical liturgy, the rites of which were punctiliously
observed in association with the coarsest vice. The contrast
was complete. Columban and his monks undertook to make
this state of things disappear. They preached penance as
they understood it, accompanied by a system of tariff in
which no vice was overlooked. They preached, they an
nounced the punishments reserved for sinners in the other
world. The people, overwhelmed by their preaching, but
subdued by the prestige of their virtue, came to them, put
themselves under their care, even as the sick in their alarm
surrender themselves to the physician. Whenever the
missionary saw a sinner come before him, he asked him
questions ; and the latter, trembling, described his whole life,
and enumerated his faults. Then the tariff was enforced:
1 Jonas of Bobbio, Vita Columbani, xvii. ; Malnory, L.uqwvieiis&i mwachi,
p. 62, Paris, 1S94.

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 57
so much for murder, so much for incest, so much for adultery,
so much for robbery. On returning to his home the sinner
did the works which had been ordered ; and when his
penance was finished, he regained his baptismal innocence.
That which justified was penance, that is to say, the amount
of penalties corresponded to the tariff of the various sins.
Of course, the confession had to be complete, for every sin
not subjected to the tariff was a sin which had not been
expiated. Moreover, the sinner was at pains to declare
everything, to keep nothing hidden. It was thus that the
confessional made its entry into the Frankish Church. It
entered without the knowledge of the clergy of the Franks,
who, for a whole generation, did not know exactly what the
monks were doing who came from the depths of the forests
of Ireland. Besides, they considered these foreigners as
mischievous agitators. Yet, about 647, at the council of
Chalon, forty-four bishops, several of whom, like Eloi of Noyon
and Donatus of Besancon, before becoming ecclesiastics had
felt the influence of Columban, approved the new policy.1
This is an important date. Before the council of Chalon,
confession had existed for half a century in the Frankish
Church, but it was then contraband ; it was still only a Celtic
institution. It was at the council of Chalon that it obtained
its naturalization papers, that it was officially recognized by
the Frankish hierarchy. And when it is remembered that
the Celtic Churches were isolated from the rest of Christen
dom — at this time they ardently opposed the Roman monks,
who had been sent by St. Gregory to England — it may be
concluded that it was the council of Chalon (647) which
inaugurated confession in the Latin Church.
This event certainly marked a capital date in the history
of Christian penance. Yet we must be careful not to
exaggerate its significance. The council of Chalon (647) laid
down no obligation, it granted its approbation, nothing more.
1 Mmiumenta Germ., Concilia, i. 210: "De pcenitentia vero peccatorum
quae est medilla animse utilem omnibus hominibus esse censemus et ut
poenitentibus a sacerdotibus data confessione indicatur poenitentia univeisilas
nuscetur consentire." It will be seen that there is here no shadow of an
order.

58 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
After 647 the method of penance preached by the Irish
monks, and up to that time ignored or despised by the clergy,
became an approved devotional practice, analogous to the
subsequent wearing of the scapular or the recitation of the
rosary. It was a great advance. But we are still a long
way from the sacrament of penance and the law of the fourth
Lateran council. To arrive at that point, confession had to
make great conquests, and especially it had to undergo a
great transformation.
This transformation was effected in the middle of the
eighth century, and its author was Boniface. A passionate
servant of the papacy, Boniface became the apostle of
Germania, and desired to subject that country to the former
discipline of public penance which was preached by Rome.
He could not, however, destroy the results which had been
attained in the Frankish empire, after more than a century
of ardent propaganda by Celtic monks ; he wished, there
fore, to maintain confession. In order to realize this
programme, he undertook to graft public penance on con
fession, or rather to solder the two together. Let us remark
that the undertaking could not be realized, for public penance,
with the excommunication and reconciliation which constituted
it, was at the antipodes of the Celtic discipline. But Boni
face did what he could. He took the rite of reconciliation
by the imposition of hands and prayer, from public penance,
and affixed it to confession. The following is one of his
ordinances : " We cannot observe in all their fullness the
canonical regulations relative to the reconciliation of sinners,
but yet we should not omit them altogether. The priest
will therefore take care, after receiving the confession of
sinners, to reconcile them with prayer immediately." x This
reconciliation, granted directly after private confession, and
therefore private itself, had scarcely anything except the
name, in common with the former reconciliation, which put an
end to the excommunication which was pronounced before all
1 Statuta Bonifacii, 31, Migne, lxxxix. 823. The Statuta in their present
form are not free from interpolations, but canon 31 is not intelligible unless it
js from the pen of Boniface

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 59
the people and was prolonged for weeks, months, or even
years. Boniface succeeded in creating only a phantom of
public penance. But his intention was plain, since it was
formulated literally in the ordinance. He wished to save
some fragments — however small — of the traditional discipline.
And this reconciliation which he annexed to confession was a
wreck, a shapeless wreck of public penance.
The wreck was saved. The confessor after hearing the
recital of sins and applying the tariff, reconciled the sinner,
who had never been excommunicated, to the Church : confes
sion retained the rite with which Boniface had enriched
it. It was a simply formal and senseless rite which was to
cure the congenital vice with which it was afflicted. It had
the ambition to play a more important part, and one day was
to see its dreams realized. But before describing this new
evolution, let us speak of the progress of confession.
It was slow but steady. In the first half of the eighth
century, Charles Martel had a confessor.1 Yet until about
740 the monks seem to have had a monopoly of confession.
They alone possessed the penitential tariff ; they alone applied
it. There is reason to believe that it was Boniface who put
an end to this situation by ordering the secular clergy to
reconcile sinners after receiving their avowals. Boniface,
who transformed confession, at the same time aided effectively
in spreading it. Alcuin and Theodulf — and here mention
may also be made of Chrodegang, who ordered his clergy to
confess — joined their efforts to those of Boniface. And
Charlemagne, crowning all these efforts, ordered priests who
had the cure of souls, to confess their parishioners.2 One
can see the path traversed since the time when the council
of Chalon had put confession in the class of praiseworthy
but optional practices, without any connection with the
canonical discipline. At the beginning of the ninth century,
confession being inscribed in the Carolingian legislation,
formed a part of the institutions of the Frankish Church ;
1 Annates Petaviani, 726, in Monum. Germ., Script-ores, i. 9.
2 Capitular of Aix-la-Chapclle (789), cap. 81 ; Capitula novem, M. G.
Concilia, 228.

60 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
and the clergy were commanded to count it among the
functions of their ministry. As always happens, the usage
gradually conformed to the law.1 In the eleventh century
frequent confession was not unheard of among the pious
faithful. Guibert de Nogent tells us that his mother con
fessed nearly every day. When the German Church was
detached from that of the Franks, the habit was already
formed, and the daughter followed in the way marked out by
the mother. Otto I. had a confessor whose name is given by
Thietmar, who reports several other instances of confession.
The empress Agnes, mother of Henry IV., confessed every day.
Across the Channel the Anglo-Saxon Church, which favourable
circumstances had freed from the Celtic monks, was unable to
escape the obligation of continuing their work. Confession
was inscribed in the ordinances of iElfric, in the canons of
the Council of Enham (1009); the kings Edgar, Ethelred,
and Canute made a place for it in the civil law.
The most triumphal course is not without its incidents
and even accidents. One need not be surprised that con
fession met with difficulties.2 On various occasions, murmurs
arose and complaints were heard which, however, were directed
not against the system itself, but against certain of its modes.
The first complaint came in the interests of public penance.
In the Carolingian era a return to this venerable discipline
was manifested under the influence of Rome. Several
councils deplored its almost total disappearance, and issued
measures intended to put it in force once more. They were
not hostile to private confession, but they wished it to have
its proper place ; they wished to leave to it private sins, and to
subject public sins to the regime of excommunication and
reconciliation. This programme was realized. Public sinners,
1 Guibert, De Vita, i. 14 ; Thietmar, Chronicon, ii. 4 (955), viii. 14, ix. 10
(Fr. Kurze, Hannover, 1889); Ganones ASlfrici, 31, Migne, cxxxix. 1475;
Berthold, Annates, 1077, Migne, cxlvii. 403 (on the empress Agnes) ; Council
of Enham, canon 20, Mansi, xix. 308 ; Canones sub Edgardo rege, Mansi, xviii.
514 ; Leges ecclesiast. Mthelredi, 1 et 2, Mansi, xix. 319 ; Leges ecclesiast. Canuti
regis, 18, Mansi, xix. 555.
2 Council of Chalon (813), canons 25, 38 ; Council of Reims (813), canon 31 ;
Council of Pavia (850), canon 6.

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 61
those whom to-day the penal code sends to prison or to the
scaffold, were condemned to do public penance. This system
prevailed until the end of the eleventh century. The
indulgence of the crusade which arose at this time set
conditions to the pardon, which sinners accepted with
enthusiasm. Smitten by this unexpected rivalry, public pen
ance died out. In the middle of the thirteenth century it
had disappeared from almost all the churches.
Other complaints were made, and for this reason.1
Certain sinners substituted written for oral confession ;
for example, Robert, bishop of Le Mans (872); Hildebold,
bishop of Soissons (884); Hugues, bishop of Auxerre
(1032). Parallel with written confession in the tenth
century, arose the custom of collective and summary
confession, the first witnesses of which seem to have been the
biographers of the bishops Ulrich and Godehard. The people
were assembled in the church, some one in the name of the
whole assembly recited the Confiteor, and the bishop gave the
absolution. Finally, during the same period, that is to say the
tenth century, as we learn from Thietmar, bishop of Merseburg,
when a priest was wanting, confession was made to a layman.
These practices raised objections to which they yielded,
nevertheless not all at the same time. Confession by writing,
condemned in the eleventh century by the treatise Be vera
et falsa pcenitentia, which was attributed to St. Augustine,
soon disappeared. Collective confession, condemned by the
same treatise, also disappeared, but at a later date. As for
confession to laymen, advocated by the author of Be vera
et falsa pcenitentia, and afterwards by the greatest theologians
of the Middle Ages, although attacked by others, it prolonged
its existence until the sixteenth century.
By the side of these protests, certain problems arose.
1 Morin, De pcenitentia, viii. 25 4, p. 596 (confession of Robert), Anvers,
1682 ; Hincmar, Ep. xxvi. to Hildebold, Migne, cxxvi. 172 ; John xix., Ep.
xvii. to Hugh of Auxerre, Migne, oxli. 1151 ; Vita S. Oudalrici, 4, M. G.
Scriptores, iv. 392 ; Vita Godehardi prior, 28, M. G. Scriptores, xi. 188 ;
Thietmar, Chronicon, viii. 14 j De vera et falsa pcenitentia, 25-31, among the
works of St. Augustine, Migne, xl. 1122-1127 ; P. Lombard, Sent. iv. 17. 4 ;
Gratian, Decretum, pars ii. De pcenitentia, dist. i.

62 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Two should be mentioned here : the problem as to the value
of confession, and the problem as to its obligatory character.
The first of these questions was not raised in the era of the
Celtic monks. They did not pretend to remit sins: they
reserved this privilege for works of penance; and if they
required the enumeration of sins, it was in order properly to
prescribe the remedy. But the reform effected by Boniface
shattered this interpretation of the r&le of the confessor and
of confession. From the ninth century many sinners attri
buted a magical power of purification to the absolution given
by the priest ; others believed that confession itself, quite
apart from absolution, had this mysterious virtue. The
doctors of the twelfth century, in the course of their theo
retical researches, encountered this problem. They discussed
it at length, and they taught that the absolution of the con
fessor confirmed and certified the pardon obtained by contri
tion, but did not produce it. Nevertheless this solution,
dictated by respect for tradition, was too much opposed to the
desires of the people to endure. It will be seen hereafter
how it was revised. As to the second question, the doctors
assumed a less conservative attitude. All, with the exception
of Gratian, declared in favour of obligatory confession.
Furthermore, as has already been said, Peter Lombard
included confession in the list of sacraments, and his opinion
was accepted by the doctors of the thirteenth century.
While confession was advancing and becoming organized,
what was the papacy doing? It was doing nothing.1 It
did not preoccupy itself either with the direction or with the
prevention of the movement. It allowed these practices to
be formed or deformed haphazard. It permitted the elabora
tion of theories. All took place independent of it. More
over, until about the end of the ninth century it did not
'Gregory II., CapUulareproBaioariceoblegatis, Migne, lxxxix. 534, legislates
on public penance in canons 6 and 11. In canon 12 he says that the remedies
of penance are necessary for all, that is to say, that every Christian should
expiate his sins by penance, buthemakes no allusion to confession. John VIII.,
Ep. ccclvi., Migne, cxxvi. 951, speaks of the people who go to church "con-
filentem delicta sua"; Alexander n., Epist. pontificum Bom., Loewenfeld,
p. 43, Lipsiae, 1885.

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 63
recognize penance except in its traditional form : it ignored
the new system originated by the Celtic monks. From the
time of John vin., the popes — at least some of them — recog
nized confession, but did nothing to further it. Until
Alexander ii. and Gregory vii., that is, until the second half of
the eleventh century, Rome did not emerge from its inaction
and decree measures favourable to confession. They were
very modest measures. Alexander II. addressing the soldiers
who were going to fight the Moors, said in substance : " I
remit their sins, by the authority of the apostles Peter and
Paul ; but let them confess, however, and let them accept the
penance which is awarded to them, for otherwise the devil
would accuse them of impenitence." And in the Roman
council (1080), Gregory VII. promulgated a rule of which the
following is an epitome (canon 5) : " When a grave sin has
been committed, penance should not be asked of the first
comer, for only a false penance might be received ; application
should be made to prudent and religious men (prudentibus et
religiosis viris) who will grant a true penance." As may be
seen, Gregory did not even say that confession ought to be
made to a priest ; on the contrary, he authorizes implicitly
confession to a layman ; he only required that the confessor
should know the true penance, that is, the science of the
penitential. Finally, after a silence of more than a century,
the papacy, by the mouth of Innocent hi. in 1215, promul
gated the famous law which obliged all the faithful who had
reached the age of discretion to confess privately at least
once a year their sins to their respective parish priests.
For a long time before this, the local laws in France, in
England, and in Germany prescribed confession to the faithful,
and the theologians declared it necessary. Rome merely
registered decisions in which it had not taken the initiative.
It was also outside of Rome that the last evolution of
confession took place, which attributed a magical virtue of
purification to absolution. It was a victory of the people
over the theologians. The people for a long time had
attributed the power of purifying the soul, to the absolution
given by the priest. The theologians, on the contrary,

64 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
attributed the remission of sins either to acts of penance or
to inner repentance, which was called contrition. There was
thus a conflict, an acute conflict, throughout the twelfth
century, which even in the century following had not been
quelled. Finally, after long resistance the theologians
resigned themselves to capitulation.1 The capitulation
prepared by St. Thomas was signed at the beginning of the
fourteenth century by Duns Scotus and Durand.
When disease made its appearance, Christians at times
asked for a cure, — a miraculous cure by anointings made with
oil either on the entire body, on the principal parts of the
body, or at least on the region where the disease had its seat.
In the fifth century these curative unctions were made in
three different ways.2 Some rubbed themselves with oil
taken from a lamp which had been placed on the tomb of a
martyr or of a saint. Others addressed themselves to some
holy personage still alive, and begged him to make the unction
himself, or at least to bless the oil which they presented to
him, and which they afterwards carried home. Others still,
utilized the chrisma, that is, the oil which the parish priest
employed in the ceremony of baptism. In the first case the
oil derived its curative virtue from the saint or martyr on
whose tomb it had been burned. In Gaul the oil from the
tomb of St. Martin, according to Gregory of Tours, was very
potent ; Gregory also attributed great powers to oil from the
tomb of St. Nicetius. In the second case the miraculous
virtue came from the personage who performed the unction or
who blessed the oil, such were the monks mentioned by
Palladius and Cassian, such was the nun of whom Gregory of
1 St. Thomas, In Sent. iv. 18, quaest. i. 3, sol. 1 ; Duns Scotus, In Sent. iv.
quaest. 4. 2 ; Durand, In Sent. iv. 18, quaest. 2. 2.
2 Gregory of Tours, Hist. Francorum, iv. 36, vi. 6, viii. 15 ; Vitce Patrum,
19 ; Gloria Confessorum, 31 ; Csesarius of Aries, Serm. cclxv. 3, cclxxix. 5
(following sermons of St. Augustine) ; Innocent, Letter to Decentius, 11, Migne,
xx. 560; notice the expression "oleo chrismatis " : Serm. De rectitudine
catholicos conversationis, Migne, xl. 1172 (of the ninth century, erroneously
attributed to Eloi) ; Bede, In Marcum, vi. 13 ; In epist. Jacobi, Migne, xciii.
39 ; Stat. Bonifacii, 4, 29 ; Migne, Ixxxix. 821 ; Hincmar, Ep. xxvi., Migne,
cxxvi. 172 ; Vita Adalhardi, 78-82, Migne, cxx. 1547. Puller, The Anointing
of the Sick in Scripture and Tradition, pp. 64, 172 et seq., London, 1904.

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 65
Tours speaks. In the third case, the oil was consecrated by
the bishop, to be used at baptisms : for this reason it was one
of the constitutive elements of the baptismal rite ; it was
therefore a sacramentum, more exactly a genus sacramenti:
that explains its efficacy. The first two proceedings had the
confidence of the people. The Roman hierarchy, on the
contrary, advocated the third, which increased its prestige ;
perhaps it was inaugurated in opposition to the two others,
and to acquire a new right to popular gratitude. However
that may be, from the beginning of the fifth century the
anointing of the sick was regulated by a constitution of Pope
Innocent I. which is summed up in the following articles :
(1) the oil employed in anointing the sick is the oil of the
chrisma prepared by the bishop (that is to say, baptismal
oil, oleum chrismatis) ; (2) the unctions with this oil are
ordinarily performed by the faithful themselves, but they can
also be performed by priests or by bishops; (3) this oil
being an integral element of the sacrament of baptism, a
genus sacramenti, cannot be given to penitents unless they
have been previously reconciled (and consequently unless they
have received the eucharist which crowns the reconciliation).
Later, at an unknown date, perhaps during the pontificate
of Gelasius, the use of the chrisma for the cure of the sick
was suppressed ; and therapeutic unctions were performed
with the oil brought by the faithful in cans, to the mass on
Holy Thursday, which they caused to be blessed a little before the
recitation of the Pater (it was the moment when the offerings
of bread, milk, etc., were blessed), and which they carried
home with them for their personal use. Such is the
liturgy contained in the Gelasian sacramentarium and in the
Gregorian sacramentarium. It was probably in this form
that Csesarius of Aries endeavoured to introduce the Roman
discipline into Gaul, and that Roman missionaries introduced
it among the Anglo-Saxons. However that may be,
Caesarius said substantially to the faithful the following :
" When you are sick, you resort to diabolical superstitions to
be cured. That is very wrong. This, on the contrary, is
what you ought to do. Come to the church, receive the

66 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
body and blood of Christ ; then with the holy oil rub your
body, or cause it to be rubbed by another. By so doing you
will recover your health, and, besides, your sins will be
remitted." And in his commentary on the Epistle of St.
James, Bede mentions the custom of the faithful who were
sick, of causing themselves to be anointed with holy oil, com
bined with prayers for a cure (sanentur). He adds that, in
conformity to a text of Pope Innocent, the faithful can
perform the unctions themselves provided that oil blessed by
the bishop is employed.
We come now to the Frankish Church. In the seventh
century — as we learn from Gregory of Tours — the Franks
usually sought to cure their diseases with oil taken from the
lamp of some famous sanctuary or governed by a person
with a reputation for sanctity. For the same purpose, they
also employed the chrisma or baptismal oil. In the eighth
century, Boniface decided that unctions designed to cure the
sick should be performed by the priests (Statuta Bonifacii,
2 9) ; that priests should always have in their possession the
oil necessary for the unctions of the sick (id. 4) ; that this oil
should be blessed by the bishop, and that the priests should
ask it of him every year on Holy Thursday (id. 2 9 ; council
of Soissons, canon 4) ; that while the priests should always
have the chrisma in their possession, they should never,
under pain of deposition, give it to the faithful as a medicine
(Statuta, 5). These rules were enacted in the Carolingian
legislation (council of Chalon, 813, canon 48), and were
later incorporated in the canonical collections.1 They mark
an important date in the history of the unction of the sick.
Before the time of Boniface, the sick were authorized to rub
themselves either with the chrisma or with another oil
blessed by the bishop. It was Boniface who put an end to
this ancient discipline, and granted to priests the monopoly
of extreme unction.
This evolution only affected the ritual side of the unction
of the sick. It was followed shortly afterwards by another
far more important evolution which modified the meaning of
1 Reginon, i. 75 ; Burchard, iv. 75.

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 67
unction. It consisted in the following. Until the ninth
century the unction of the sick, whether performed with the
oil of the chrisma or with some other oil blessed by the
faithful themselves or by thaumaturgists or by priests or by
laymen, was a more or less magical procedure and nothing
more. It restored health, or at least assuaged suffering ; its
action stopped there. The texts of the Gelasian and the
Gregorian sacramentaria, not to mention many others, are
decisive. They represent the oil exclusively as a remedy. And
Csesarius of Aries, while insisting on the bodily cure, mentions
also the remission of sins, in connection with what he had
just said of the eucharist, which at that time was thought to
purify the soul. Just before the ninth century, Theodulf of
Orleans found nothing to point to in the unction of the sick
except its healing power. But a half century later this
quality, without disappearing, passed into the background,
and gave the principal place to the remission of sins. The
oil with which the sick are rubbed effaces their faults.
Thus declared the council of Pavia (850, canon 8), Hincmar
in his letter to Hildebold of Soissons, and some years
previously the monks who witnessed the last moments of the
abbot Adalhard.
How was the passage from one to the other of these
conceptions effected ? An examination of the Frankish
liturgy permits us to answer that question.1 While the
Roman Church ordered the sick to take the communion
before being anointed, the Frankish Churches were generally
agreed to reverse the order of the two eeremonies and to
place the communion last (see the sacramentaria published
by Martene, and the observations of Martene himself. The
sacramentarium of Prudentius of Troyes was not an excep
tion ; it also put extreme unction before the communion.
It was only when extreme unction was not to be adminis
tered that it commanded the sick to communicate directly
1 Martfene, De ritibus ad sacramentum exlremce unctionis spectantibus,
especially art. ii. 3, iii. 8. Ives of Chartres, Ep. cclv., Migne, clxii. 260 :
"Unctio enim infirmorum est publicae poenitentiae sacramentum quam non esse
repetendam . . . testatur Augustinus " ; Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis,
ii. pars xv.

68 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
after the reconciliation). The order of the rites was as
follows : imposition of penance, reconciliation, unction, com
munion. This order reacted on doctrine. Little by little it
became the custom to consider the unction of the sick as an
annex or even as a supplement of penance, not only of
private but also of public penance which was then in force.
It was called " the oil of reconciliation," " the sacrament of
public penance." Already Theodulf and Amalaire had taken
some steps in this path, but had not gone to extremes ; for
they attributed only a healing virtue to the anointing of the
sick. Others were bolder, and to the therapeutic effect they
added a spiritual effect, making the oil participate in the
effects produced by reconciliation. The sacramentaria were
arranged in conformity to these principles, and formulas like
the following were introduced : " Unguo oculos tuos de oleo
sanctificato ut quidquid . . . deliquisti per hujus olei
unctionem expietur." There was still another result. Up to
this time the anointing of the sick was often repeated — the
case of a bishop who was ill is cited, who was anointed seven
days in succession. But when it became the sacrament of
public penance, it shared the fate of public penance. This,
however, was not to be repeated : it could be received but
once. The unction of the sick could be received but once
it became extreme unction.
The fusion of unction of the sick with the rite of public
penance had then, as has just been seen, two important
consequences. Let us now remark that this fusion lasted
only temporarily. Realized in the ninth century it vanished
in the twelfth. The beginning of the rupture came not on
the side of extreme unction, but on that of public penance.
It was the latter which disappeared. We know how.
Receiving its death-blow at the end of the eleventh century,
from the first crusade, it gradually disappeared totally, leaving
its heritage to confession and to private penance. About the
middle of the twelfth century private penance was flourish
ing, but the former public penance had ceased to exist. It
was no longer administered to public sinners in a state of
good health, and consequently no one thought of administer-

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 69
ing it to the dying. And extreme unction, which continued
to prevail, found itself isolated from the rite in the shadow of
which it had acquired the dignity of a sacrament.
The first consequence of this isolation was that the
principle that it was not to be repeated was lost sight of.
Being imposed by public penance, it had no reason for
surviving it ; and it did not survive it. Hugh of St. Victor
and Peter Lombard rebelled against it, and maintained that
the oil of the sick could be received several times by the
same person. The second consequence was the transforma
tion of extreme unction into an independent sacrament, — a
somewhat illogical consequence, for the unction of the sick
should, as a matter of regularity, have lost the privilege
which was derived from its union with public penance. But
Hugh of St. Victor, and Peter Lombard following him, took
the rights acquired exclusively into account. They retained
for extreme unction its title to be a sacrament, which it had
possessed for three centuries ; and as they could no longer
identify it with public penance, they gave it an existence of
its own, and made it a sacrament distinct from all the others
Their solution was adopted by the doctors of the thirteenth
century, who considered it, and caused it to be considered, as
a dogma. It was necessary to assign a use to this new sacrament.
It was here that difficulties and unavoidable embarrassments
arose, though not for Hugh of St. Victor and Peter Lombard.
They found it quite simple to preserve for extreme unction
the function which it had performed since the ninth century,
and they affirmed that the oil of the sick at the same time
that it relieved the body, also served for the remission of
sins. They forgot the changes which had been made.
Formerly extreme unction remitted sins because it was in
corporated in public penance. But the latter disappeared,
and its inheritance had passed to confession and private
penance. Extreme unction consequently could not purify
the conscience ; by keeping it in its former place, Hugh of St.
Victor and Peter Lombard had been victims of a gross inad
vertence. The doctors of the thirteenth century perceived

70 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
this inadvertence and avoided it. They recognized the fact
that extreme unction, at least as a rule, did not remit grave
sins. But what did it do ? It was remarked with alarm,
that all the uses were already exhausted. Was extreme
unction, then, a useless sacrament ? In order to escape this
disastrous consequence, the theologians resorted to meaning
less formulas. It was admitted that extreme unction had
a spiritual effect and an effect on the body ; but the spiritual
effect was never clearly explained.
Lastly, let us remark that the number of unctions varied
according to the times. It was not definitely fixed until
after the thirteenth century. It was, moreover, after the
thirteenth century that the indicative formula (Unguo te) was
supplanted by the deprecative formula (Indulgeat tibi Bominus).
Religious services were assured by a corporation desig
nated as the Clergy.1 In the fifth century the clergy in
each church were organized in the form of a hierarchy of
several degrees. Each degree was called an order. At the
head was the bishop ; then came priests, deacons, deacon
esses ; lastly, the inferior ministers, subdeacons, acolytes,
readers, exorcists, porters, cantors. Each order had deter
minate functions. The right or power to perform these
functions was conferred by a rite called ordination or con
secration ; and the right to receive this ordination or conse
cration was derived from election. Election and consecration
were thus the two gates which gave admission into the
clergy. Election was the first gate. The story of the episcopal
elections will be told hereafter, and it will be seen that
1 Martene, De rit. ad. sacr. ordinis sped. ; Duchesne, chap. x. ; Imbart
de la Tour, Les paroisses rurales du iv1 au xi' siicle, pp. 27, 172, 184, 197,
243, 250 ; Nicholas, Ep. lxvi., Migne, cxix. 884 ; Ives de Chartres, Serm. ii.,
Migne, clxi. 519 ; Menard, In S. Gregorii librum Sacramentorum notm, Migne,
lxxviii. 488 ; Mabillon, In ordinem romanum commentarius prcevius, Migne,
lxxviii. 912, 919 (art. 16, 18) ; Pelagius, Letter to John the Patrician, Migne,
lxix. 411, 412 ; Hergenroether, Photius, ii. livre v. chap. 8 ; Raban Maur,
De inst. cler. i. 4, reckons the episcopate as an order; J. Loth, Un Ancien
Usage de I'Eglise Celtique, in Revue celtigue, xv. 92 ; St. Jerome, In Ezechiel,
xliv. 17 (tonsure of the priests of Isis).

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 71
bishops were elected according to the period and the country,
sometimes by the people, sometimes by the prince, sometimes
by a corporation, sometimes by the papacy. Here we are
to speak only of the recruitment of the other orders. This
recruitment in the fifth century was in the hands of the
bishop. Nevertheless, he was restricted in so far as the
deacons and priests were concerned. The bishop chose his
candidates for the diaconate and for the priesthood ; but he
presented them to the people, who signified their approval
either by silence (the Roman usage) or by the shout, Bignus
est (the Gallican usage). The appearance of the rural clergy
created a new discipline. The rural church usually belonged
to some rich and powerful personage who had built it at his
own expense, and on his own property. He had proprietary
rights, and these he exercised. He himself chose a man,
sent him to the bishop, who ordained him ; then he put him
at the head of his church with the mission to say mass and
administer the sacraments. One of the first acts of this kind
was that of Clovis the Frankish king, who ordered the bishop
of Reims to consecrate Claudius. This system was after
wards called the "patronate." Most of the priests of the
rural churches were under the patronate. They were
ordained by the bishops, but were chosen, appointed, and in
vested by the count or noble of the region. The patronate
gave rise to long disputes of an administrative and financial
kind ; but the principle, that is, the nomination of the parish
priests by powerful nobles, was without difficulty accepted
throughout the early Middle Ages. The bishops were re
signed to the situation, although humiliated by it. The most
that they did was here and there to claim the right to refuse
unworthy men. It was only from the time of Alexander m.
(1159-1181) that the Church made laws concerning the
patronate. This legislation was restrictive; it reduced the
patronate to a simple right of presentation to the bishop, who
preserved his freedom. But in several countries it remained
a dead latter.
After election came ordination. This consisted in
liturgical rites which were not uniform until the twelfth

72 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
century. During the early Middle Ages there were two
principal liturgies : the Roman and the Gallican, to which the
Mozarabian liturgy was closely related. In the Gallican
liturgy, each of the inferior orders was conferred by a rite in
which the candidate received the insignia of his dignity. At
Rome, on the contrary, promotion to orders was performed by
a simple benediction deprived of any solemnity, or even with
out a benediction. For the superior orders the differences
were quite as marked. At Rome the ordination of bishops,
priests, and deacons comprised only certain prayers to which
was added, in the case of the deacons, the laying on of hands.
The Gallican liturgy performed other rites, notably that of
unction. Then about the tenth century there appeared in
the Frankish Church what was called the " delivery of the
instruments." This rite, which is believed to be of English
origin, consisted in committing to the deacon the book of the
Gospels, and to the priest a chalice with the paten. It
widened the breach which separated Rome from other
Churches ; it made agreement more difficult than ever. Yet
there was agreement in the end, although it came about in
an unexpected manner. Rome adopted the Frankish liturgy
of ordination by amalgamating it with its own ; it capitulated.
This capitulation was accomplished in the twelfth century.
And the schoolmen of the thirteenth century, without ex
pressing the least doubt, declared that the " delivery of the
instruments " was the essential rite of ordination.
As a rule, superior orders were not reached without pass
ing through the inferior orders. Nevertheless this principle
had exceptions. The most serious of all concerned the
episcopate. At Rome and in the rest of Italy, notably at
Naples and Ravenna, when a bishop was to be elected the
choice often fell upon a deacon. Then how did they pro
ceed ? Was the deacon required to pass through the
presbyterate ? No, episcopal consecration was conferred
upon him. The Benedictines Mabillon and Martene recog
nize loyally that the passages in the Liber Pontificalis are
decisive, and that several popes were raised from the diacon
ate to the episcopate without passing through the presbyterate ;

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 73
and Mabillon makes the conjecture that it was Photius, one
of whose grievances against Rome bore precisely on this
point, who obliged Rome to change its practice. It is certain
that Nicholas I. himself (858) did not receive ordination as
a presbyter. To sum up, until about 860, one passed from
the diaconate to the episcopate without any intermediate
step, and one was raised from the subdiaconate to the
presbyterate without passing through the diaconate. Witness
is born to this second custom, less remarked by historians, in
the Liber Pontificalis, in its notices of Leo m., Pascal I.,
Gregory iv., Sergius n., Leo iv., Benedict m., Adrian n., and
Stephen v. And both these customs had as their common
cause the importance which the diaconate had acquired. At
Rome and in Italy the deacons had a preponderating situa
tion owing to their administrative functions. They eclipsed
the priests. A deacon could legitimately pretend to the
episcopate, but for him the presbyterate would have been a
degradation. It followed from this that the presbyterial
body was recruited from the subdeacons.
The benefice of ordination was not inamissible. It was
lost when one left the Church, and no longer belonged to it.
Outside the Church the bishop could not consecrate, the
priest could not say' mass. But the Church was left on account
of heresy or schism. And to fall into heresy or into schism,
it was sufficient to transgress the ecclesiastical laws. There
fore a man ceased to be a bishop or a priest the day when he
transgressed the rules laid down by the Church. By virtue
of the same principle, any ordination received outside the
Church, that is to say, received from a bishop separated from
the Church, was null. Such were the principles, — principles
which went back to the time of St. Cyprian, and which are
precisely stated in a letter of Pope Pelagius. They were
enforced with fierce energy during the early Middle Ages.
Many were the bishops and priests whose ordination was
annulled because it had been performed by schismatic bishops,
or simply because it did not conform on all points to the
disciplinary regulation. When clemency was desired, the
degraded bishops or priests were authorized to return to the

74 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Church after having previously been reordained. About
670, Theodore of Canterbury subjected to reordination all
the priests consecrated by the bishops of Britain only because
these bishops were schismatic. He inflicted the same fate
on Ceadda, bishop of York, whom he transferred to the
bishopric of Lichfield, after having had him ordained. The
Roman council of 769 annulled all the ordinations made by
the anti-Pope Constantine, who had received episcopal ordina
tion according to the traditional rites, but this was subsequent
to an irregular election. The Roman council of 897 (the
" council of the cadaver "), presided over by Pope Stephen vi.,
annulled the ordinations made by Pope Formosus, only
because Formosus was already bishop when he was elected
to the pontifical see. These same orders, it is true, were
declared valid by Popes Theodorus n. and John IX. ; but
they were again annulled by Pope Sergius in., who confirmed
the sentence of the council of 897. In the eleventh century,
Popes Leo ix. and Urban n. reordained priests and deacons
who had received a first ordination from simoniacal bishops.
Peter Lombard did not yet know what to think of ordination
performed by heretical, schismatical, or simoniacal bishops.
It was not until the middle of the thirteenth century that
the doctrine triumphed, according to which ordination owes
its efficacy exclusively to the performance of certain rites
which are called essential.
Election and ordination were crowned with the exercise
of functions. It is impossible here to pass in review the
functions of all the orders. We may limit ourselves to some
words concerning the episcopate, in relation to the presbyter
ate, concerning the deaconesses, and concerning the tonsure.
Priests and bishops said mass, baptized, and preached; but
bishops had a monopoly of certain liturgical functions,
notably confirmation and ordination. They alone confirmed ;
they alone conferred the sacrament of orders. These two
prerogatives — not to mention several others of less import
ance — certainly gave the episcopate a rank, a grade, and
consequently an "order" superior to the presbyterate.
Therefore one is not a little surprised to find the scholastic

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 75
theologians confusing the presbyterate and the episcopate,
as if they formed one and the same order. One is tempted
to believe that they were influenced by passages in which
St. Jerome affirms the equality of priests and bishops, —
passages which the doctors of the early Middle Ages knew,
and cited willingly. But it seems that this explanation
should be rejected. It was probably a desire not to make
the orders more than seven — that is to say, the superstition
about the number seven — which led theologians to erase the
episcopate from the list of orders.
Deaconesses aided women to dress and to undress before
and after baptismal immersion ; they helped them to leave
the font, they gave them the unction ; in a word, in the
baptism of women, they took the place of deacons. It was the
principal function confided to them in the Roman Church.
But elsewhere, notably in the churches of Britain, they were
authorized to distribute the eucharist ; they approached the
altar. Several Merovingian councils found themselves
obliged to protest against this abuse, which made its way
into Gaul at the end of the fourth century, and which seems
to have been slow in disappearing. The war made on this
abuse was fatal to the order itself, which was discredited and
which succumbed. After the seventh century the deaconesses
to be met with, were nuns or the wives of deacons; they
were no longer the deaconesses who formed part of the
clergy. The tonsure is of pagan origin. The priests of Isis and
of Serapis shaved the head. It was from them that the
Christian clergy borrowed the tonsure ; or rather they
borrowed it from the monks. About the end of the fourth
century the latter began to imitate the priests of Isis. At
the beginning of the sixth century the tradition was created :
the tonsure formed an integral part of the monastic state.
It was then that it was adopted by the clergy. At the end
of the sixth century the work of causing its adoption was
complete ; every one of the clergy was obliged to have the
tonsure. Consequently it was through the monks that the

76 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
tonsure passed from the priests of Isis to the Christian
priests. Marriages were blessed by the clergy.1 The bride and
bridegroom went to church, presented themselves before the
priest, who prayed over them, and gave them the benediction.
This very ancient custom was not yet obligatory in the sixth
century, but it became so in the Carolingian period. After
that, to contract a marriage without the intervention and
benediction of the priest, was a sin which must be expiated
by penance. The prayers which the liturgy put into the
mouth of the priest asked God to cause His grace to descend
upon the bridal pair. From this, to conclude that marriage
was a sacrament constituted by the sacerdotal benediction,
was but a step. And this step was taken. Ives of Chartres
considered the religious ceremony of marriage as a sacrament
which produced a consecration. But from another point of
view the patristic texts agreed in saying that marriage is
essentially a contract and nothing else. There was therefore
an antinomy betweeen the Carolingian liturgy and the
Fathers. How should it be solved ? Hugh of St. Victor
found an ingenious solution. Instead of sacrificing the
Fathers to the liturgy or the liturgy to the Fathers, he
combined in one synthesis the liturgy with the Fathers. He
set forth marriage as a sacrament-contract, that is to say,
a sacrament constituted by the contract and not by the
blessing of the priest. This explanation, through the medium
of Peter Lombard, passed into scholasticism.
The doctors of the Latin Church taught the absolute
indissolubility of marriage. But the civil legislation, that
of Rome and that of the barbarians, authorized divorce in
certain determinate cases. Public opinion for several
centuries was ranged on the side of the legislation ; and the
clergy themselves at times sacrificed the teaching of the
1 Capitul. (802) 35 ; Nicolas, Lettre aux Bulgares, 4, Migne, cxix. 980 ;
Burchard, xix. 45 (Schmitz, Die Bussbilcher, ii. 419) ; Ives de Chartres, Ep.
xiv., cxxiii. ; Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis, ii. pars xi. 5 ; Gregory, ii.
Ep. xiv. 2, Migne, lxxxix. 525.

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 77
doctors to the popular will. The council of Vannes (465,
canon 2), the councils of Verberie (756, canon 9) and
Compiegne (757, canons 11, 19), denied the indissolubility
of the conjugal bond. The same is true of Theodore of
Canterbury and of the penitentials of Irish origin. And
Pope Gregory n. himself authorized the husband to remarry
if his wife were sickly. From the Carolingian epoch legis
lation and the councils maintained the indissolubility of
marriage. The objects of the principal devotions were relics, images,
indulgences, the recitation of daily prayers, and the chaplet.1
The devotion of relics was superior in age to the others, it
surpassed them also, at least generally, by its intensity. For
several centuries it stood alone, and with the exception of
the devotion of indulgences, the others, when they originated,
were never serious rivals of it. Relics were of two kinds;
some were authentic, others were false, and were circulated
by impostors. There were not many of the latter kind in
the sixth century; let us cite as examples, however, the
pieces of the true cross, the filings of the chains of St. Peter,
and various objects belonging to St. John Baptist. But
gradually they made an advance which grew always greater.
The most improbable and most indecent relics invaded the
churches, and the faithful, with a credulity without limits,
came to venerate them. Most of the impostors who
manufactured these false relics are unknown ; some of them,
however, are known; for example, Teramano, who in 1472
invented the " Santa Casa," and said that the house in
Nazareth where the mystery of the Incarnation was
accomplished, had been transported by the angels (1291-
1295) into Italy. This gross falsehood had a complete
success. 1 A. Luchaire, "Leeulte des reliques," in Bevuede Paris, Juillet, p. 189,1900;
P. Saintyves, Les saints successeurs des dieux, p. 38, Paris, 1907; Guibert de
Nogent, De pignoribus sanctorum, iii., Migne, elvi. 649; Innocent nr., De
sacrificio misses, iv. 30 ; H. Schmitz, Die Bussbucher, i. 144 (redemptions) ;
Theodulf, Capitula, 23, 29, Migne, cv. 198, 200 ; Bede, Ep. ii., Migne, xciv.
659 ; Diet, d'archeol. chritienne, iii. 399 (chapelet).

78 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
The devotion of images made its appearance in the Latin
Church much later than the devotion of relics. In the
ninth century the Frankish Church employed images only
for the instruction of the faithful. It will be seen hereafter
(Chapter XII.) what conflicts it had to wage with Rome,
which in this respect had made evolutions. Nevertheless, in
the end Rome made its theology prevail. But the worship of
images never prospered in the Occident. It was stifled by
the devotion of relics which has just been referred to, and by
the devotion of indulgences to which reference is to be
made now.
Indulgences were of two kinds : plenary and partial.
The partial indulgence was the remission of a more or less
considerable number of penances inflicted by the confessor on
sinners, in conformity to the penitential tariffs. It therefore
supposed a confession previously made, and the application
of the penitential tariff. It made its appearance in England
in the eighth century under the name of " redemption "
(the ransom of penalties). It was practised in the Frankish
Church in the ninth century, but was condemned by the
episcopate. For the Carolingian councils, which attacked
certain penitentials, had especially in view the " redemptions."
On the whole it was only from the tenth century that the partial
indulgence was granted by the bishops. It was only from
this era that it had a legitimate existence, and taking into
account the explanations which have just been given, it can
be said that its origin belongs to the tenth century.
The plenary indulgence was the remission of sin itself
granted on the authority of St. Peter. It was above the law
of confession, above the penitentials ; it was derived from
St. Peter, the doorkeeper of heaven. From the seventh to
the ninth century St. Peter himself granted this benefit.
From the tenth century he charged his vicar the Pope with
the granting of it. At first the latter acquitted himself
timidly of this mission ; but he soon grew bolder, and in the
eleventh century he remitted sins with an ease and a gener
osity which left nothing to be desired.

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 79
As has been seen, the plenary and the partial indulgence
had neither the same origin nor the same nature. They had
a common destiny. Both were commercially exploited by
the papacy; they became industrial enterprises, and their
history appertains to the chapter on the pontifical finances
where we shall meet with it again. Let us confine ourselves
here to mentioning a misadventure which happened to both.
The penitential tariffs which were in force in the tenth
century gradually fell into desuetude ; they ended by being even
totally forgotten, and the confessors imposed penances upon
sinners which had nothing in common with the former ones.
In this transformation the partial indulgence lost its object.
Logically it ought to have disappeared. As a matter of fact,
it was more powerful than ever. The popes continued to
grant to the faithful, remission of the penances which had
been imposed upon them by no one. The machine turned in
a vacuum and accomplished nothing — except to gain money.
It was this that the papacy held on to.
While the partial indulgence lost every species of mean
ing, the plenary did not escape accidents. A day came when
the popes, having for a long time been ignorant of confession,
became acquainted with it, accepted it, and while remitting
sins on the authority of St. Peter, did not grant this benefit
except to those who had previously confessed. The in
dulgence then ran a great risk. Nevertheless it escaped,
thanks to this circumstance, that confession was commonly
regarded as a simple formality without intrinsic virtue. The
indulgence even when preceded by confession thus preserved
its former efficacy. But the schoolmen of the thirteenth
century taught a new doctrine, according to which indulgence,
did not remit the sin, but only the spiritual penalties which
God imposed after the sin had been pardoned. This time
the indulgence was profoundly injured. In place of the
remission of sins there was left only deteriorated merchandise.
The consumption did not on that account diminish. More
over, the faithful were generally ignorant of the scholastic
innovation. The doctors often exhorted the faithful to pray, but they

80 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
confined themselves to general recommendations, without
precision. Theodulf of Orleans was the first to decree
regulations on the subject of prayer. He enjoined upon his
priests to oblige their parishioners to recite every day, morning
and evening, either the Creed or the Lord's Prayer or some
other prayer, especially one of the following: "Thou who
hast created me, have mercy upon me " ; " My God, be
merciful to me a sinner." After having addressed God, the
Christian should also address the saints and ask their inter
cession. Nevertheless, it should be remarked that Theodulf's
attempt at regulation was for a long time isolated. The
Carolingian bishops confined themselves to asking their priests
to teach the faithful the Creed and the Lord's Prayer.
It was intended that every Christian should know both by
heart. This was the programme of Bede, — a programme
formulated in the famous letter to the archbishop Egbert;
but their daily recital was not required. It is not until the
thirteenth century that any regulation analogous to that of
Theodulf is to be met with. It emanated from the bishop of
Paris, Eudes de Sully. Eudes ordered his priests to accustom
the people to pray ; but to the Pater and the Credo he added
the Ave Maria. The following is the text of his ordinance :
Exhortentur populum semper presbyteri ad dicendam orationem
dominicam et Credo in Beum et salutationem beatce Virginis.
Several councils of the thirteenth century echoed the orders
of Eudes de Sully. Gradually the Ave Maria took its place
beside the Credo and the Pater ; it was one of the prayers
which every good Christian was bound to recite every day.
In the fifteenth century the Ten Commandments were
added to it.
The Ave Maria at that time was not so extensive as it is
to-day. It comprised only the salutations of the Angel
Gabriel and of Elisabeth as they are found in the Gospel of
St. Luke (i. 28, 42). Ave Maria gratia plena, Bominus
tecum, benedwta tu in mulieribus et benedictus fructus ventris
tui. This form had existed in the Roman liturgy since the
seventh century (offertory of the mass for the fourth
Sunday in Advent) ; but St. Ildefonse was the first to make

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: SACRAMENTS AND DEVOTIONS 81
use of it as a prayer. And his example was not contagious.
It was only in the middle of the eleventh century that the
bishop Udefonse began to have some few imitators. In the
middle of the twelfth century the recitation of the Ave Maria
was as yet but little practised. It was in the fourteenth
century that it became popular. It was also at this time
that the Ave Maria was lengthened. It was at first
lengthened by placing the word " Jesus " at the end of the
salutation (ventris tui Jesus). This addition was adopted
about the end of the fourteenth century throughout almost
the entire Church. It was afterwards lengthened by adding
the following petition : Sancta Maria, mater Bei ora pro nobis
peccatoribus nunc et in hora mortis nostrce. But this change
required a great deal of time. In the middle of the fifteenth
century the prayer Sancta Maria had only been outlined.
In the sixteenth century it was finished, but had spread very
little. It was not until the seventeenth century that it
found admission throughout the Church.
The chaplet — an implement used in counting the number
of prayers — had its origin when a need for it was felt. This
happened at the end of the tenth century. At this time
there spread among the monks, especially among those who
were not priests, the practice of reciting for the dead either
the one hundred and fifty psalms of the Psalter, or fifty or
one hundred psalms representing one-third or two-thirds of
the collection. The monks who were priests said mass.
The illiterate monks substituted for the recitation of the
psalms, of which they were incapable, the recitation of one
hundred and fifty, one hundred, or fifty Pater nosters. In
order to count these prayers the idea occurred to some of
them of making use of beads strung upon a cord. This
practice was useful and was not troublesome; it spread
rapidly among the illiterate monks, and even among the laity.
Thus was originated the chaplet. It served to count the
Paters : whence its name Pater noster which it bore through
out the Middle Ages, and which it has preserved even to our
own day.
About the middle of the twelfth century the Ave Maria,
6

82 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
the history of which has just been traced, began to rival the
Pater. For the one hundred and fifty, one hundred, or fifty
Paters, some pious persons substituted a corresponding
number of Ave Maria ; and the chaplet which hitherto had
been used to count the Pater was then employed for counting
the Ave. It became the "Psalter of Our Lady." Let us
remark, however, that during the twelfth, thirteenth, and
fourteenth centuries this use of it was rare. But in the
fifteenth century the Dominican Breton Alain de la Roche
made on behalf of the one hundred and fifty Ave an active
propaganda, which he completed by the institution of a
confraternity. Moreover, he caused the faithful to believe
that St. Dominic, the founder of the Dominican order in the
thirteenth century, had been charged by the Holy Virgin
herself to propagate the recitation of one hundred and fifty
Ave Maria. Thanks to this pious falsehood, the devotion of
the chaplet in its new form had an always progressive
extension.

CHAPTER III
History of the Monastic Life
Mabillon, Annales ordinis Sancti Benedicti, 6 vols., Paris, 1703-1739.
Montalembert, The Monks of the West, Edinburgh, 1861-1879.
A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, torn. i. — iii., 4th edition,
Leipzig, 1904. H. Helyot, Histoire des ordres monastiques religieux
et militaires et des Congregations seculikres, 8 vols., Paris, 1792. Dugdale,
Monasticum Anglicanorum, 6 vols., London, 1817-1830. M. Heim-
bucher, Die Orden und Gongregationem der katholischen Kirche, 2 vols.,
Paderborn, 1896. BealencyclopUdie fur protestantische Theologie und
Kirche, 3 Auflage, 22 Bande, Leipzig, 1896-1909.
During the sixth century the monastic life spread to an
unforeseen extent. Four centuries later it acquired a power
which it had never had before, and yet which was to be
surpassed under Innocent in. Thus during the Middle Ages
monasticism became more important. The history of its
progress proceeds always onward and upward, yet its advance
was not uninterrupted. It is a history of advance followed
by impediments and even by complete arrests. It was not a
river flowing on to the ocean : it was a tide which rushed
impetuously on, soon to lose the ground which it had gained ;
or rather it was the blooming of a tree which disappeared and
then reappeared more abundantly, though only momentarily.
From time to time there appeared among the people, men
who were inspired, prophets who had communed with God,
or who had at least received His messages. By word or by
act they exhorted their brethren to throw off the yoke of
earthly vulgarity, to work for heaven and for the glory of
Christ. Moved by the accents which rang in their ears, men
separated themselves from the embrace of their passions,
from their interests, from their most imperious needs, and
83

84 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
resolutely pursued the way leading to salvation. Such was
the triumph of monasticism. Yet soon, wearied with the effort
which they had made, they returned upon themselves and
relinquished their dream. That was its disaster. During all
the Middle Ages the monastic state passed through alternating
prosperity and decadence. Degenerate monks took the place
of enthusiastic monks. Ruin followed advance.
At the end of the fifth century 1 the monastic life needed
a legislator to substitute fixed rules for the caprice of
personal initiative. In the century which followed the fall
of the Roman empire, three men arose to remedy this defect,
and performed their task with an ardour which was rewarded
by unequal success. These were Caesarius of Aries, Benedict
of Nursia, and Columban.
OESARIUS OF ARLES AND COLUMBAN*
Csesarius came first. Born at Chalon on the SaSne, he
entered at an early age the monastery of Lerins, left it some
years later, and settled at Aries (about A.D. 496), where
shortly afterwards he occupied the episcopal see (503).
After becoming bishop, Csesarius did not forget his former
companions in the ascetic life. He took pains to be of use
to them, to impart to them constancy, stability, regularity,
and especially that dignity of life of which they stood so
much in need. To this end he drew up two rules, one
addressed to the monks, comprising 26 chapters, the other
longer, for the nuns. These regulations were introduced
into several monasteries in the Rhone region, and even
beyond it. The rules for women especially, were adopted by
St. Radegonde in her monastery of St. Croix, Poitiers (about
565); later, she entered the monastery of Jussamoutiers s
1 On the origins of the monastio life in the West, see E. H. Babut, " Saint
Martin de Tours," in the Bevue d'histoire et de litt&rature religieuse, 1911, ii. 538.
8 A. Malnory, Saint Ctsaire eveque d' Aries, Paris, 1894 ; Arnold, Caesarius
von Arelate und die gallische Kirche seiner Zeit, Leipzig, 1894 ; E. Martin,
Saint Columban, Paris, 1905 ; Ch. Wyatt Bispham, Columban, Saint, Monk,
and Missionary, New York, 1903.
» Malnory, 252, 257, 276 ; Hauck, i. 258.

HISTORY OF THE MONASTIC LIFE 85
(about 650). For nearly a century the laws of Csesarius
prevailed in the monastic life of Gaul and Lombardy. But
at the end of the sixth century a monk came from an
island lost in the ocean, landed among the Franks, and
displayed his fiery activity in Gaul, in Allemania, and in
northern Italy. Csesarius gradually gave place to his formid
able rival. He was eclipsed by Columban.
Columban x was born in Ireland about 540, in what is now
the province of Leinster. In his youth he was assailed by
carnal temptations, and not knowing how to escape this evil,
he sought the advice of a recluse, who said to him : " Do
you believe you can resist the seductions of women so long
as you listen willingly to their voice ? Have you forgotten
Adam conquered by Eve, Samson reduced by Delilah, David
by the beauty of Bathsheba, Solomon, notwithstanding all his
wisdom, led astray by the love of women. . . . Young man,
you must take flight if you would avoid a fall." Alarmed at
this sombre picture of human corruption, Columban decided
to retire from the world. He left his father's house and
sought refuge in the monastery of Inis, then at Bangor,
where the monk Comgal had just founded an abbey. There,
guarded by fasting and prayer, he engaged in a merciless
conflict with the flesh; and made an endeavour to quench
within his body the fire of concupiscence. But soon the
solitude of Bangor did not satisfy him. He dreamed of
inciting men to practise self-denial, of teaching them to
discipline their bodies, and of being himself the apostle of
repentance. He took his departure with twelve companions,
and after a stay in England, arrived among the Franks. This
band of missionaries, who fed on the bark of trees, roots, and
wild berries, provoked at first surprise, then veneration.
Learning that these men of God had come into his kingdom,
Gontran, king of Burgundy, put them in possession of the old
Roman castle of Annegray (Haute-Sa6ne) : sometime after
wards, he gave them Luxeuil, then Fontaine, in the same
department. The example set by these foreigners was
1 Jonas, Vita Columbani, i. 4, Migne, Ixxxvii. 1011, or better, Mbnum.
Germ., Scriptores rerum merov. iv. 108 ; Hauck, i. 261.

86 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
contagious. Columban witnessed the arrival of several
hundreds of young men, desirous of being in the school of
such a master, and of following in his footsteps the path to
heaven. Eager to gather these recruits, Annegray and
Luxeuil took them in (590).
For twenty years Columban governed his three mon
asteries, especially Luxeuil, which speedily eclipsed the two
others. In 620, being driven into exile by the hatred of
Thierry n., he was brought as a prisoner to Nantes. From
there he retraced his steps, and under the protection of
Theodebert went to evangelize Allemania, until the death of
his protector obliged him to cross the Alps and settle at
Bobbio (612). He died shortly afterwards (615); and then
an abundant harvest rewarded the efforts of this indefatigable
labourer.1 Luxeuil became the centre of attention. From
every direction people came to this sanctuary to ask what
virtue it possessed, what it was which it alone could give —
holiness and knowledge. The seventh century had its
Lerins, a Lerins which replaced and surpassed the extinct
work of Honoratus. Many young men who put themselves
under the discipline of the great patriarch entered his family
to go no more out ; and soon from this hive, which was far
too small, came forth three swarms of monks who founded
the monasteries of Grandval, of Pfermund, and of St. Ursanne
in the diocese of Bale. Others sought entrance at Luxeuil
only to be initiated into the monastic spirit. When their
apprenticeship was finished, they departed and founded else
where copies of the model which they had admired in the
Vosges. Such were the establishments of Romaric, Frodo-
bert, Berchaire, Ebertramme, Theudofred, Valery, Bertin, which
in turn founded the monasteries of Remiremont (Habend),
Montier-la-Celle, Hautevilliers, Montidrender, St. Quentin,
Corbie, St. Valery (Leuconaiis), St. Omer (Sithiu). Others
went out from Luxeuil to become bishops ; among them were
Audomar, bishop of Therouania , Leudin-Bodon, bishop of Toul ;
Chagnoald, bishop of Laon ; Hermenfroy, bishop of Verdun ;
¦Hroek^i. 288-307 ; G. Bonet-Maury, " Saint Colomban etla fondationdes
WirHndais en Brie," in Bev. historique, lxxxiii. 277-299, 1903.

¦^aoriagte^i

HISTORY OF THE MONASTIC LIFE 87
Achaire, bishop of Vermandois ; Regnacaire, bishop of Bale ;
Mommolin, bishop of Noyon ; Douatus, bishop of Besancon.
Several of these bishops themselves founded monasteries :
Donatus, for example, built St. Paul at Besancon ; Audomar
called Bertin to Sithiu, and furnished lands for his abbey.
During the seventh century, Luxeuil was a nursery of bishops
and monks.
But Columban did not confine his activity to Luxeuil.
His influence reached regions which his monks had never yet
penetrated. He had admirers in the world who made a point
of imitating him. He counted especially on Autharius, who had
shown him hospitality on his return from Nantes. Autharius
had three sons, Adon, Radon, and Dadon. All three, when
they reached the age of manhood, consecrated monasteries.
Adon founded Jouarre, his brother Radon built Rueil, and
Dadon founded Rebais, from which place came Philibert, who
was to establish Jumieges, Noirmoutier, MonteVilliers, and
restore Quincy. But the work of Columban evoked enthu
siasm elsewhere than in the family of Autharius. The royal
treasurer Eloi, the count of the Palace, Wandregesile
(Wandrille), also wished to reproduce copies of Luxeuil.
Wandregesile founded in Neustria (Normandy) the celebrated
abbey of St. Wandrille (Fontenelle). From Solignac came
R^macle, who established three monasteries in the Rhine
countries (Cougnon, Stavelot, Malmedy). Were it advisable,
other names might be cited here. It is enough to mention
Gall and Potentien, both companions of Columban, who
founded, the one the monastery of St. Gall, which still exists
in Switzerland, the other the monastery of Coutances, in that
part of Neustria which is now called Normandy.
Columban was thus the patriarch of monastic life in the
seventh century. He was also its legislator. To this army
of monks that he had created— more precisely, to the veterans
of this army, for he did not foresee the developments of his
work — he gave a code, a rule, regula monachorum supple
mented by the regula ccenobialis,1 from which the following
1 Migne, Ixxx., 209 ; Seebass, in the ZeUsehrift fur Kirchengeschiehte, xvii.
215 ; Ozanam, Btudcs germaniques, iv. 109; Hauck, i. 267.

88 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
is an extract : " Let the monk live in the monastery under
the law of one father, and in the company of several, to
learn humility from the one and patience from the others :
from the former, silence ; from the latter, meekness. Let him
not do as he pleases. He should eat what he is ordered to
eat ; he should not possess except what he receives ; he
should obey commands that he does not like. He is not to
go to his bed unless exhausted with fatigue; on falling
asleep he should submit to awaking before his sleep is finished.
If he has suffered an injury, let him keep silence." But this
rule of Columban, which in its general lines is hardly anything
but the reproduction of former monastic codes, punishes the
least infractions with fastings on bread and water, by periods
of supplementary penance, and especially by numerous
flagellations. In other words, it pursued too rigorously the
evangelical ideal It presumed too much on human weak
ness ; besides, it did not sufficiently enter into the details of
daily life. It was wanting in precision. The enthusiasm
which animated its first disciples made them endure this
severity, and it supplied these deficiencies. But after some
years enthusiasm waned; the defects of the work of
Columban appeared. Then search was made for a legislation
better adapted to the conditions of monastic life. This was
not hard to find ; for from the middle of the sixth century
it controlled several Italian monasteries. Columban, who
took the place of Csesarius, was in turn superseded by a
monk older than himself and a contemporary of Csesarius.1
This fortunate rival was Benedict.
ST. BENEDICT*
St. Benedict was born at Nursia in Umbria about 480.
In early manhood he retired from the world, being alarmed
at its corruptions. He withdrew to Subiaco, to a wild
grotto not far from the Arno. There he led a solitary life ;
1 Hauck, i. 307.
2 F. A. Gasquet, A Sketch of the Life and Mission of St. Benedict, London,
1895 ; Griitzmacher, Die Bedeutung Ben. und seiner Begel, Berlin, 1892 ; H.
Grisar, Geschichte Boms und der Papste, Freiburg, 1906 ; Montalembert, i., ii.

HISTORY OF THE MONASTIC LIFE 89
but gradually admirers gathered about him, and became his
disciples. This hermit at last found himself at the head of
twelve monasteries. Subiaco was not to be his final dwelling-
place. In 529 he left Umbria and went to settle at Mount
Cassin in Campania. There he founded a monastery which
he ruled until his death (about 542). At his monastery he
prescribed a rule, consisting of seventy-three chapters, which
was borrowed from St. Basil and from Cassein; but he
arranged it himself.
The rule elaborated by Benedict was well-balanced,
specialized, and practical, being far superior to that of
Csesarius. Yet it was slow in spreading. Throughout the
sixth century it was confined to certain Italian monasteries.
The Vita Mauri, which asserts the contrary, is a romance.
It was not foreseen that the former hermit of Subiaco,
the founder of Mount Cassin, would one day be the
patriarch of monastic life in the entire Occident ; and he '
would never have had this honour had he not found a
powerful protector in Pope St. Gregory.
Gregory had an adoration for Benedict. It was the rule
of Mount Cassin to which he subjected the monastery of
St. Andrew, which he founded at Rome in 575. After he
had become Pope he devoted a book of his Bialogues to the
celebration of the virtues and miracles of his favourite saint ;
and when he determined to invite the Anglo-Saxons to
embrace the Christian faith, he asked for labourers from the
monastery of St. Andrew. Monks carried the rule of St.
Benedict to England. The Bialogues were circulated in
Gaul, in Lombardy, and in Allemania. Monks and Bialogues
made ample conquests. The Continent may be noticed first.
At an early date, probably in 630, Luxeuil abandoned its
illustrious founder and put itself under the direction of the
Umbrian monk. This abandonment became more general.
About 660, Lerins followed the movement. At that time a
council of Autun recommended the Benedictine rule to all
the monks. At the beginning of the seventh century,
Columban had swelled the sail of the monastic bark ; fifty
years later Benedict was at the helm.

90 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
During this period the Roman monk Augustine built a
monastery at Canterbury. His companion Mellitus founded
Westminster ; the Anglo-Saxon Wilfrid established Peter
borough ; Benedict Biscop founded Wearmouth and Yarrow.
At the end of the seventh century, England was won to the
Benedictine rule. Then it made proselytes. The Anglo-
Saxon Boniface founded in Germany, Ohrdruff, Fritzlar, and
Fulda ; another Anglo-Saxon, Pirmin, endowed Alsace and the
Rhenish country with monasteries. It is needless to prolong
the list. In the eighth century, the spiritual family of
Benedict had spread throughout the Occident.
The members of this family were sometimes of noble
origin ; others had brilliant destinies. Among the monks
of England may be counted about thirty of its kings or
of its queens, notably Sigebert, king of East Anglia;
Ceowulf and Eadbert, kings of Northumbria; Ina, king of
Wessex; Sebbi and Offa, kings of Essex; Ccenrad, king
of Mercia; Ethelburga, Eanfleda, and Elfleda princesses of
Kent. Boniface is also to be mentioned (about 680—754),
who left his monastery of Nursling at an early day and
went to evangelize Germany; also Bede (about 637—735),
who passed his life at Yarrow, where he wrote the history of
his country ; and, finally, Alcuin (about 735-804), who taught
literature at York until the day when Charlemagne secured
him for France.1 The monastic life did not have the same
attraction for the Frankish that it had for the Anglo-Saxon
princes. Yet it made some converts among the former ; the
queen Bathilde entered the monastery of Chelles which she
had founded during the last fifteen years of her life (680).
Itta, wife of Pepin of Landen, ended her days in the
monastery of Nivelle which* she had founded (652); her
daughter Gertrude accompanied her. Arnoul, the ancestor
of the Carolingians, who had become bishop of Metz after
having been a soldier, resigned his bishopric and became a
monk (641). The brother of Pepin the Short, Carloman,
duke of Austrasia, left his throne (747) and shut himself up
at Mount Cassin. Two years later a Lombard king Rachis
1 Montalembert, v.

HISTORY OF THE MONASTIC LIFE 91
also abdicated and became a monk. Throughout the eighth
century, monastic institutions did not cease to prosper.
But this prosperity had its usual effect ; it gave rise to
abuses. The observance of rules ceased gradually in most of
the monasteries ; and so, too, did the Christian virtues.
These houses, which had served as asylums of piety, were in
many cases haunts of dissipation. Charlemagne could have
remedied the evil, or at least could have lessened it, had he
cared to take the trouble; but this did not occur to him.
He paid little attention to the abbeys, except to grant them
to his bishops or to men whom he wished to reward.1 It
was then that Benedict of Aniane made his appearance.2
He was the son of a count of Aquitania, and was educated at
the court of Pepin. Benedict, who was at first named
Witiza, in 773 entered the abbey of St. Seine (diocese of
Langres), and leaving it later on, founded (about 779) a
monastery in his own country on the bank of the Aniane.
Benedict was a thoroughgoing monk. He sought to follow
and to make others follow the Benedictine rule in all its
purity. His house set an example to the others. It was
a model monastery. It was a model which, except for a
happy coincidence, would not have been imitated. Louis
the Debonnair governed Aquitania. He took an interest
in Benedict, showed him favour, and entrusted to him the
inspection of the monasteries in Aquitania. Benedict became
a power. He was asked to give advice, and to furnish a
supply of monks. He did both, and thus saw the Benedictine
rule once more established in the houses where it had been
abandoned. His authority increased after the death of
Charlemagne (814). Louis the Debonnair having become
emperor, fixed his seat at Aix-la-Chapelle and summoned
into his presence the Aquitanian reformer, built for him, at a
distance of two hours from his palace, the abbey of Corneli-
munster 8 (called also the abbey of Inda from the name of the
1 Hauck, ii. 565-575.
' Ardo, Vita S. Benedicti abbatis anianensis, Migne, ciii. 353 ; Man. Germ.,
Scriptores, xv. 200 ; Hauck, ii. 575-576.
» Vita, 35.

92 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
river on which it was situated), and entrusted to him tLe
guardianship of all the monasteries of the empire. In this
high position, Benedict laboured with increased ardour to
regenerate the monastic way of living. Through the inter
vention of the emperor, from whom he obtained whatever he
desired, he organized a congress of monks in the imperial
palace at Aix-la-Chapelle.1 From all parts of the Frankish
empire, abbots accompanied by their monks assembled in
convocation (8 1 7). Benedict kept them there for several days,
preached to them, spoke to them on the necessity of reform,
and explained to them that the cure of the evil was to be
found in the employment of the Benedictine rule. The entire
assembly was of this opinion, which was also the opinion of
the emperor. It was decided that in all the monasteries of
the empire of the Franks, the rule of St. Benedict should be
established and observed as a whole. The reform was
sanctioned by the emperor. It was about to infuse new life
into the monastic institutions, and to give them a fresh impulse.
Unfortunately it was not applied. The emperor's
nephew Bernhard, and then his son, revolted against him ;
and he could not aid Benedict, who, indeed, died in 821.
The decrees of Aix-la-Chapelle were soon forgotten, and the
abuses continued. Then came the Normans, who destroyed
some monasteries and increased the disorder in others.
The undertaking of Benedict of Aniane and of Louis the
Debonnair was an attempted rather than an actual reform.
At the beginning of the tenth century the monastic decadence
was deep-seated. The council of Trosly, which met in 9 0 9, took
notice of this, and deplored it in the famous canon 3 : "To
whom it may concern, in regard to the existence of monas
teries, or rather in regard to that which concerns their ruin,
we do not know what to say or do. In punishment for our
crimes, which began at the house of the Lord, part of the
monasteries have been burned or destroyed by the pagans ;
others have been pillaged and almost annihilated. Those
of which some ruins remain, have preserved no regular
discipline." 1 Vita, 36,

HISTORY OF THE MONASTIC LIFE 93
England afforded the same spectacle. There, too, monastic
institutions were corrupted by disorders concerning which
information is given in the writings of Bede 1 (734), who says :
" There are, as we all know, innumerable places which bear
the name of monasteries where not the least monastic ob
servance is to be found. . . . Indeed there are numerous
establishments which have no value for God or man." There
also pirates from the north accomplished their work of de
vastation. Coming from Denmark about 837, they began a
work of pillage in England. In 871, when Alfred sought to
drive them out, the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic monasteries had
disappeared. In the tenth century the attempt made by Benedict of
Aniane and Louis the Debonnair was renewed ; and this time
the effort was crowned with success. The monastic life may
be said to have emerged from the tomb and' to have entered
upon a new career. This advance was wonderful. Monas
teries were built and rebuilt as if by magic, and they rivalled
one another in enthusiasm. This was permanent. In the
eleventh century the effort had not died out. The Benedictine
rule remained. At this time the only concern was to apply
it with full vigour. This was the work of certain monks who
were supported by men of wealth and power. This collabora
tion, which gave it its intensity and its permanency, proves
that it responded to a general need. It became incarnate
at Cluny, which without having a monopoly was the highest
example of the tendency. CLUNY
In the centre of Burgundy a young monk, Bernon,
directed two monasteries at Gigny and Baume, and there the
Benedictine rule was obeyed in all its purity. Being informed
of his merits, William, duke of Aquitania, marquis of Auvergne
and count of Maconnais, gave him the village of Cluny and
its environs, requiring him to build there a monastery where
the rule of St. Benedict would be observed. The deed of gift
Migne, xciv. 659

94 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
has come down to us. Its date is 11th September 910.
Such is the origin of Cluny (department of Saone-et-Loire)
It was due to the initiative of a feudal lord who was fascin
ated by the virtue of a monk. It was the first example of a
kind of collaboration to which we have already called atten
tion, and which is to be met with at every step in the course
of the tenth and eleventh centuries.
Bernon died in 927. After that Cluny was governed by
Odon (942), Aymar (965), Maieul (994), Odilon (1049).
These men, with whom one must associate William of Dijon
and Richard of Verdun, were for more than a century
the great workers in monastic reform. This r&le, be it
remarked, was one which they did not arrogate to themselves ;
they were its recipients. A certain lay or ecclesiastical lord
would have on his estate one or more abbeys either ruined or
decayed. He obtained help from Cluny. In this way Odon
received Fleury on the Loire, St. Julien of Tours, St. Pierre
of Tulle, and St. Martial of Limoges. By Maieul were
founded, St. Maur-des-Foss^s, Marmoutier, and Peterlingen.
This last-named abbey was a gift of the empress Adelaide,
wife of Otto L According to a monk of that time, Otto
himself entrusted to Maieul the inspection of all the royal
monasteries of Germany and Italy. William was a monk of
Cluny whom Maieul sent to St. Benigne of Dijon (990).
He had under his orders forty abbeys or priories which had
been committed to him by the king of France, the duke of
Normandy, the duke of Burgundy, the bishop of Langres,
and the bishop of Metz. Richard applied to Odilon, who sent
him to St. Vannes of Verdun (1004). He did not remain at
Cluny,1 but he retained the spirit with which he had been
imbued in the cloister of Reims which had been reformed by
the abbey Fleury. After having become the abbot of St.
Vannes he obtained an influence comparable to that of William
of Dijon.2 More than twenty monasteries were confided to
his care.The reform, it need not be said, did not enlist the
sympathies of those upon whom it had been imposed. The
1 Hauck, iii. 463. ' Id. , ib. 466.

HISTORY OF THE MONASTIC LIFE 95
monks of Fleury had, at one time, the idea of killing Odon,
who interfered with their habits. Those of St. Maur-des-
Fosses preferred to leave their monastery rather than to
change their manner of life : on all sides there were protests
and murmurings ; but everywhere force was with the law,
that is, with the will of the master of the abbey, and of the
reformers who carried out his orders. And the abbey, sub
jected once more to the Benedictine rule, became at times
of its own accord a centre of reform. This was notably the
case at Fleury. In the second half of the tenth century,
Oswald, bishop of Worcester, afterwards of York, having
previously entered Fleury on the Loire in the spirit of
St. Benedict, founded seven monasteries. Certain English
monks came to the same abbey to ask for monastic organiza
tion. Then they left to carry the reform to Glastonbury,
to Winchester, to the principal Saxon abbeys.1 England did
not escape the influence of Cluny.
Germany also, to a certain extent, felt this influence from
the middle of the tenth century, if it be true that Otto I.
committed to Maieul the supervision of the German and
Italian monasteries. In any case, the spirit of Cluny was
conveyed* across the Rhine by Poppon.2 Poppon was a
disciple 'of Richard of Verdun. About 1020, chance circum
stances brought him into contact with Henry n. of Germany.
Attracted by the qualities of this monk, the emperor wished
him to enter his service, and claimed him from Richard, who
was obliged to surrender him. Poppon was at once charged
with the government of the abbeys of Stavelot and Mal-
medy, to which was soon added the abbey of St. Maximin at
Treves. From Conrad, the successor of Henry, he received
monasteries to reform or to found, notably those of Limburg
and St. Gall. Others he obtained from bishops who were
bent upon following the example set by the emperor. This
movement, originating at Cluny, and inaugurated by Poppon
in Germany, was continued throughout the eleventh century.
But this was not all. The reform of Cluny penetrated into
Italy and Spain, and even into Poland, where it was introduced
1 Mabillon, Annates, iii 567. ' Hauck, iii. 499.

96 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
by the king Casimir, who indeed, before ascending the throne,
had for seven years been a monk at Cluny.
From the beginning the gifts which flowed in expressed
to Cluny all the gratitude which was felt for the work done
there. Odon alone received two hundred and sixty-one deeds
of gift. His successors received as much, or even more.
From the beginning of the eleventh century the abbot of
Cluny owned immense estates. His authority was correspond
ingly great. He held actually in his control not all, but a
majority of the monasteries which had been reformed.
He was their chief; he directed the Benedictine houses
which, while once isolated, now formed a congregation,
that is, an organization, at the head of which was Cluny.
The abbot of Cluny was one of the most important personages
in Christendom. Already, in 973, Otto n. wished to put
Maieul on the pontifical throne ; but the latter declined the
honour, and insisted on remaining a monk.1
A power so considerable could not be destroyed in a few
years. For centuries Cluny was a social institution ; but the
spirit which animated its founders gradually died out. At .
the end of the tenth century, laxity invaded the congregation,
attended by abuses which developed progressively. Thence
forth those who were thirsting for mortification, penitence, and
abnegation did not any longer address themselves to Cluny
to slake their thirst.
Of a truth, Cluny had never had a monopoly of the
ascetic life. Already in the first half of the tenth century,
Bernon and Odon had rivals.2 Among them was Gerard, who
(9 1 3) founded a monastery at Brogne near Namur, and
reformed a number of abbeys in lower Lorraine (in what is
now Belgium); like the monks of Metz who (935) re
established the Benedictine rule under the patronage of
bishop Aldaberon, in the region of Metz, and made a way for
Cluny in upper Lorraine ; like that fiery Italian anchorite
Nil (910-1005), who from his hermitage at Grotta Ferrata
recalled the principles of morality to his depraved con
temporaries. But it was especially at the end of the tenth
1 Hauek, iii. 383. 2 Id., ib. 355.

HISTORY OF THE MONASTIC LIFE 97
century that ascetic undertakings were multiplied. Some
were owing to flight and retirement from the world ; others,
on the contrary, had apostolic aims which obliged them to
mingle with men of the world, to convert them, and formed
what are called the mendicant orders. Still others made it
their mission to fight the foes of the faith with the sword.
And, finally, others devoted themselves to works of charity.
They were grouped then about four fundamental types which
we are now about to consider.

MONASTIC REVIVALS AFTER CLUNY
I. Before the Mendicant Orders. — In the first group are the
following: Romuald,1 who in the years between 980 and 1027
founded different hermitages in Italy, notably that of the
Camaldoli, from which proceeded the Camaldules; Jean
Gualbert, who after following Romuald separated himself
from him and founded at Vallombrosa near Florence (1039),
a hermitage into which he introduced shortly afterwards the
rule of St. Benedict ; Herluin, who founded the Abbey du Bee
(1039) in Normandy; Etienne of Thiers in Auvergne (1076),
who founded the order of Grandmont on Mount Muret;
Bruno, who established the Chartreuse near Grenoble ; Robert
de Molesmes, who founded the abbey of Citeaux (1098); Robert
d'Arbrissel,2 who built in Anjou the two abbeys of Fonte-
vrault, one intended for men, the other for women (1099);
Norbert, who founded the abbey of Pr^montre" near Laon
(1120); Berthold, who with some companions settled on
Carmel (about 1156); the Flemish priest Lambert "Le
Beghe," who (about 1170) preached repentance at Liege,
made a number of young women, who were called " B^ghines," 3
leave the world, and assembled them in a secluded place, thus
founding the first convent of B^ghines ; the seven citizens of
Florence, who on 15th August 1233 founded in this town
he order of Servites (slaves of Mary).*
» Helyot, v. 233. 2 Helyot, v. 294, vii. 406.
* E. Hallman, Die Qeschichte des Ursprvmgs der belgischen Beghinen, Berlin,
X843. ' Helyot, iii. 302, 316, 353.
7

98 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
These holy personages all wished to lead their disciples
to perfection,, but they did not all follow the same path.
Romuald, Bruno, Berthold, who was probably inspired by
Bruno, the seven founders of the Servites, Lambert le Bdghe,
made the hermit life their ideal.
Norbert adhered to what is called the rule of St.
Augustine, an anonymous system which certain bishops for a
time endeavoured to introduce among the clergy. Others
took the rule of St. Benedict as their guide. Nevertheless,
Robert d'Abrissel introduced some strange modifications
which made it scarcely recognizable. In particular, he
decided that the abbess of Fontevrault should be chief of the
order, and that even the men should obey this woman. This
was in honour of the Holy Virgin, who at the Saviour's
passion was committed to the apostle St. John.
The institutions to which these men submitted had
various destinies. The Carmelites, dedicated to a hermit life,
followed it as long as they dwelt on Carmel. In 1138, when
the Saracens drove them away, they came into Europe, and
soon afterwards settled in England. Then they changed
their organization, ceased to be hermits, and followed the
fashion of the mendicant orders, especially of the Dominicans.
We shall encounter them again, when we consider the great
family of the mendicant orders. A century and a half before
the Carmelites, the Carmaldules effected an analogous evolu
tion. They abandoned the hermit life to which their founder
Romuald had consecrated them, and modelled themselves, not
after the mendicant orders, which did not then exist, but
according to the rule of St. Benedict. The Carthusian friars
for a while led a hermit life with all its austerity, as is
proved by the words of Guibert de Nogent : " They do not
have a common dwelling like other monks, but each has his
cell near the cloister. There they work, take their repasts
and their rest. On Sunday they receive bread and vegetables
for the week-i and cook the vegetables for themselves. That,
if I am not mistaken, constitutes their nourishment. They
hear mass only on Sundays and festivals." But, while
they were hermits, they made some concessions to social life

HISTORY OF THE MONASTIC LIFE 99
which is essential to human nature. It is notable that they
decided to take their meals and their recreation in common.
In the thirteenth century the order of Carthusians occupied
one hundred houses, but it never had a great extension.
The disciples of Etienne de Thiers were driven from
Muret shortly after the death of their master, and settled in
the desert of Grandmont, from which they took their name.
In the middle of the twelfth century the order had sixty
houses, but its growth was checked by the early schisms of
its members. The Premonstrant friars at the beginning of the thir
teenth century owned five hundred houses ; at the end they
had more than a thousand. They were especially numerous
in Germany, where several sees were rightfully occupied by
disciples of Norbert. The order of Fontevrault was for the
most part confined to France, where it had only a moderate
development. Moreover, the strange supremacy of the abbess
of Fontevrault caused much difficulty, which at times degener
ated into disorder. The Abbey du Bee colonized little, but
it won undying glory by two of its members, Lanfranc and
Anselm, who, having taught there, became in succession arch
bishops of Canterbury.
The monastery of Citeaux gradually decayed because
there were no novices, but in the spring of 1121 a young
Burgundian named Bernard came on the scene, bringing with
him thirty companions. Later on, the Cistercians venerated
Bernard as their founder. They took, especially in France,
the name of Bernardines. They were right, for it was
Bernard who caused an army of monks to come forth from a
house that was almost extinct. Scarcely had he entered
Citeaux when young men came to him in throngs. In 1113
there were swarms of them, and every year it was the same.
In 1115 the monastery of Clairvaux was founded, of which
Bernard became the abbot ; and it soon eclipsed Citeaux.
In 1130 the Cistercian order controlled thirty houses; ten
years later it had one hundred and thirteen. At the time of
Bernard's death it was in possession of two hundred and
eighty-eight (1153), and later still there were more than

100 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
seven hundred. Wealth increased their power. For a
century the Cistercians enjoyed the confidence of the Holy
See. It was to them that Popes Alexander ni. and Innocent
m. appealed when they began the conflict with the Albigenses :
but shortly afterwards they were eclipsed by the mendicant friars.
In a short time the B^ghines had a wonderful expansion
in Flanders, France, and Germany. Many cities possessed
fifty, sixty, one hundred beghinages, and even more. Every
village had some of them. Gathered under the direction of a
superior, their primitive hermit life soon gave place to the
life of a community. The B^ghines practised penance, and
by their work provided for their needs. In the twelfth
century they were forestalled by the Franciscans and
Dominicans, who imbued them with their spirit, and made
them tertiaries in the two orders. This monastic influence
had three results. First, the B^ghines, who were originally
free to renounce the penitential life whenever they chose to
do so, to leave their monastery and return to the world, were
gradually led to take vows and to follow the conventual life.
This was not so everywhere, but it was the case in many
places. Second, in order to conform to the rules of their
directors, some of them, long before the time when they
made their vows, gave up living by the fruit of their labours,
and made mendicancy one of their rules. Lastly, many of
them, victims of their contact with the enthusiastic Fran
ciscans or fratelli, were led into an exaggerated mysticism,
fell into heresy, and were suspected by the hierarchy, which
put difficulties in their way, and condemned them. These
heretical or revolutionary women were often disgraced with
the name of " Bdghardes " as opposed to the true " B^ghines."
But Bdghines and B^ghardes had such close relations that it
was difficult to distinguish between them ; and the discredit
attached to the latter frequently injured the former.
Clement V. proscribed both orders (1311). John xxn. en
deavoured to enforce this measure, but was forced to capitulate
in the presence of the threats of the people and of the
Franciscans. But a half-century later, Popes Urban v. and
Gregory xi., supported by the emperor Charles rv., believed

HISTORY OF THE MONASTIC LIFE 101
that they could advance resolutely in the path marked out
by Clement v. Then the Beghines were made the object
of violent persecutions, which reduced their numbers and
disorganized them. Just before the advent of Protestantism
they were completely decadent.1
The citizens of Florence, whom the people called " Slaves
of Mary " (Servites), retired some leagues from that city to
Mount Senario (1236). The Servites increased and gathered
in several regions of Italy. Under the reign of St. Louis
they penetrated into France and settled at Paris, where they
received the name of "White Cloaks" (Blancs Manteaux).
Pope Innocent v. disliked them, and endeavoured to suppress
them altogether ; but they received favours from Honorius rv.
and Martin v. In 1567, Pius v. placed them in the ranks
of mendicant orders.
II. The Mendicant Orders. — The ascetic institutions
devoted to the apostolate formed what are usually called the
" Mendicant Orders." To this class belonged the Franciscans
or Minor Friars, the Dominicans or Friar Preachers, the
Carmelites, and the Augustinians. It is here that the
Waldenses have a place, who were the first of the mendicant
orders, but being victims of unfavourable circumstances were
driven from the Church.
Peter Bernadoue, who early received the name of
Francis, was born at Assisi, a small town in Umbria (1182).
His youth was somewhat dissipated, but, at about the age
of twenty-four, he was converted, gave up his property, and
led a life of piety. Persecuted by his father, to whom he
abandoned all his clothing, and becoming an object of ridi
cule, he met nevertheless with some admirers who joined
him. This was the humble germ of a tree which in the
future was to grow to gigantic proportions (1209). After
some months they bore the name of Minor Friars ; in the
meantime they were known as Penitents of Assisi.2
1 H. C. Lea, A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, iii. 371
etseq., New York, 1888.
2 P. Sabatier, Vie de St. Francois d' Assise, Paris, 1894 (Life of S. Francis
of Assisi, London, 1894); Hauck, iv. 366.

102 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
This srr ill company at first evangelized Umbria ; then
Francis went to Rome to ask the pontifical approval of his
work (1? 10). Pope Innocent hi. received without enthusi
asm thio man, who seemed to him a visionary. After vainly
seeking to discourage him, he authorized him to make the
attempt. This partial approval was enough for Francis,
who resumed his apostolic career. His reputation for sanctity
was now firmly established. Moreover, wherever he went
he was received with veneration, and he evoked enthusiasm.
People listened to him, admired him, and also wished to
imitate him, to share his poverty and his destitution. Every
year brought him fresh companions, and also women associates ;
for in 1?12 a young girl Claire took her place beside the
friars, an 1 her example was followed by others. The nuns
remained in the monasteries, but the friars scattered, and,
by order of their superior, went to evangelize Morocco, Syria,
Hungary, France, Germany, and England. At this time
Francis undertook the conversion of Egypt and Palestine.
But his health, already shaken by his austere life, was after
1209 ruined by the ecstasies which he experienced, which
became more and more frequent and protracted, and which
at length imprinted stigmata in his flesh, that is to say,
fleshy blackish growths resembling vaguely the marks of
the nails which pierced the limbs of Christ. Francis died in
1229. At this date the Roman Church had for ten years
taken an interest in his work ; it had even for three years
approved it (1223).
It had approved it, but at the same time it had modified
it. It found itself in the face of a prodigious evangelical
movement, from which two or even three religious orders were
recruited. The Minor Friars became monks ; the companions
of Claire became Benedictine nuns ; other disciples of Francis
remained in the world, bearing the name of Tertiaries. Then
absolute poverty was replaced by collective property. Francis,
who witnessed this work of deformation, tried to prevent it.
Notwithstanding his filial attachment to the Roman Curia,
he declared that he had received the direction of his life
from the Lord Himself, and he forbade his friars to change it

HISTORY OF THE MONASTIC LIFE 103
in any respect. This is what he said in his will : " When
the Lord granted me brethren, no one showed me what I
ought to do; but the Most High Himself revealed to me
that I should live according to the pattern of the Holy
Gospel. ... I have done manual work, and I wish to con
tinue it ; moreover, I desire all the other friars to engage in
some honourable business. Let those who have none learn
one, not to receive a price for labour, but in order to set a
good example, and to avoid idleness. I forbid absolutely all
the friars, no matter where they are to be found, to ask any
bull of the Court of Rome, either directly or indirectly. . . .
I forbid absolutely all friars, clerks, or laymen to introduce
modifications into this will, under pretext of explaining it."
These efforts of Francis were unavailing. His work was
altered during his life ; it continued to be altered after his
death. In 1229, Pope Gregory ix. canonized him; but the
following year the same Pope declared to the Minor Friars
that they were not obliged to obey the injunctions of the
testament. He pointed out to them, besides, the way to
evade the rule which forbade them to hold money. This
consisted in resorting to trustworthy men outside the order,
who would take charge of their fortune, would pay the debts
of the friars, and would be considered as agents, not of the
friars, but of the benefactors of the order.1 In 1245,
Innocent rv. authorized once more the employment of " trust
worthy men " (viri fideles or nuntii), and he added that all
property, the possession of which had been forbidden to the
order, should be regarded as belonging to the Holy See, which
would place it at the disposal of the monks. In 1255,
Alexander iv. repeated the declaration of Innocent iv. In
a word, the Minor Friars could buy, sell, build, amass pro
visions, and consume them ; nevertheless, they owned nothing,
and never acted as owners. All the property at their
disposal belonged to the Holy See. They had only the
usufruct, which conferred no right, which was only usage de
facto. They practised absolute poverty, even as Christ and
1 Bull Quo elongati, Potthast, 8620 ; Ad mandatum illud vos dicimus non
teneri.

104 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
the Apostles practised it, and like them possessed nothing.
Thanks to these subterfuges, the popes made a good appear
ance. They seemed to be faithful to the thought of Francis,
which in reality they treated as a fiction.
This attitude of the papacy provoked murmurings and
indignation among many Franciscans, but was applauded by
the majority. From the very beginning, indeed, the great
Franciscan family was divided into two parties ; on the one
hand were the fervent and spiritual, on the other the
moderate and conventual. The first wished to obey to the
letter the rule of Francis; the others regarded the rule as
impracticable, and they made it less severe. The history of
the Franciscan order for more than two centuries was chiefly
the history of the struggle between the spirituals and the
conventuals. The latter had numbers on their side, and
Elias of Cortona, the second successor of Francis, who in
1232 governed the order, was on their side. At the end of
seven years the spirituals succeeded in deposing him, but
they gained almost nothing by the change. Finally, they
triumphed with John of Parma (1247); then they set forth
their programmes, expressed their ideas and their views as to
the future. And one of them, Gerard of Borgo San Donnino,
encouraged and perhaps aided by John of Parma, performed
this task in the Liber introductorius in Evangelium cetemum
(1254).1 The Introduction to the Eternal Gospel — it is
usually referred to as the Eternal Gospel — announces that
the reign of the Son which succeeded that of the Father
is itself to come to an end in the space of six years (1260),
and to be replaced by the reign of the Holy Ghost. The
Holy Ghost will govern through the monks, just as the Son
has governed through the secular clergy. Consequently the
monks will then have all the power. They will, it is true,
be persecuted by the secular clergy as well as by the Roman
Church. But in case of extremity they can form an alliance
1 E. Renan, "Joachim de Flore et l'Evangile eternel," in Nouvelles Etudes
d'histoire religieuse, p. 272, Paris, 1884; P. H. Denifle, "Das Evangelium
aeternum und die Commissio zu Anagni," in Archiv fitr Literalur, i. 49-143 ;
P. Fournier, "Joachim de Flore, ses doctrines, son influence," in Rev. Questions
historigues, lxvii. 457-505, 1900 ; Lea, iii. 20 et seq.

HISTORY OF THE MONASTIC LIFE 105
with the infidels, and lead them into battle against the
Roman Church. In any case they will not have to take
into account the decisions of the Pope.
It may be seen that the spirituals, by dwelling so much on
the ideal, had become revolutionaries. They were treated as
such. Gerard, the author of the Eternal Gospel, was cast into
prison for the rest of his life. The General of the Franciscans,
John of Parma, was threatened with a like punishment, but
by favour was authorized to retire to a convent. The
spirituals, hitherto regarded as Utopians, were henceforth
under suspicion, were watched, and punished when an occa
sion arose. An occasion arose, indeed, for the apostles of
poverty became more and more enthusiastic, and in 1317,
John xxii. caused hundreds of them to be burned, some of
whom were monks, others tertiaries.1 These cruel measures,
without ending the opposition, accomplished an important
result. Those who persisted in rebellion were by the force
of events separated from the Franciscan order, and lived as
well as they could until the day when the Inquisition had
them hunted out and made them take up their abode in
dungeons. These were the Fraticelli. Those who remained
in the Franciscan family laboured to realize their ideal by
peaceful means. It was from among them that John of
Valle came, who in the fourteenth century founded (1334)
the Strict Observance? Favoured by the council of Constance,
and by Popes Martin v. and Eugenius rv., this institution was
rapidly extended ; at the close of the fifteenth century it had
almost wholly absorbed the Franciscan family. But let us
return to John xxii.
1 Lea, iii. 72 et seq.
2 0. Huttebrauker, Der Minoritenorden zur Zeit des grossen Schismas, Berlin,
1873 ; P. Thureau-Dangin, Saint Bernardin de Sienne, chap, v., Paris, 1896.
The controversy concerning the poverty of Christ and of the Apostles broke
out in 1321 and marks a second phase in the struggles which disturbed the
Franciscan order. At the outset all the Franciscans made common cause
with their minister general. The majority of the order did not separate them
selves from him, so as not to put themselves in revolt against the papacy.
Franz Ehrle, " Die Spiritualen," in Archiv fur Literatur und Kirchengeschichte
des Mittelalters, i. 509, Berlin, 1885 ; "Historia septem tribulationum," ib. ii.
249 ; Fleury, Histoire ecclisiastigue, xcii. 62, xciii. 14, Paris, 1717 ; Lea, iii. 129.

106 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
This Pope, who waged war to the death on the spirituals,
also dealt a serious blow to the Franciscan order. In the
year 1322 he issued several bulls in which were the
following declarations: "To distinguish between actual
profit and the right of profit is impossible. Whereas profit
to be legitimate implies of necessity the right to profit by it,
the Holy See cannot be the owner of the goods of which the
Minor Friars have the benefit. To say that Christ and the
Apostles possessed nothing, and did not have the right of
property, is heresy." Among the Franciscans, not only in
the camp of the spirituals but in that of the conventuals
themselves, these assertions raised an opposition which was
led by Michael of C^sene, minister general of the order, and
William of Occam. The poverty of Christ, said these dis
senters, had been taught dogmatically by several Popes,
particularly by Nicholas HI. in his bull Exiit. In regarding
as heresy a truth defined by his predecessors, John xxii.
was himself guilty of heresy. For this reason he no longer
belonged to the Church, and should be deposed from the
pontifical throne.
Louis of Bavaria, who was at this time for other reasons
in conflict with John xxii., took the side of Michael of
C^sene and of Occam. They, for their part, did their best
for him ; but they failed. John xxn. remained Pope until his
death. Of the storm which seemed about to overwhelm him,
there remained only his bulls, which contradicted those of
his predecessors, in which afterwards Gallicans sought objec
tions to the infallibility of the popes.1
Dominic2 was born in Calahorra in old Castile (1170).
About 1195 he was admitted to the chapter of Osma, which
the bishop had just subjected to the rule bearing the name of
St. Augustine. Until 1203, Dominic was merely a young
1 Bossuet, Defensio declarationis cleri gatticani, ix. 41-45 ; Fleury, xciii. 15.
3 Quetif-Eohart, Scriptores ordinis Prcedicatorum, i. 25, Paris, 1719 ; A.
Touron, La Vie de Saint Dominique, 1739; H. Lacordaire, Vie de Saint
Dominique, Paris, 1840 j A. Drane, The History of St. Dominic, Founder of the
Friar Preachers, London, 1891 ; J. Guiraud, "Saint Dominique et la fondation
du Monastere de Prouille," in Rev. historique, 1897, lxiv. 225; Id., Saint
Dominique, Paris, 1899.

HISTORY OP THE MONASTIC LIFE 107
canon, thinking only of his own salvation. The apostolic
vocation was awakened within him about 1204, during a
journey which he made in the south of France in company
with his bishop, Diego. The heresy of the Cathares was then
prevalent in Languedoc, and the pontifical legates appointed
to arrest it were hated by the populace, whom they treated
cruelly, and whom they even scandalized by their insolent
pomp. To the deplorable missionary methods of which he
was the witness, Diego endeavoured to substitute a contrary
method, and to present to the country the spectacle of a
simple and austere life. He won to his opinions the legates,
who abandoned their princely suite, travelled on foot through
Languedoc in company with Cistercian monks, and preached
the gospel. But after a short time the discouraged monks
returned to their abbeys. One of the legates died, another
changed his post, a third, Pierre Castelnau, was killed. Diego
died ; Dominic alone remained. He it was who was to carry
out the plan of Diego. For several years he was a good
missionary, nothing more. He preached to the heretics, and
edified them. He kept aloof from the war brought on by
Innocent in. He was alone, and had no labourers to com
mand. It is only in 1215 that we find him settled at
Toulouse at the head of a small company, — small, for it con
sisted of but six members, of whom history has preserved the
names of Peter Cellasius and Thomas. But the company
rapidly grew larger. Some months later it had almost
tripled in size. At the end of six years (1221) it had sixty
convents scattered through Christendom, divided among eight
provinces. In 1228 the number of its provinces had risen
to thirteen. From the beginning it was protected by
Foulques, bishop of Toulouse, who granted it one-sixth of the
tithes of his churches. At first, Rome was more than re
served. In 1215, Dominic visited Innocent Hi. at Rome
and humbly begged him to approve his undertaking. He
was coldly received. The only answer he obtained was the
suggestion that he should choose one of the existing rules for
his companions, and should abstain from creating a new
order. Rome had satisfaction : the founder of the small

108 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
community at Toulouse gave his associates the rule of the
canons of St. Augustine. But the papacy was not inflexible.
At the end of 1216, Honorius in. approved the work of
Dominic, and took it under his protection.1
The society of Friar Preachers originally possessed tithes,
houses, and churches ; it had the right to hold property ; and
there was nothing abnormal in this, since its members were
regular canons. But Dominic was not slow to see that
the wonderful success of the Franciscans was due to their
poverty, and he determined to imitate them. At the
general chapter in 1220 he put his society under the rule of
poverty, and the following year he refused the tithes which
the bishop of Toulouse granted him. Although they were
regular canons, the Friar Preachers were after that time
mendicant monks — a transformation theoretical rather than
real ; for the existence of their monasteries had always to
be assured by endowments. In any case, it was a unique
transformation.2 After 1220 the Dominican order made its way. Its
history runs parallel to that of the Franciscans, of whom it
was to be the desperate and often successful adversary.
Soon the papacy confided the Inquisition to it ; and this
trust, of which, however, it was not the exclusive but the
principal guardian, permitted it to exercise an immense influ
ence upon the conscience.
The Carmelites3 were as yet only hermits when they
left Carmel and came to settle in England (1240). They
quickly made many converts ; but then they perceived that
the life of hermits was not consistent with their new situa
tion. The first general, Simon Stock, realized that an evolu
tion was inevitable. He constructed a constitution partly
after the plan of the Dominicans, and presented it to
Innocent iv., who approved it (1247). From this time on
1 Potthast, 5402, 5403, 5434, 5448.
2 Quetif-Echart ; Acta Sanctorum, Auguste, i. 494, 638 ; Potthast, 5763,
6542 ; Bealencyclopadie fur protest. Theologie und Kircht, 3rd edition, iv. 768.
3 Helyot, i. 282 ; Papebroch, Acta Sanctorum, April, i. 769 ; May, ii. 709 ;
J. Launoy, De Simonis Stockii visa, Opera, ii. 2, 379, Paris, 1731 ; Lea,
History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences, iii. 255, London, 1896.

HISTORY OF THE MONASTIC LIFE 109
the Carmelite order, subject to the Cenobite regime, took its
rank with the mendicant orders founded by Francis and
Dominic. It was their brother, that is to say, their rival, for
it competed with them. This was a competition which would
never have been serious except for special circumstances.
The Carmelites asserted that their order had been founded by
Elijah the prophet, that it was the most ancient of all the
orders, and that it was the most illustrious of all, since it
counted among its members, prophets, apostles, and the
Virgin Mary herself. They likewise asserted that the
fortunate Simon Stock bad received from the Holy Virgin
the scapular, all the holders of which were assured of their
salvation. These false statements, which they did their best
to spread, brought them an ample harvest of prestige and
veneration. About the middle of the fifteenth century
(1452), besides the Carmelite friars appeared the Carmelite
nuns, whose founder was the general of the order, Soreth.
This monk endeavoured to reform the order of the Carmelites
which for more than a century had fallen into laxity, but he
died by poison (1471).
In the thirteenth century, Italy abounded in hermitages,
the inhabitants of which followed different rules, and some
times observed none. To bring some order out of this chaos,
Pope Alexander iv. called an assembly of all the anchorites
in a single congregation subjected to the rule called that of
St. Augustine, and partly realized his project (1256).1 Such
was the origin of the Augustinians. This order, which owed
its origin to an ecclesiastical police measure, furnished the
papacy with ardent defenders like that Augustinian Trionfo
to whom the Pope was a kind of god ; but it was from it
that came one of the most terrible adversaries of the Holy
See, Martin Luther.
In 1176, Valdo, a rich merchant of Lyons, made the
discovery that the disciple of Christ ought to renounce the
goods of this world and conform his life to that of the
Apostles. At once he despoiled himself of his fortune and
1 Helyot, iii. 7 ; Th. Eolde, Die deutsche Augustvner Kongregation, Gotha,
1879.

110 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
reduced himself to extreme poverty. Led by his example,
many men and women renounced their possessions and be
came his disciples. Valdo, not content with encouraging
them, made use of them. He sent them forth two by two
on the mission of preaching to the world penitence and
detachment. These wandering preachers, who had nothing
on their feet but wretched sandals, were called by their
admirers " the Poor of Christ," " the Poor of Lyons," " the
Poor." Those who mocked them called them "barefoots"
(insabbati). Such is the origin of those to whom posterity
gave the name of Waldenses (Vaudois).
Valdo was a good Catholic, and desired the approval of
his superiors. Learning that a council was about to meet at
the Lateran, he sent his disciples there. These, both men
and women, betook themselves to Rome, and asked to be
authorized to continue their pious occupation (1179). They
were contemptuously dismissed, and they returned to
announce to their leader the failure of their request. Valdo
was not disconcerted. Not being able to secure the support
of the hierarchy, he dispensed with it and pursued his pro
paganda. But the archbishop of Lyons did not approve
this. He drove Valdo and his band from the diocese ; then
some years after he denounced them at the council of Verona,
where Lucins in. in company with Frederick Barbarossa pre
sided (1184). His wishes were granted. The council of
Verona inscribed " the Poor of Lyons " on the list of heretics
whom the Church condemned, and whom the secular power
was commanded to exterminate.
Condemned by the Church, Valdo and his disciples did
not cease their efforts. Impelled by unwearied zeal, they
went on with their conquest of souls, preaching wherever
they could, in the streets, on the public places, in churches,
in houses. And their preaching bore fruit. In a few years
they spread into Lorraine, Germany, Languedoc, Aragon,
Catalonia, and Lombardy. In the last named country they
met the Confraternity of the Humiliated, who had the same
end in view. They combined with it, or rather absorbed it.
Like Languedoc, Lombardy was a favourite country of the

HISTORY OF THE MONASTIC LIFE 111
Poor of Lyons. Moreover, as a general rule, the masses of
the people gave a good reception to these men and women of
tried austerity. The governments looked at them from
another point of view: it was their concern to follow the
council of Verona. It will be elsewhere seen how they
acquitted themselves of this task. It is sufficient here to
say that the persecutions which decimated the Waldenses did
not exterminate them. Entrenched in the mountains of
Dauphiny, of Savoy, of Piedmont, the Poor of Lyons persisted
throughout the Middle Ages; and when the hour of the
Reformation arrived, they entered upon negotiations with the
disciples of Luther, who believed that they saw in them their
ancestors, the Protestants of an earlier day. The Waldenses
were not Protestants.1 The truth is that, obliged to give
themselves an ecclesiastical organization, they had created a
complete priesthood, and they had, besides, adopted some
characteristics of the Cathares.
III. Military Orders. — There were three military orders,
namely : the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem or Hospitaliers,
the Templars, and the Teutonic Knights. Reference is else
where made to the Knights of the Sword (chevaliers parte
glaive), founded in 1212 by Albert of Livonia. It is enough
here to say that this association was absorbed (1237) by the
Teutonic Knights.
The Knights of St. John of Jerusalem2 had their origin.
(1048) in the hospital founded at Jerusalem by certain
citizens of Amalfi. This house, which was intended to receive
sick pilgrims, to nourish them, and to protect them against
ill-treatment by the Saracens, had no importance for fifty years.
But after the crusaders had taken Jerusalem they heaped
1 Hauck, iv. 862 ; H. Bbhmer, in R.E. xx. 799 ; Lea, i. 76 ; Bossuet,
Histoire des variations, xi. 71 ; A. Dieckhoff, Die Waldenser im Mittelalter,
Gbttingen, 1851 ; K. Muller, Die Waldenser und ihre einzelnen Gruppen,
Gotha 1886; Bossuet (loe. cit. xi. 123) justly said of the Waldensiana of the
seventeenth century : " The Waldensians of the present are not predecessors,
but followers, of the Calvinists."
2 J. Delaville le Roulx, Cartulaire gendral de I'ordre des Hospitaliers de
Saint Jean de Jirusalem, 4 vols., Paris, 1894 ; Id., Les Hospitaliers en Terre
Savnte et a Chypre, Paris, 1904 ; Helyot, iii. 74, 98.

112 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
favours on the hospital, which therefore developed its service
considerably. Yet the state of the institution was still
precarious. To make it more permanent, Gerard, the guardian
of the hospital, put the house under the protection of Pope
Pascal n.,1 who increased its endowments and granted it
privileges (1113). Raymond du Puy, the successor of Gerard,
issued rules which received the approval of Popes Innocent
n., Eugenius in., and Lucius m. Thus was established the
order of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. For a long
time it remained faithful to its twofold mission of hospitality
and protection, which in the beginning had been assigned to
it. Then little by little hospitality was sacrificed to pro
tection, and the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem became
exclusively a military order. It was a powerful order, which
occupied the strongholds of Palestine, and bravely defended
the land against the Mussulmans. Nevertheless, the knights
could not prevail against the enemy, which gradually drove
them back, and ended by capturing from them St. John of
Acre (1291). Driven from Palestine and decimated, the
order of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem seemed to be
condemned to die. But, on the contrary, it was on the eve of
beginning a new career. It settled at Rhodes, and made
that island a bulwark of Christianity, — a bulwark against
which for two centuries the efforts of the Turks were
shattered. At length in 1522 the Grand Master, Villiers de
ITsle Adam, besieged by Soliman and abandoned by the
Christian princes, after a heroic defence was forced to
capitulate. Driven from Rhodes, the Knights of St. John of
Jerusalem were authorized by Charles v. to settle at Malta
(1530). Then the name Knights of Malta was given to
them. The order of Templars2 — so called because its first
foundation was near the place where legend puts the site
of Solomon's temple — was established in 1119 by the knight
1 Jafife, 6341.
3 Lea, iii. 238-334 ; H. de Curzon, La Bigle du Temple, Paris, 1886 ; G.
Sehniirer, Die ursprungliche Tempelregel, Freiburg, 1904 ; H. Finke, Papsthum
und Untergang des Templerordens, Miinster, 1907 ; G. Lizerand, Clement V. et
Philippe le Bel, pp. 43, 250, Paris, 1910.

HISTORY OF THE MONASTIC LIFE 113
Hugues des Payens. The object of Hugues was to assure
safety to pilgrims on their way to Palestine. In 1127 he
wished to provide a rule for his companions, who were as yet
few in number; and this task he confided to St. Bernard.
In 1128 he went to France and appeared before the council
of Troyes, which approved his imdertaking and granted him
the rule composed by St. Bernard. From this time on the
order of the Templars, or, as was then said, " Poor Soldiers of
the Temple," was canonically established. The Templars did
not long remain poor. Kings and princes heaped riches upon
them. Popes also, especially Eugenius m. and Alexander in.,
granted them many privileges. At the end of the thirteenth
century they had vast domains throughout Christendom.
They also had enemies — enemies who sometimes were only
envious and jealous of their wealth ; but at other times
had serious grounds of complaint against them. For the
Templars were not always able to resist the temptations of
pride, and in more than one instance they despised the laws
of justice, and indeed of simple humanity. Nevertheless, let
us remark that their misdeeds were neither more numerous
nor more serious than those of certain other corporations.
Let us add, too, that their morals without being perfect bore
comparison with those of other monks and of the clergy.
On the whole, the Templars could carry their heads high, and
had not to blush for their weaknesses and mistakes which
were common to every one. As for their riches, these were in
the care of the Holy See. But who would have robbed them ?
That, however, which appeared to be impossible was soon to
become actual.
Philip le Bel, who was always in want of money, did not
shrink from any means of getting it. To oppress the French
with taxes, to make arbitrary confiscations, to debase the
currency, were common proceedings during his reign. One
day he carried his audacity to the point of expelling certain
Jews from his kingdom in order to take possession of their
property. About 1305 he devised a new expedient, which
consisted in laying hands upon the fortune of the Templars.
The affair was attended with some difficulty, considering that
8

114 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
the Templars, like the monks, were dependent on the Pope,
and on him alone. But this obstacle was not of a kind to
arrest the cunning Capetian. Philip knew the canon law ;
he knew that according to a pontifical decree the secular
power, under pain of excommunication, was obliged to give
forcible aid to the Church in the suppression of heresy. He
resolved to induce the ecclesiastical authority to command
him to arrest the Templars on suspicion of heresy. To
obtain this precious imperative mandate he brought forward
an indictment comprising many grievances, above all the five
following: (1) The Knights Templar are not admitted into
the order until they have denied Christ, and have spit upon
the Cross ; (2) they introduce obscene rites into the ceremony
of initiation ; (3) they consider sodomy as commendable ;
(4) they worship an idol ; (5) those of them who are priests
do not consecrate the Host at mass.
This plan was cleverly conceived. It remained only that
it should be carried out. Philip applied to Pope Clement v.,
who owed his tiara to the king of France, and who, besides,
was not of an energetic and strong race of men, and did not
refuse to take his orders. Nevertheless, he reflected, con
sulted, took measures, and, above all, gained time. This did
not advance the policy of Philip, who was in haste to achieve
results. After two years of negotiations with Clement
(1305-1307), he applied to the Grand Inquisitor of France.
Friar William was the name of this personage, who was also
called Friar Humbert, — a Dominican, confessor to the king,
as well as being Grand Inquisitor. Desiring to please his
august penitent, he called upon Philip to arrest all the
Knights Templar resident in France. No order was ever
better executed. On 13th October 1307 the Templars were
arrested simultaneously throughout the kingdom of France.
They were imprisoned, and then forced to appear before the
commissaries of the king to be examined, or rather, let us
say, to confess their guilt. For the inquiry was conducted
according to the inquisitorial method which subjected the
accused to torture, forbidding him to prove bis innocence, and
commanding him to confess his guilt : all this under pain of

HISTORY OF THE MONASTIC LIFE 115
going to the stake. Overcome by torture, terrified at the
prospect of a fiery punishment, the unhappy Templars
admitted everything that was asked of them. In accordance
with the usual fiction, they declared that they had made
their confessions freely, without constraint. Moreover, some
of them had not courage to brave the torture, and to escape
suffering hastened to confess their pretended crimes. Proud
of the success of his method, on 16 th October, Philip informed
all the Christian princes of the matter, and urged them to
follow his example. He was happy; he believed that he
had attained his object.
But he had not taken Clement v. into account. The
Pope combined with a sentiment of his own dignity a pride
which outweighed the weakness of his character, and which
sometimes gave him a semblance of energy. Upon receiving
the news of the events of 16th October, Clement at once
raised his voice, accused the king of encroaching on the
jurisdiction of the Holy See, and then officially committed
the affair of the Templars to cardinals chosen for the purpose
(27th October 1307). Three weeks later, it is true, the
weak Pontiff, alarmed at his own audacity, took a step in
retreat. He declared that the guilt of the Templars was a
fact juridically established, approved the conduct of the king
of France, and commanded the Christian princes to imitate it
(Bull. Pastoralis prceeminentice of 22nd November 1307). But
in February 1308 his desultory independence was revived,
and he once more suspended the power of inquisitors and
bishops, reserving to himself the prosecution of the Templars.
In the presence of this unexpected resistance Philip resorted to
the stringent measures which had succeeded so well during his
conflict with Boniface vin. He convoked the States-General
at Tours (May 1308) and asked their advice. That which
he had expected took place. The States-General declared
the Templars to be worthy of death, and gave the king a
free hand. Reinforced by their approval, Philip urged the
Pope to capitulate.
Poor Clement, after vainly trying to resist, yielded. He
was heartily desirous, however, of preserving appearances,

116 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
and of masking his change of front. With this in view he
charged the bishops throughout the entire Christian world
to report against the Templars (bull of 12th August 1308,
already anticipitated by the bull of 5 th July). Moreover, he
reserved for an oecumenical council the right to give rules
for the order itself. Lastly, he appointed a commission to
make an investigation the results of which should serve as
the basis of the decision of the council (other bulls of
12th August 1308). This display of entangled jurisdictions
had the fault of being too complicated ; yet if it had worked
regularly, it would have offered guarantees of impartiality.
But Clement proceeded to do his best to put the wheels of the
machinery out of order. From the very first he urged the
princes and the bishops to subject the Templars to torture, so
as to extort their confessions. He did not make this recom
mendation to France, where the prelates concerned for the
glory of the king had from the beginning vied with one another
in manifesting their zeal, but to the rest of Christendom he
made it. To give but one example : Edward ii., king of
England, who had forbidden the employment of torture in his
realm, received by a pontifical letter of 6 th August 1310
a severe admonition, and was directed to conform to the
canons. Furthermore, the Pope did nothing to protect the
commission charged with preparing the work of the oecu
menical council against the ill-will of the king of France and
of the bishops. He learned that the council of Sens had
treated as backsliders, and for this reason had condemned to
the stake, fifty-four Templars for having retracted before the
pontifical commissaries the confession which had three years
before been wrung from them by torture, and he made no
protest against the infamy. Not less to be regretted was his
attitude towards the oecumenical council. This assembly,
composed of three hundred bishops, met at Vienne, in
Dauphiny, on 16 th October 1311. Clement tried to insist
upon its issuing a sentence of condemnation. The bishops,
with the exception of four, previously to condemning the
knights desired themselves to put questions to them, to
receive their depositions, and to hear their defence. That

HISTORY OF THE MONASTIC LIFE 117
amounted to declaring rather plainly that the procedure
followed up to that time did not inspire them with confidence.
Clement was obliged to swallow this affront and to give up
proclaiming the guilt of the Templars as if it had been
legally proven. But he took care not to authorize the
appearance before the council of these unfortunate persons,
to set forth facts which would have brought to light the
craftiness of the king of France. He resorted to the ex
pedient of abolition "by provision." Consequently he
explained that the order of Templars, in the absence of
proofs, could not be condemned, but that for the future its
existence would be a permanent cause of trouble, and that he,
the Pope, would therefore abolish it (bull of 22nd March
1312, published the following April at the second session of
the council). The order, which had been abolished without being
condemned, held property, and had members over whom
it was necessary to exercise some control. Clement exer
cised this control. He decided that the property of
the Templars should be vested in the Knights of St. John
of Jerusalem. As to the members of the order, he sent
them back to the provincial councils, with the exception of
the leaders, concerning whom he reserved judgment. That
was the theoretical solution. Practically, things did not
take this course. Philip le Bel, who from the beginning had
taken possession of the fortunes of the French Templars, was
careful not to relinquish them. He testified his allegiance
to the sentence of the Pope, gave promises, made use of
subterfuges, but until his death kept the booty, which was
surrendered only gradually and partially by his successors.
In England, Edward II. tried to appropriate the spoils of the
Templars, but he finally conformed to the pontifical decision.
The provincial councils, with rare exceptions, failed to fulfil
the mission which had been assigned to them. Clement, who
had pledged himself personally to judge the chiefs of the
order, did not keep his promise ; for himself, he substituted a
commission of cardinals. The latter after a long delay
(1314) repaired to Paris and brought before it the digni-

118 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
taries of the Templars, who since 1307 had been languishing
in dungeons, and condemned them to prison for life. The
sentence was pronounced with great pomp before the portals
of Notre Dame. Then a tragic incident occurred. In 1307
the Grand Master, Jacques de Molai, had confessed crimes of
which the order had been accused. He had made this
confession in the hope of being set at liberty. When he
found that he was condemned to prison for life, he made a
retraction, declared that in 1307 he had made false con
fessions, and proclaimed the innocence of the order of
Templars. One of his companions followed his example.
By this retraction both of them became heretical backsliders.
Because of this they were at once condemned to the stake by
Philip le Bel. Being taken immediately to a small island
in the Seine, to the place where the statue of Henry rv. now
stands, they perished in the flames (11th March 1314).
The order of Teutonic Knights,1 founded in 1121 at St.
John of Acre in Palestine, by Conrad the German chaplain,
and in the same year endorsed by Clement m.,2 was primarily
intended to direct a hospital built near the walls of St. John
of Acre by citizens of Bremen and of Liibeck (1189). It was
therefore at its origin exclusively an asylum. This service
was soon greatly appreciated in Germany, and gave popularity
to those who performed it. A large number of German
towns sent for the monks of St. John of Acre and entrusted
their hospitals to them.
Yet after 1198 the monks of the hospital founded by
Conrad had enlarged the circle of their duties. Still continu
ing the care of the sick, they had taken up the sword to
fight the infidels in case of necessity. They remained monks,
but these monks had made themselves knights. That was in
Palestine. In Germany they were at first only monks ; but
there also, at the end of several years, a change took place.
This was in 1226. Christian, bishop of the Prussians, made
useless attempts to subdue the rebellious subjects in his
diocese. He remembered that the Teutonic Knights acquitted
1 G. Uhlhorn, in R.E. iv. 589 ; Helyot, iii. 143, 165.
2 Jaffe, 1667.

HISTORY OF THE MONASTIC LIFE 119
themselves as well on the battlefield as in the hospital, and
he appealed to their martial courage. His expectation was
not unfounded. The knights entered Prussia in 1230 and
evangelized the country at the edge of the sword. The work
took long, but it was successful. In 1283 the Prussians ceased
to resist, and for a very good reason : they were exterminated.
Being masters of the country, the Teutonic Knights peopled
it with German colonists and governed it. When established
at Marienburg as their capital, they made Prussia a State of
which they were the kings. It was a prosperous State where
agriculture and commerce flourished, and where wealth
was developed day by day. So it went on for about a
century; then the discipline of the order was weakened.
Corruption entered their ranks. It was the beginning of
their decadence. Poland observed the situation, and sought
the opportunity of making a bold stroke. On 15th June
1410 it fell upon the knights and inflicted upon them the
bloody defeat of Tannenberg. A half-century later the
knights, who had become gradually weaker, were forced to
sign the peace of Thorn, which took from them a part of
Prussia, and left the other part only on condition that they
should take an oath to become vassals of the king of Poland
(1466). They took this oath, although most unwillingly, and
for a half-century worked to have their revenge. But in
1525 the Grand Master of the order, Albert of Brandenburg,
giving up the idea of revenge, negotiated with Sigismund,
king of Poland, the treaty of Cracovia, which made the country
a fief of Poland,1 although administered by the Teutonic order.
This act of apparent abnegation was really a crafty political
manoeuvre. Albert, who in his quality of knight had taken
the vow of chastity, wished to marry, to leave the Roman
Church and become a Protestant. He could not achieve this
without the protection of Sigismund. To obtain this protec
tion he consented to become duke of Prussia, that is, vassal
of the king of Poland ; but hereditary duke, with power to
bequeath the crown to his children. Prussia became a duchy
1 J. Pietsch, Diet, tfhistoire et de giographie eeclisiastique, i. 1516,
Paris, 1912.

120 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
where Protestantism found its best support. As for the
knights, some of them — and these formed the majority —
followed the example of Albert and apostatized : the re
mainder, scattered through Germany, elected a new Master
and cherished the illusion that they were faithful to the past.
The order of Teutonic Knights, indeed, continued to exist, but
it was only a shadow. The apostasy of Albert of Branden
burg gave it its death-blow.
IV. Hospital Orders} — In the first rank of humanitarian
orders in the Middle Ages, the Friars of the Holy Ghost, the
Trinitarian Friars, and the Friars of our Lady of Mercy have
a place. In the background appear the Antonites, the
Knights of St. Lazarus, the Haudriettes, the Friars of Haut-
Pas, and other less important congregations which cannot
here be mentioned.
The order of the Holy Ghost was devoted to the care of
the sick. It was founded in 1178 by Guy of Montpellier,2
who built it at the gate of this city. In 1198, Pope
Innocent m. approved the work of Guy, and confided to this
charitable man (1204) the direction of the hospital founded
at Rome by the Anglo-Saxons (in Sassia). The Friars of the
Holy Ghost pronounced the following oath : " I consecrate
myself to God, to the Holy Ghost, to the Blessed Virgin, and
to our lords the sick, to be their servant all the days of my
life." During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries they
spread gradually over Europe, and occupied nine hundred
houses, four hundred of which were in France. In the
fifteenth century there occurred a decline, which obliged
Pius n. and Sixtus rv. to suppress them.
The order of Trinitarians 3 had as its object the ransom of
Christians who had been taken captive by Mussulmans. It
1 G. Uhlhorn, Die ehristliche Liebesthatigkeit im Mitlelalter, Stuttgart,
1884. 2 Helyot, ii. 200 ; G. Brune, Histoire de Vordre hospitalier du Saint-Esprit,
Paris, 1892 ; Ch. de Smedt, "L'Ordre hospitalier du Saint-Esprit," Bevue des
questions historiques, lix. 216, 1893 ; Uhlhorn, p. 187.
3 A. Hauck, R.E. xx. 123 ; P. Deslandres, L'Eglise et le rachatdes captifs,
Paris, 1902 ; Id., L'Ordre des Trinitaires, 2 vols., Paris, 1903.

HISTORY OF THE MONASTIC LIFE 121
was founded at Cerfroid, in the diocese of Meaux, by Jean de
Matha, a gentleman from the county of Nice. At Cerfroid,
Jean met the hermit Felix of Valois, who seems to have
become his assistant. At all events he was aided by the
Countess Marguerite of Burgundy. His work, approved by
two bulls of Innocent hi., prospered (1198, 1199). After
the year 1199 Jean was able to ransom from the Mussulmans
of Tunis one hundred and eighty-six Christian captives. He
died in 1213.
The order of Our Lady of Mercy was also designed to
obtain the freedom of Christians taken captive by the
Mussulmans.1 Its founder was Pierre Nolasque, a native of
Languedoc. Pierre, when he devised the plan, was in the
service of Jayme I. of Aragon. Encouraged by this prince as
well as by Raymond of Pennafort, who himself revised the
rule of the new order, Pierre threw himself into the work
(1228). He gathered companions, collected money, and
ransomed Christians. His order, approved by Gregory ix.
(in 1230 and 1235), spread throughout Europe, especially in
Spain and the south of France. Pierre was not a priest ; the
same was true of the first Grand Masters who succeeded him.
It was only about 1317 that the order of Our Lady of
Mercy had a priest at its head.
The Antonites,2 or Hospital Friars of St. Anthony, were
founded in 1065 under the following circumstances. A
young nobleman of Dauphiny was attacked with a malady
known as " St. Anthony's fire." His father, Gaston, went to
the Church of St. Didier la Mothe, which, it was said,
possessed relics of St. Anthony, and he promised the saint, if
he would cure his son, to dedicate his fortune to the relief of
victims of the same disease. The son was cured ; the father
paid what he had vowed ; and aided by nine companions, one
of whom was his son, he founded a hospital at St. Didier.
This small company, approved by Urban n. at the council of
Clermont (1095), was transformed by Honorius m. into a
1 Fr. Zumel, Vita Sancti Petri Nolasci, Acta Sanctorum, Janvier, ii. 981-
988 ; P. Gams, Kirchengeschichle Spaniens, iii. 1, 236 ; Helyot, iii. 271, 299.
2 Helyot, ii. 110 ; Uhlhorn, 178, 432, 478.

122 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
religious order governed by vows. In 1286 it adopted the
rule called that of St. Augustine. For a time it developed
and spread into most European countries. At the beginning
of the sixteenth century it comprised three hundred and sixty-
four houses.
The Knights of St. Lazarus 1 consecrated themselves to
the service of lepers. Up to 1253 their Grand Master was
a man who had once been leprous. They built hospitals in
most of the European countries ; but their chief house was in
France, at Boigne. In 1150 there existed a hospital for
lepers at Jerusalem, the keepers of which were made
knights by Baudoin iv. (1174). This was probably the
origin of the order of St. Lazare which (about 1490) was
abolished by Innocent vm.
The Haudriettes, founded about 1250 at Paris by
Madame Haudry, were devoted to the care of the mendicant
women. The Friars of Haut-Pas were occupied in building
bridges and in helping travellers. Coming from Lucques,
where their existence was remarked (1127), they spread
thence into different countries. At Paris they founded the
hospital of St. Jacques of Haut-Pas.
V. Orders subsequent to the Thirteenth Century. — Here we
meet with the Friars of the Common Life, the Minimes, the
Order of St. Saviour or of St. Bridget, the Olivetans, the
Jesuates, the Oblates, the Annonciades, and the Hieronymites.
The Friars of the Common Life2 were founded by
Gerard Groot, born in Holland (1340) at De venter, in the
diocese of Utrecht, whose early years were worldly, was
converted (1375), lived a life of penitence, and gradually
gathered some disciples around him. Such was the origin of
the Friars of the Common Life. This society proposed to
sanctify its members, but imposed no vows : it did not even
require a life in common. It was therefore, properly speaking,
i Helyot, i. 257 ; Uhlhorn, 272, 493.
2L. Schulze, "Briiderdes gemeinsamen Lebens," in the Bealencyclopadie,
iii. 472; Helyot, ii. 347.

HISTORY OF THE MONASTIC LIFE 123
not a religious order: it was rather what would to-day be
called a club. Its rule continued until the death of Groot
(1384). After this the Friars of the Common Life felt the
need of giving themselves an organization and statutes, of
living a life in common, — a result which, after some experi
mental years, was obtained about 1392. Then the Friars of
the Common Life, although they were not real monks, — they
took no vows, — made an approach to the monastic life.
Several of their oldest members adopted a more severe rule,
and at Windesheim, near Zwolle, founded a congregation of
regular canons. The Friars of the Common Life spread into
Holland, Belgium, and Germany. They exercised a consider
able influence on the education and instruction of the young.
As for the congregation of Windersheim, it, too, had a certain
expansion. To it belonged the author of the Imitation,
Thomas a Kempis, in the bishopric of Cologne (1380-1471).
The Order of the Minimes1 was founded about 1454 by
Francis of Paula, a small town in Calabria. When scarcely
more than a child, Francis led the life of a hermit, and
gained a reputation for sanctity which brought him many
disciples. The Minimes were hermits. Francis died in
France (1507), at the chateau of Plessis-lez-Tours, where
twenty years before Louis xi. had called him, to obtain
through his intercession the grace of escaping death.
The Order of St. Saviour owes its origin to St. Bridget.2
Bridget was of a noble Swedish family, and was born near
Upsala (1303). Married, according to her father's wish, at
the age of thirteen, she was nevertheless able to reconcile her
duties as wife and mother with the practice of earnest piety
and unwearied devotion to the poor. When about forty
years of age she had visions. Christ appeared and made
revelations to her, and enjoined upon her especially to found
a new order. Bridget obeyed the divine commandment, and
with the help of the king of Sweden founded the monastery
» Helyot, vii. 426.
2 H. Schlick, Svensk Liter ¦aturhistoria, Stockholm, 1890 ; G. Binder, Die
heilige Brigitta von Schweden und ihr Klosterorden, Miinchen, 1891 ; H.
Lundstrbm, " Brigitta," in Bealencyclopadie, iii. 239 ; Helyot, iv. 26, 43.

124 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
of Vadstena (1346). Thus arose the order of St. Saviour.
In 1370 it was approved by Urban v., who three years later
granted important indulgences to the monastery. Bridget,
who exerted herself to obtain these favours, and who, besides,
had a considerable ascendancy over Pope Urban v., the king,
and the Swedish nobility, indeed over all those who came
into contact with her, died at Rome (1373). Her order
spread rapidly throughout the northern countries, and pene
trated even into Italy and Spain. Each convent comprised
thirteen priests and sixty nuns. The monastery of Vadstena
was a powerful centre of literary culture in Sweden.
The Olivetans,1 so called because their first monastery
was established (1319) on Mount Oliveto, near Sienna, was
founded by John Tolom^i, who died in 1348. They followed
the rule of St. Benedict, and should therefore be regarded as
a branch of the great Benedictine family.
The Jesuates2 were founded (1360) at Sienna by a rich
merchant of that city, John Colombini. The order was
approved by Urban v. (1367). It followed the rule of St.
Augustine, and devoted itself to the care of the poor. Later,
it engaged in more profitable occupations, and manufactured
eau de vie. Clement IX. suppressed it (1669).
The Oblates 3 formed a congregation of women devoted to
the care of the sick. The founder, Jeanne Franchise Romaine,
assembled her first companions at Rome (1433), and obtained
the approval of Eugenius hi.
The Order of the Annonciades4 was founded (1502)
under the following circumstances. Louis xn., king of France,
before ascending the throne married Jeanne, the daughter of
Louis xi., and sister of Charles viii. After becoming king he
wished Rome to annul his marriage so that he might take as
his wife Anne of Brittany, the widow of Charles vni. Pope
Alexander vi. granted him full permission, and Jeanne was set
aside (1498). The poor queen retired to Bourges and
founded a monastery of nuns devoted to the inculcation of
the virtues of the Holy Virgin. This plan, even before it
1 Helyot, vi. 192. a Acta Sanctorum, July, vii. 418.
* Helyot, vi. 2Q8. * Id. vii. 341.

HISTORY OF THE MONASTIC LIFE 125
had been executed, received the approval of Alexander vi.
(1502) ; the monastery was established in 1503.
The Order of the Hieronymites 1 was founded in Spain
(about 1320), by Vasco, and in 1377 received the approval of
Gregory xi. It spread in Spain, Portugal, and America.
Moreover, the kings of Spain willingly endowed it with their
wealth. It was in a monastery of the Hieronymites at St.
Just that Charles v. died. It may be added that in the
course of the fifteenth century, three other congregations of
the same name settled in Italy.
1 Helyot, iii. 435.

CHAPTER IV
The Pontifical Election
From the fifth to the sixteenth century the election of the
Pope was subject to various regulations, several of which, it is
true, had only shades of difference. At the time of St. Leo,
the election took place by consent of the clergy and of the
Roman people. But this primitive arrangement disappeared
at the fall of the Western Empire. Indeed, Odoacer made
a treaty with Pope Simplicius authorizing the former to pre
side at pontifical elections ; and by virtue of this agreement,
after the death of Simplicius he awarded the pontifical see to
Felix in.1 (a.d. 483). This interposition of the civil power
in the appointment of the Pope continued after the fall of
Odoacer (493). The Gothic kings insisted that the Church
of Rome should be governed by men devoted to their cause,
and they worked to secure this result. Several popes of
this period owed their appointment to Gothic influences.2
Among these popes were Felix iv. (526), of whom the first
recension of the Liber Pontijkalis says, " he was consecrated
by order of Theodoric," and Silverius, who, according to this
same Liber Pontificalis, purchased his nomination from King
Theodahat (536). The Gothic king asked a price for his
services ; the electors at Rome, of influence, asked a price for
theirs. Candidates for the papacy bought the see of Peter as
one purchases a notary's study or a registrar's place. The
1 Information furnished by the Roman council of 6th November 502, Mansi,
viii. 265 ; M. G. Auctores antiquissimi, xii. 448.
2 As to the election of Felix iv., see the letter of Athalaric to the Senate, in
Cassiodori Varia, viii. 15, M. G. Auct. antiq. xii. 246; G. Pfeilschifter, Der
ostogolhenkonig Theodorich der Grosse, p. 203, Miinster, 1896.
128

THE PONTIFICAL ELECTION 127
scandal went so far that the Senate twice forbade this un
becoming traffic.1 It did not succeed ; for it was three years
after its last edict that the appointment of Silverius was
made. Moreover, money was not the only cause of the
difficulty. After the death of Anastasius n. (498) the
electoral corps was divided into two parties, and two popes,
Symmachus and Laurentius, were elected. The schism lasted
more than six years, and did not come to an end until the
day when Theodoric the king, deferring to the wishes of
Symmachus, drove Laurentius from Rome 2 (505).
To prevent these evils, Symmachus devised an ingenious
plan ; this was to authorize the Pope himself to appoint his
own successor. The rule established by Symmachus did not
remain a dead letter. It was utilized for the first time by
Felix rv. (530), who, knowing that he was at the point of
death, transmitted his office to the archdeacon Boniface, gave
him the pallium as the sign of investiture, and by means of
a prceceplum posted on the doors of the churches at Rome,
commanded the electors on pain of excommunication to
submit to his will.3 It was utilized a second time (531) by
Boniface n., who gave the succession to the archdeacon Vigilius,
and solemnly announced this constitution to all the clergy,
in the basilica of St. Peter.* But neither Felix nor Boniface
could ensure the success of their plan. In 530 the electors,
without giving heed to the edict of the dead Pope, rejected
the archdeacon Boniface and granted the pontifical chair to
the Alexandrian deacon Dioscorus. Invested by a great
majority of the Roman clergy and by the Senate, Dioscorus
was consequently the lawful Pope; but only for a short
time, as he died at the end of twenty-three days. Then iii
its confusion the Roman Church consented to recognize
Boniface as its chief, who from being anti-Pope, by a lucky
chance became lawful Pope, who, thanks to the support of
the Gothic king, even succeeded in having his predecessor
1 Cassiodori Varia, ix. 15, 16, in M. G. pp. 279-281.
2 Vita Symmachi, in Liber Pontiflcalis.
•Duchesne, "La succession du Pape Felix iv.," in Melanges d'archeol. et
Whist, iii. (1883) 239-266, and in Liber Pontiflcalis, i. 282, Paris, 1886.
4 Vita Bonifatii II., in Liber Pontiflcalis.

128 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Dioscorus anathematized by the Roman clergy. In 531,
when Boniface appointed Vigilius as his successor, the clergy
did not dare to protest ; but the Gothic king protested.
He claimed for himself the right to appoint the titular of the
Roman see, and gave Boniface to understand that he had
been guilty of high treason. Terrified at this the poor
Pope convoked the provincial bishops (suburbicarii), the
clergy of Rome, and the Senate. In the presence of this
assembly he humbly acknowledged that he had infringed
upon the rights of the king, and also that he had violated
canonical law. To make reparation, he threw his constitu
tion into the fire.1 His successor was not Vigilius, but John
n. (533), to whom succeeded Agapitus (535). This Pope
inflicted a fresh affront on the memory of Boniface n. He
removed from the archives, and burned in the presence of
all the clergy, the formula of anathema drawn up against
Dioscorus by Boniface and endorsed by the Roman clergy.2
Thenceforth the system devised by Symmachus was definitely
abandoned; no pope undertook ever again to appoint his
successor. To return to the archdeacon Vigilius, whom (531) Boni
face n. had tried ineffectually to make his heir. Six years
later (29th March 537) we find him again in the chair of
St. Peter. Vigilius had become Pope.3 This was by virtue
of an election which is now to be explained. On 22nd April
536, Pope Agapitus died at Constantinople, whither he had
gone by order of the Gothic king Theodohat to make some
ecclesiastical negotiations. At this period the Monophysite
heresy continued to make a difference between Rome and
Constantinople, between the West and the East. The
empress Theodora, wife of Justinian, who greatly desired to
have the question settled in favour of the East, cleverly took
advantage of the death of Agapitus and resolved to place as
his successor at Rome a man who sympathized with the
1 Vita Bonifatii II. ; Mansi, viii. 737 ; Hefele, ii. 744.
* Vita Agapiti, in Liber Pontiflcalis.
» Duchesne, Vigile et Pelage, Bev. des questions historiques, xxxvi. (1884)
369-440.

THE PONTIFICAL ELECTION 129
eastern theology. Precisely at this time Vigilius, the former
candidate for the papacy, was at Constantinople. Theodora
made alluring promises to him, and demanded pledges.
The bargain was concluded. Vigilius agreed to deal very
liberally with the Monophysite question. As a reward, he
received seven hundred pounds in gold and a letter com
manding Belisarius, who was then in Italy, to have Vigilius
elected Pope. Equipped with this twofold treasure, he left
Constantinople, took ship, and landed in Italy.
All this was rapidly accomplished ; yet not rapidly
enough. The subdeacon Silverius had actually bought in haste,
from Theodahat the Gothic king, the succession of Agapitus.
And when Vigilius presented himself to occupy the pontifical
chair, the place had been taken. The ambitious deacon
was not disconcerted by so slight a difficulty. He went to
see Belisarius at Ravenna, showed him Theodora's letter,
promised to give him two hundred pounds in gold on the
day when the desires of the empress should be satisfied, and
then committed his destiny to Providence. Providence did
not fail him. Some time afterwards (March 537) Silverius,
accused of attempting to surrender Rome to the Goths (who
were driven out on 10th December 536), was summoned
before Belisarius, deposed, and sent into exile at Patara in
Lycia. When this had been done, the Byzantine general
gave orders to the Roman clergy to fill the vacancy in the
Apostolic See. The clergy obeyed with docility. It pro
ceeded to elect a Pope, and its choice fell on the protege" of
Theodora. After becoming Pope, Vigilius did not forget his
predecessor. He had the unhappy pontiff surrendered to
him, and when the latter was in his keeping he sent him to
the island of Palmaris, where he allowed him to die of
hunger.1 Vigilius died at Syracuse on 7th June 555, after having
expiated his crimes by cruel afflictions which need not here
be recounted. At this time there was a Roman deacon at
Constantinople named Pelagius who was very hostile to the
1 Baronius, 538, 18, says of Vigilius : " Qui coegerat sanctum predecessorem
suum Silverium deportatum in inaulam illie animam exhalare."
9

130 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
imperial theology, and for this reason had been confined in
a convent. Pelagius had evil ideas, but he was very intelli
gent. Justinian sent for him, and promised him the succes
sion of Vigilius provided he would become converted. The
prospect of ascending the throne of St. Peter had a marvel
lous effect on the prisoner. The doctrines opposed to the
imperial orthodoxy appeared to him in a new light. He dis
covered heresies in them which up to that time had escaped
his notice. Pelagius condemned everything that he was
required to condemn. Justinian, for his part, gave his orders,
and Pelagius was made Pope.
In 536, Rome was in the power of Constantinople. It
submitted to the Byzantine domination, which was to be
maintained until the fall of the exarchate of Ravenna (751).
Of what sort were the pontifical elections to be during this
period ? To judge by those of Vigilius and Pelagius, it might
have been inferred that the emperor would impose his own
candidates upon the Roman Church. But the elections of
Vigilius and Pelagius were exceptions. After these two
popes, the emperor, as a rule, ceased to interfere in the
election, and reserved for himself the right of ratification.
This is how events occurred.1 The third day after the
Pope's death, the clergy, the people, and the soldiery met at
the Lateran and proceeded to appoint some one in his place.
When the majority agreed upon a name, what was known as
the consensus, that is, the report of the election, was prepared,
and was presented to the prefect, who dispatched it to Con
stantinople. The emperor replied with a jussio or prozceptio,
which authorized the consecration of him who had been
elected. So soon as the imperial authorization was obtained
the Pope elect, who was usually a deacon and sometimes a
priest, received episcopal consecration at St. Peter's at the
hands of the bishop of Ostia, assisted by the bishops of
Albano and Porto, and by the archdeacon. Between the
sending of the consensus to Constantinople and the arrival of
1 Duchesne, Le Liber diurnus et les elections pontificates a% vii' siicle ;
Bibliotheque de Vicole des Chartes, Iii. (1891) 5 ; Hinschius, Kirchenrecht,
L 219.

THE PONTIFICAL ELECTION 131
the jussio at Rome, sometimes a period of a year elapsed, at
the very least several months. In the meantime the Roman
Church was governed by a council of administration. The
Pope elect was a member of this council. He and his
colleagues signed the acts of importance ; yet sometimes he
alone signed them. In any case, he could not be consecrated
bishop of Rome before he had obtained the authorization of
the emperor. Thus the Roman Church understood the
matter. The report of the election which it sent to the
emperor ended with a petition ; " We beseech you to grant
an order, so that our desires may be fulfilled by the ordina
tion of him who has been elected." Moreover, in 590, Gregory
the Great, who was elected Pope against his will,1 wrote to
the emperor Maurice begging him not to ratify the election.
But the prefect of Rome intercepted the letter, and sent to
Constantinople only the consensus of the Roman Church.
In 579, at the election of the predecessor of Gregory, as
the city was besieged by the Lombards it was impossible to
ask the jussio of the emperor at Constantinople, and so the
episcopal consecration was at once performed. In the seventh
century, critical circumstances of another kind prevented
submitting the elections of Honorius (625) and Theodorus
(642) for ratification. Emboldened by these precedents, the
Romans believed they could put Pope Martin i. at the head
of their Church without the authorization of the court of
Constantinople (649). Unfortunately the emperor, who had
no taste for the theology of Martin, made a pretext of
the nullity of the election to deprive him of his office.
On the whole, apart from insignificant cases which with
a single exception were due to circumstances, the pontifical
elections were submitted for about two centuries to the
emperor for ratification. About the end of the seventh
century, two reforms in matters of detail were introduced
into this procedure. One of these had to do with the place
of ratification. The emperor Constantine Pogonatus decided
in 684 that the decree of election should thereafter be sub
mitted to the exarch of Ravenna, and that this official should
1 Jaffe, 1066.

132 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
grant the authorization necessary for proceeding with the
consecration of the Pope elect. The journey to Ravenna
was shorter than that to Constantinople. The decree of
Constantine Pogonatus lessened the length of time during
which the pontifical throne would be vacant. The other
reform made by the same emperor was of a financial kind.
By virtue of a practice dating from the time of the Gothic
kings, the Pope elect was obliged to pay a sum of money into
the imperial treasury in order to secure his ratification. In
680, Constantine Pogonatus did not exact this pecuniary
contribution. After this date the popes no longer had to
pay in order to ascend the throne of St. Peter. That was
the theory, but practically it was not always so. In 687,
the exarch being called upon to decide between different
candidates, gave the preference to Sergius, but demanded one
hundred pounds in gold, which the Pope paid to him out of
the treasury of St. Peter.
In 731, Pope Gregory in. had his election confirmed by
the exarch. This was the last time. The exarchate of
Ravenna was then approaching its end ; twenty years later it
had ceased to exist. The pontifical elections by the force of
events were withdrawn from the control of the empire.
Nothing was gained by this. In 757, rivalries of influence
and of interest troubled the election of Paul i. The case was
very different ten years later when the Pope died1 (767).
Count Toto, a nobleman of the Roman Campagna, entered
Rome at the head of an armed force, took possession of the
Lateran, and there installed his brother Constantine. The
new Pope was as yet only a layman, but bishops were found
to confer orders upon him. On 5th July 767, Constantine n.,
endowed with episcopal consecration, solemnly inaugurated
his pontificate at St. Peter's. For a year all went well
Then Christopher, the confidant of the late Pope, decided that
the moment had come to set things in order. He had a
secret understanding with the Lombard king, who procured
soldiers for him ; and when he had obtained all the aid
necessary, he attempted an attack on Rome. Success crowned
1 Duchesne, Les Premiers Temps de V&tat pontifical, p. 110.

THE PONTIFICAL ELECTION 133
his undertaking. Count Toto was slain, Pope Constantine
with his attendants was imprisoned. Some days later the
eyes of all were put out. Being master of the situation,
Christopher convoked the Romans to an electoral assembly
and presented to them the priest who was elected Pope with
the name of Stephen in. (7th August 768). Order was re
established. But it was necessary to prevent the return of the scenes
which (767) had dishonoured the see of St. Peter. It was
this which engaged the council which was held in the basilica
of the Lateran (769), where Constantine n., thoroughly beaten,
was afterwards deposed. A constitution was promulgated,
according to the terms of which the pontifical election was
thenceforth reserved to the clergy. Laymen were forbidden
to take part in it, except to acclaim the one elected, and to
ratify with their signatures the act of his election.1
The constitution of 769 banished the laity from the
electoral body, of which they had hitherto formed a part
There is reason to believe that, discontented at losing their
traditional rights, they made the working of this new legis
lation difficult if not impossible. In any case the regime of
769 had only a transient existence: in 824 it was repealed.
At this date Pope Pascal i. died. His administration, stained
with violence and disturbances, raised complaints which came
to the ears of Louis Debonnair. From the time of Pepin, the
Frankish princes were charged by the popes themselves with
the defence of the Roman Church, to protect it against its
enemies within and without. Learning of the evils from
which Rome was suffering, Louis directed his son to go there
and relieve them. Lothair went, made an inquiry, remarked
the abuses committed by Pascal and by his predecessor
Leo in., repaired what could be repaired, took measures
designed to satisfy the Romans and also to reinforce the
imperial authority. One of these measures was a constitution
intended to regulate the pontifical election.
The constitution of Lothair contains two articles. One
authorizes the laity to take part in the pontifical election ;
1 Mansi, xii. 719 ; Hefele, iii. 435 ; Hinschius, i. 228 ; Duchesne, p. 169.

134 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
the other submits the election to confirmation by the emperor,
represented by the missus, who after 824 was to reside
permanently at Rome ; forbids proceeding to the episcopal
consecration of the Pope- elect without the imperial authoriza
tion and, besides, requires the Pope-elect, before receiving
consecration, to swear fidelity in the presence of the emperor's
representative. It was by making the oath stricter that the
Byzantine regime was renewed to the advantage of the
emperor of the Franks.
Gregory iv. submitted to the constitution of Lothair, but
his successor Sergius n. wished to be emancipated from it
(844). Lothair, being dissatisfied, sent his son, King Louis,
directly to Rome, escorted by an army, and a deputation of
bishops to call the recalcitrant Pope to order. Sergius took
the oath, the Romans bound themselves to carry out the
pontifical election in the presence of the imperial delegates,
and not to permit the consecration of the Pope-elect until the
ratification of the emperor had been received. The law thus
avenged worked rather regularly so long as the Carolingian
house remained in power. With the exception of Leo IV.,
who was besieged by the Saracens, and procured a dispensation,
the popes who came after Sergius n. submitted their election
to the emperor for approval, and were not consecrated until
they had obtained the imperial jussio.
Not satisfied with this success, the emperor Louis n. wished
to become master of the pontifical election. After the death
of Benedict III. (858) he imposed his candidate Nicholas I.
upon the clergy. The choice was, without doubt, excellent,
for Nicholas I. has a place among the greatest of the popes ;
but he violated the constitution of 824, which authorized the
emperor to ratify the election, and not to dictate the choice
to be made by the electors. Moreover, Nicholas himself, in
order to suppress the abuses of which he was the beneficiary,
decided in a council (861) that no stranger to Rome could
henceforth interfere with the pontifical choice.1 In con
formity to this decree, the emperor Louis n. contented himself
with ratifying the election of Anastasius n. (867). It is not
'Duchesne, p. 240.

THE PONTIFICAL ELECTION 135
known whether he showed the same reserve in the election
of John vni. (872), who in any case answered to his wishes.
In 885 the imperial missus took part in the election which
favoured Stephen v. Charles the Fat wished, nevertheless, to
have the new pontiff deposed, on the pretence that he, the
emperor, had not been consulted. He was appeased when it
was proved to him that everything had been done regularly.
Two years later, at the diet of Tribur (November 887),
Charles the Fat was deposed. The Carolingian empire,
notwithstanding the efforts made by Pope Formosus to
prolong its existence, disappeared with Arnulf (89.6). Three
or four princes came to Rome to have themselves consecrated
emperors, but disappeared after a reign of a day. One must
await Otto to see another empire arise — the Germanic
empire (962).1
In the three-quarters of a century which separated the
Carolingian from the Germanic empire, Rome fell successively
into the power of the house of Spoleto, of the king of
Provence, of Berenger, duke of Frioul, and of the house of
Theophylactus. Each of these governments, at least when
it had time, endeavoured to have popes nominated who
would be devoted to them. The dukes of Spoleto, who were
first at work, gained a complete success with Stephen vi.
(896). In the two following pontificates they seem to have
been held in check by popular factions. They had their
revenge under John ix., who at the council (898) re-established
in their interest the constitution of 824, and submitted the
pontifical elections to their veto.2 But some months later
the dukes disappeared without having been able to enjoy
the conciliatory decree which would have consolidated their
power. Louis of Provence and Berenger, during the few years of
their ephemeral power, took part in four pontifical elections.
It is not known whether they succeeded in controlling them, or
1 Mansi, xviii. 325 ; Duchesne, p. 307.
2M. G. Constitutions, i. 26, taking account of the text of Luitprand (Gest.
Oltonis, 8): "jurantes nunquam se papam electuros aut ordinaturos prseter
consensum et electionem domini imperatoris Ottonis " ; Duchesne, pp. 343-348 ;
Hauck, iii. 233.

136 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
were obliged to yield to local factions. Information is more
definite from the time of the pontificate of Sergius in. This
Pope, who was the lover of Marozia, permitted the family of
that young girl to gain an authority at Rome which it
preserved for almost sixty years. Theodora, the mother of
Marozia, either alone or in concert with her husband,
Theophylactus, appointed three popes, one of whom, John x.,
was her lover. Marozia, having superseded her mother, caused
the accession to the pontifical see of Leo vi., Stephen vn., and
then of her son John xi. Finally, Alberic, another son of
Marozia, who had risen to power (932), began to appoint
popes. Leo vn., Stephen viii., Marinus ii., Agapitus il, were
his creations. At the point of death, he made the Romans
swear to choose his son Octavian when they should have to
fill the next vacancy on the pontifical throne. The Romans
kept their word. Agapitus died (955), and they made
Octavian his successor, who took the name John xn. This
Pope, notorious for his dissolute morals, ascended the pontifical
throne after an " election " the result of which was fixed in
advance by an oath. So it was after the fall of the
Carolingian house. The election was not abrogated, but it
served only to ratify the choice already made by the civil
power. It was the pretence of an election.
At the end of some years, John xn., beset by many
difficulties, called Otto I. to his assistance ; and to assure
his own protection, offered him the imperial crown. Otto
accepted the offer ; the empire was re-established (February
962). By the same stroke the constitution of 824 was
again put into force ; in other words, it was agreed that the
pontifical election should be submitted for the imperial
approval, and that the Pope-elect, before being consecrated,
should swear fidelity in the presence of the emperor's repre
sentative. But about the end of the following year, Otto
learned that he had been betrayed by John xn. ; he
returned to Rome and deposed him, appointed Leo viii. in his
place, and then issued the famous " constitution of Otto."
The constitution of Otto reserves to the emperor the
right of choosing the Pope ; it suppresses, at least de facto,

THE PONTIFICAL ELECTION 137
the pontifical election, which, nevertheless, continues in force
pro forma. The emperor designates the candidate whom he
considers most worthy to occupy the pontifical chair; then
the Pope-elect is installed at the Lateran and consecrated at
St. Peter's. Inaugurated in November 963, the constitution of Otto
was in force as long as the three Ottos occupied the imperial
throne, that is, until 1002. After an interval of forty years,
which coincides with the reigns of Henry n. and Conrad II.,
it was again taken up and vigorously applied by the emperor
Henry in. Otto I. appointed Leo viii. (963-965), John xiii.
(965-972), Benedict vi. (972-974). Otto n. chose
Benedict vn. (974-983) and John xiv. (983-984). Otto in.
elevated to the pontifical throne his cousin Gregory v.
(996-999), then his former master Sylvester ii. (999-1003).
As for Henry in., he promoted to the papacy, Clement II.
(1047), Damasius n. (1048), Leo ix. (1048-1054), and
Victor ii. (1055-1057). In order to be legally regular,
Henry, at the council of St. Peter's (1046), caused his right
to appoint popes to be proclaimed by Pope Clement n,
Still the Romans intended to be masters of their own
house.1 They wished themselves to choose their popes : they
did not accept the idea that a German emperor should pre
sume to do it. The constitution of Otto was odious to them ;
whenever a favourable opportunity was offered, they rebelled
against it. Under the Ottos these attempts at independence
were for the most part unfortunate. When the emperor
learned that the Romans had emancipated themselves, he
crossed the Alps and went to restore order. Upon his
arrival the national Pope fled if he had time; once the
master had departed, it was the imperial Pope who fled to
save his life. Thus for some time there were two interchange
able popes, one imposed by the emperor upon the Romans,
the other set up in opposition to the emperor's man.
Leo viii., who was nominated on 4th December 963 by
Otto I. in place of John xn., was, six months later, driven out
by John. In the following year he was brought back by
1 Duchesne, pp. 353-380.

138 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Otto, who caused the surrender of Benedict v., the successor
of John xn., — surprised and killed in flagrante delicto of
adultery, — and brought him to Hamburg. In 974, Otto n.
was engaged in a war in the interior of Germany. The
deacon Franco, sustained by the nobility, believed the moment
had come to avenge the honour of the Roman Church. He
had the imperial Pope strangled, and put himself in the
latter's place, taking the name Boniface vn. Unhappily, at
the end of a month the followers of Otto n. took their
revenge, and caused Benedict vn. to ascend the pontifical
throne. Boniface vn. fled hastily to Constantinople, and re
mained there until 984. At this date Otto II. had just died
(December 983); his successor, Otto ni., was a child; there
was nothing to fear from German despotism. Boniface vn.
therefore returned from Constantinople and poisoned the
imperial Pope John xiv., who had succeeded Benedict.
Hereafter until his death (985) he had no rival. John xv.,
who replaced him (985-986), also encountered no competitor,
no doubt because he was supported by the nobility, and
because Otto in., being still a child, was incapable of opposing
him. But upon the death of John xv., Otto, who had become
a young man, exercised his right and gave the pontifical
throne to his cousin Gregory v. The nobility, represented by
Crescentius, supposed that they might again take up their
attitude of opposition. Some months after his accession,
Gregory v. was expelled, and John xvi. took his place.
This time the revolt was cruelly punished. In 998, Otto
himself brought back his Pope to Rome. The unhappy John
xvi. was terribly mutilated ; his principal supporters were
beheaded or hanged.
On the whole, from 963 to 1002 the national Pope
appointed by the Roman nobility did not succeed in holding
his own, except during the childhood of Otto in. After
1002 the situation was different. Henry n. and Conrad II.,
who for nearly forty years were on the Germanic throne,
were indifferent to the constitution of Otto ; and the imperial
popes temporarily disappeared. The popes of Crescentius
took their place (John xvil, John xvni., and Sergius IV.);

THE PONTIFICAL ELECTION 139
then the popes of Tusculum (the two brothers Benedict viii.
and John xix., and their nephew Benedict IX.). In 1044
the party of Crescentius, exploiting the scandal caused by
the debauchery of Benedict ix., gave the see of St. Peter to
Sylvester in. Benedict, driven from Rome by his successor,
in his turn drove the latter away ; then having decided to
marry, he sold the papacy to the arcbpriest Gratian, who
took the name of Gregory VI. ; but, finally, as his plans for
marriage failed, he again took the pontificate. When, about
1046, there were three popes, each having his small army, it
was a great deal — it was indeed too much. Upright souls
then recalled the constitution of Otto, and begged Henry in.
to enforce it. The German monarch readily accepted the
invitation. He crossed the Alps, came into Italy, called a
council at Sutrium, where he deposed two of the rival popes,
namely Sylvester in. and Gregory vi.1 (20th December
1046). Some days later he assembled in St. Peter's, Rome,
a second council, and proceeded to make a pontifical appoint
ment, which was to be followed by three others. For ten
years there were once more popes of the empire who were at
the same time German popes.
The last of these popes, Victor il, died 1057. In the
previous year (October 1056) the powerful Henry iii. died.
The year 1057 opened a new era in the pontifical elections.
Under the Byzantine domination and during the Carolingian
period the Pope was elected by the clergy and laity of the
Roman Church, then, save in exceptional cases, the selection
was submitted to the emperor for approval. During the
tenth century the elections were nothing more than empty
forms : as a matter of fact the Pope was nominated some
times by the Roman nobility, sometimes by the German
emperor. In 1057 a new power made its appearance: the
party of reform, which was led by Hildebrand and incarnate
in him. These reformers had a programme which was to
this effect: the elections should be re-established; they
'Mansi, xix. 617; Hefele, iv. 710; Delarc, i. 30-35; Hauck, iii. 588,
589 ; Annates romani, in M. G. Scriptores, v. 469 ; W. Martens, Die Besetzung
des papstlichen Stuhles, p. 46, Freiburg, 1887.

140 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
should be withdrawn from the influence of the Roman
nobility and of the German emperors ; they should be con
ducted independent of the laity and of the inferior Roman
clergy ; they should be confined to the highest dignitaries of
the ecclesiastical world, to those known as cardinals. The
reformers did not dare to carry out this programme during
the lifetime of Henry in., whom in 1046 they would have been
fortunate to find in order to deliver the Roman Church from
the scandalous Benedict ix. They carried it out in 1057,
and quite independent of all foreign influence they elected
Stephen ix. After carrying it out they formulated it in the
decree of Nicholas il, which was promulgated in the Roman
council1 (13th April 1059).
They carried it out, formulated it, and then violated it.
In 1058, when there was a question of replacing Stephen ix.,
Hildebrand, who wished to put Gerard, bishop of Florence, on
the pontifical throne, went to Germany to the empress Agnes
and asked her to approve his candidate. It was only after
he had obtained her approval that the two councils, that of
Sienna and that of Sutrum, took place, where Gerard was
elected with the name of Nicholas n. (January 1059). In
1061, to make up for this, this same Hildebrand had
Alexander n. elected according to his own principles. But
in 1073, when he was supported by the people, he did not
consent to be consecrated (30th June) until his election had
been ratified by Henry iv. His policy seems to have lacked
consistency ; his ideas themselves, too, seem to have been
incoherent, for the decree of Nicholas il, who was really
made by Hildebrand, recognized the right of the king of
Germany to ratify the election made by the cardinals.
The following are the principal provisions of this decree:
" Henceforth when the Pontiff of this Roman and Universal
Church shall die, the cardinal bishops shall at first very
seriously deliberate, then shall take as co-adjutors the
cardinal clergy, then the rest of the clergy ; and the people
1 M. G. Constit. i. 537 ; Hefele, iv. 800-825, v. 67 ; the council of Worms
(1076) declares that the author of the decree of 1059 was Hildebrand ;
Delarc, iii. 194.

THE PONTIFICAL ELECTION 141
shall be admitted to give their consent to the new election.
To avoid the evil of venality, religious men will direct the
election ; the others will have only to follow . . . with all
the honour and respect due to our dear son Henry [Henry iv.
was still a child] actually king, and if God wills it, future
emperor, even as we have granted ; also with all honour and
respect to those of his successors in whom the Apostolic See
shall have personally recognized this right."
The incoherence is only on the surface. Like all poli
ticians, Hildebrand knew when he had to yield to the
imperious requirements of reality. He induced Agnes to
approve the choice of Nicholas n„ because he needed the
support of Germany in his conflict with the Italian nobles,
who, as in the time of Marozia and the Creseentians,
endeavoured to appoint a pope — Benedict X. By the decree
of 1059, Hildebrand in obscure language authorized the
king of Germany to ratify the election, because that decree
was promulgated in the name of Nicholas n., who, being
appointed under the patronage of the German power, could
not condemn his own election. Besides, Hildebrand ex
plained that the papacy, when it was desired, could evade
this ratification, which it accepted out of pure condescension.
In 1061, dissatisfied with the court of Agnes, which a short
time before had refused to receive the legates of Nicholas n.,
he revoked its privilege of ratification, and without consulting
it, caused the election of Alexander n. But then a formid
able ecclesiastical war broke out. Honorius the anti-Pope,
supported by the Italian nobility and by the court of Agnes,
was on the point of gaining the victory. Hildebrand, who
did not succeed in overthrowing him without prodigies of
diplomacy, being favoured by fortunate political circumstances,
profited by the lesson. When he was himself elected Pope,
he resorted to the royal ratification so as not to bring on the
storm which had threatened to wreck his predecessor. He
retreated when it was necessary, but he did not lose sight of
the goal before him.
When Gregory vn. died (1085), Henry rv. was excom
municated, and it was not long before his son Henry v.

142 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
suffered the same penalty. It was not the moment for the
empire to take advantage of the decree of 1059. The
imperial ratification had therefore no part in the elections
of Victor in. (1086), Urban n. (1088), Pascal n. (1099),
Gelasius (1118), and Calixtus 11.(1119). When peace was
signed at Worms (1122), the precedent was established.
Henry v. did not even dream of claiming any of the rights
formerly exercised by the Ottos and by his ancestor Henry in.
Henceforth the pontifical elections were to be no more de
pendent on the emperors ; they were to be no more, at least
directly, under the control of the nobility. Except at the
council of Constance, they were to be the appanage of the
cardinals. The decree of Nicholas n. — or, as it might be
called, the decree of Hildebrand — made the papacy for ever
independent. The decree of 1059 did not anticipate the fact that the
cardinals would be divided into factions which were not slow
to exercise their dissolvent influence. After the death of
Calixtus n. a schism was almost effected. It took place
when an attempt was made to replace Honorius II.1 (1130).
Without waiting for the usual delays, certain cardinals
appointed a pope without the knowledge of the majority,
which for its part proceeded to a pontifical election. Conse
quently there were two popes, one nominated regularly by
the college of cardinals, the other, irregularly by a minority.
Nevertheless it was the latter candidate who, with the name
of Innocent ii., was recognized by the great powers, thanks to
the patronage of St. Bernard, thanks also to the blundering
diplomacy of his opponent Anacletus II. Abandoned by the
majority, Anacletus held out for eight years, and during that
time the Church was troubled.
An analogous situation arose in 1159, after the death
of Adrian rv. Then again the cardinals were divided into
1 Watterich, Pontificorum romanorum vitoe, ii. 174-199, Leipzig, 1862 ;
R. Zopffel, Die Doppelwahl des Jahres 1130, p. 269, Gbttingen, 1871 ; Hefele,
v. 406 ; E. Vacandard, Vie de St. Bernard, i. 276-287, Paris, 1895, endeavours
unsuccessfully to prove that the election of Innocent III. was conformed to
what he calls " the primitive text" of the decree of 1059.

THE PONTIFICAL ELECTION 143
two irreconcilable groups, and appointed two popes, Alex
ander ni. and Victor iv. But on this occasion the candidate
Alexander III., who was victorious, was elected regularly by
the majority. Thinking that in the future a more exact
legislation would remove the evil from which he had
suffered, he resolved to add certain new provisions to the
decree of 1059. At the Lateran council (1179) he had
a rule adopted by the terms of which every pontifical
election, to be valid, required an attendance of two-thirds
of the cardinal electors.1
The decree of Alexander in. had one merit ; it succeeded.
After 1179 the factions did not lay down arms, but they
caused no more schisms. They took their revenge by a
policy of obstruction. The election of Innocent rv. (25th
June 1243) took place after an interregnum of nineteen
months. Alexander rv., who died on 25th May 1261, was
not replaced by Urban IV. until 29 th August, that is, after
more than three months' delay. To elect Clement iv.
(5th February 1265) an equal amount of time was required;
and when Clement iv. died (29th November 1268), nearly
three years elapsed before his successor Gregory x. was
appointed (1st September 1271).
By this time the evil had become a scandal. In order
to suppress it, Gregory X. instituted the " Conclave," that is,
confinement under lock and key (cum clavi). The tenth day
after the death of the Pope, the cardinals, who were assembled
in the palace where he died, were to be kept under lock and
key, to live in a common room, and to have no communication
with the outside world until they had elected a new Pope.
At the end of three days, if no election had taken place, they
could have but one dish served at their meals. Five days
afterwards, if there had been no election, they were to be
reduced to a ration of bread, wine, and water. The magis
trates of the city where the conclave was held had the full
power to enforce these regulations. Such in its essential
parts was the constitution which Gregory x. promulgated at
1 Mansi, xxii. 234 ; Hefele, v. 711 ; Constitution "Licet de evitanda,'' in
Corpus juris canonici, decretal i. vi. cap. 6 ; Hinschius, i. 264.

144 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
the second council of Lyons, in his bull Ubi periculum
(1274).1 The constitution of Gregory x. committed the supervision
of the conclave to the magistrates. In 1276, Charles of
Anjou abused his powers by his partiality in treatmg the
cardinals at the conclave which followed the death of
Innocent v. Adrian v. who was elected, and John xxi.
who some weeks later replaced him, having witnessed some
of the troublesome consequences following the constitution of
Gregory x., suppressed it. They counted on putting some
thing better in its place, but did not have time. They then
went back to the decree of Alexander in., and this introduced
again the long interregnums. Nicholas ill. was elected
(25th November 1277) after an interval of six months,
Nicholas IV. (22nd February 1288) after an interval of
eleven months, Celestine v. (5th July 1294) after an interval
of twenty-seven months. This time the fresh scandal opened
the eyes of Celestine v. Under the pressure of public opinion
he enforced the constitution of Gregory x.2
In obedience to foreign influence rather than to the
constitution of Gregory x., the cardinals, without any delay,
elected Boniface vm., and then his successor Benedict xi.
But eleven months passed before Clement v. was elected
(5th June 1305), and after this Pope died (20th April 1314),
it took twenty-eight months to appoint John xxii. in his
place (7th August 1316). It need not be said that then the
regulations of Gregory X. were discarded. The interregnum
which followed the death of Clement v. was disgraced by
scenes of pillage and arson : and the responsibility rested
with a group of Gascon cardinals. To end the disorder,
Philip v., king of France, imprisoned the cardinals at Lyons.
The elections following the pontificate of John xxii. were
not prolonged. Nevertheless, the constitution of Gregory x.
was disliked by the cardinals, who considered it too rigorous.
To silence the recriminations directed against it and render
it less severe, Clement vi. made several amendments to it
1 Mansi, xxiv. 81 ; Corpus juris, sextus tit. vi. cap. 3 ; Hinschius, i. 267.
2 Hinschius, i. 269.

THE PONTIFICAL ELECTION 145
(6th December 1351); notably, he suppressed the regime of
living in common, and the article which reduced the nourish
ment at the end of eight days to bread, wine, and water.1
The measures which he took rendered the legislation of
Gregory x. more acceptable, and they have been maintained
down to the present day. After the decree of Alexander in.
it seemed impossible that two popes should be seen disputing
the pontifical throne. Yet after the death of Gregory xi.
this spectacle was presented for almost forty years. Urban vi.,
his successor, elected on 8th April 1378, was severe, blunt,
fantastic, and irritable up to the verge of insanity. The
cardinals who elected him being displeased at his rude
treatment of them, at the end of three months resolved to
depose him. Not daring, however, to reveal the real motive
of their resolution, they gave a false reason. From Anagni,
whither they had retired, they issued, on 9 th August, a
manifesto to the Christian world that the election of 8 th
April had been held under duress, that it was null, and
that the apostolic see was vacant. Six weeks later (20th
September) they elected one of their own number, cardinal
Robert of Geneva, who took the name of Clement vn.
From the point of view of principle the right of Urban
was not doubtful, but considerations of self-interest succeeded
in making it obscure. In the election of 20 th September,
the king of France saw the opportunity, which he so greatly
desired, of bringing back the papacy to Avignon ; the queen
of Sicily saw in it the means of avenging herself on Urban
VI., who was her enemy. So Clement vn. was supported by
France, by Naples, and by the countries devoted to the
policies of those two kingdoms. The empire, at least in
great part, and England remained attached to Urban less by
reasoned conviction than by reluctance to serve French
interests. Christendom was divided between two popes,
between two obediences. This was the schism, the Great
Schism.2 1 Bull Licet in constitutions, Raynaldi, 1351, 39 ; Baluze, Vitce paparum,
i. 260, Paris, 1693.
2 Noel Valois, i. 77, 98, 142, 160, 241.
io

146 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Clement vn. was established at Avignon ; Urban
remained at Rome. The two pontiffs excommunicated each
other. They also sent troops against each other, and waged
a war in which Urban momentarily fell into the power of his
enemies ; but on the whole this had no result except to ruin
the kingdom of Naples. As for the rival obediences, they at
first engaged only in arguments and in insults. But the
arguments confused the questions while the insults caused
irritation, and the schism continued. In the end it was
perceived that one of the opposing popes should not be
sacrificed for the other, but that both should be provisionally
set aside. Two means were presented of accomplishing this :
voluntary abdication and deposition. The first was without
doubt the more dignified, and seemed to be the simpler : and
it was adopted. The two adversaries were asked to resign of
their own accord. Both promised to do so ; but proof was
soon forthcoming that their promises were insincere. The
remedy by abdication was illusory. Deposition remained as
a last resort. This required a council. The council met at
Pisa in 1409. It deposed the Pope of Rome and the Pope
of Avignon, Gregory xn. and Benedict xni. In place of
them was appointed Alexander v., who died at the end of
some months, and was succeeded by John xxiii.
The council of Pisa met under the patronage of the king
of France who had initiated it, and this gave it great
authority. But this was not sufficient. Germany, which
had not been taken into consideration, disregarded the
decisions of Pisa, and remained faithful to Gregory XII. The
latter, feeling that he had support, maintained all his preten
sions to the pontifical throne. Benedict xni., who had just
lost France, but who kept Spain and Aragon, did the same.
After the council of Pisa there were three popes, and the
evil was greater than ever. Everything had to be begun
anew. The new beginning was made at Constance (November
1414- April 1418). This time the measures were better
taken. Sigismund, who took the initiative in this great
deliberation, had a previous understanding with the king of

THE PONTIFICAL ELECTION 147
France ; and the latter, although he was by no means pleased
to see the work of his council at Pisa brought to nought,
yet for the sake of peace gave full freedom to the emperor.
Christendom decided to forsake all its popes, intending to
announce, in opposition to them, what was then called " the
withdrawal of obedience." John xxni., who was brought to
the council, soon saw the fate that awaited him, and en
deavoured to seek safety in flight (20th March 1415). This
inglorious behaviour did not save him. Having been arrested
by the soldiers of Sigismund, condemned, and deposed by the
council, he was imprisoned. Gregory xn., seeing that any
resistance was vain, resigned of his own accord (4th July
1415). Benedict xni. obstinately refused all invitations and
all writs which were addressed to him, and in order to escape
the soldiers of the emperor he went and shut himself up
beyond Barcelona, in the inaccessible fortress of Peniscola.
Abandoned by every one, he was no longer dangerous to the
public peace; and without fear of an attack on his part, it
was possible to appoint a new titular to the pontifical see.
The election took place on 11th November 1417, and resulted
in favour of Cardinal Otto Colonna, who took the name of
Martin V. In addition to the cardinals who, according to the
decree of Nicholas n., were alone permitted to designate the
Pope, there were on this occasion thirty electors taken from
the various nations represented at the council.
The great schism was at an end : it had lasted precisely
thirty-nine years (1378-1417). Some years later it might
have been supposed that the union which had barely been
achieved was again about to be broken. The council of Bale,
which, by the order of Christendom, laboured to reform the
Church, encountered the ill-will of Eugenius IV. At first it
was content to resist the Pope. In 1438 it suspended and
then deposed him (June 1439). In his place it elected
Felix V. The council had the sympathies of France, of the
empire, and of several lesser powers. Thus the situation
seemed to be hopeless: in reality, it was merely serious.
Indeed the kingdom of France and the empire which favoured
the council of Bale only half supported it. They accepted

148 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
its reforms, but they did not desire its pope: and they
thought that Eugenius IV. ought to be humbled but not
overthrown. Rejected by these two powers and also by the
king of England, the Pope of Bale, notwithstanding the
support afforded him by certain minor states, had no chance
for the future. After holding his own for some years,
Felix V. at length perceived that his pontificate was illusory,
and on 7th April 1449 he made his submission to Nicholas V.
Since the time of Eugenius iv. and Nicholas v., two popes
have not disputed the apostolic see. No long interregnums
occurred until the council of Trent. The only incidents to
which the pontifical elections gave rise were the capitulations
and the practice of simony intended to secure the votes of
the cardinals. Capitulations are pontifical rules of administration which
the candidates for the papacy are bound to observe. They
made their appearance not with Boniface viii., as is some
times stated,1 but a half -century later (1352), at the conclave
then meeting to elect a successor to Clement vi. It began
by issuing a capitulation guaranteeing to the cardinals an
increase of power, of independence, and of revenue. Each
member of the assembly swore faithfully to observe this
charter in case of his appointment to occupy the pontifical
throne. When that had been done the election took place
(18th December 1352) and was in favour of Innocent vi., who,
having become the head of the Church, hastened to nullify the
capitulation just referred to.2 In 1431 the same scene was
re-enacted. Displeased at the abuses committed by Martin v.
who had lately died, the cardinals issued a capitulation
even more radical than the preceding one. Eugenius iv.
while still a cardinal, signed it. After he became Pope he
trampled his engagements under foot.3 Pius II.,4 Paul ll.,B
Sixtus iv.,6 Innocent vin.,7 Alexander vi.,8 Julius II.,9 Leo X.,10
1 H. Finke, Aus den Tagen Bonifaz VIII., p. 84, Miinster, 1902.
2 Raynaldi, 1352, 26 ; bull SoUicitandi, Raynaldi, 1353, 25.
3 Raynaldi, 1431, 5. * Id., 1458, 5.
"id., 1464, 52. «7A, 1471, 58.
' Id., 1484, 28. »Id., 1492, 28.
»Id., 1503, 3. w Id., 1513, 13.

THE PONTIFICAL ELECTION 149
before being elected took all the oaths required of them ;
then they hastened to violate them.1 To console the
cardinals, who were disappointed at this change of front,
Paul II. authorized them to wear the silk mitre and the red
hat. At the close of the seventeenth century (1692),
Innocent xn. by the constitution Bomanum decet was to
annul the capitulations, thus putting an end to the comedy
which the popes of the fifteenth century so often produced
upon the stage.
When Benedict ix. made arrangements to marry his
cousin, he sold the papacy to the priest Gratian, who bought
it for ready money and took the name of Gregory vi. (1045).
In spite of his title to the property he was deposed by the
emperor Henry in. at the council of Sutrum (December
1046). Gregory vi. had purchased the pontifical throne
from an unworthy possessor, and had thus done a service to
the Church. Furthermore, the advocates of reform were
wholly devoted to him, and were distressed to witness his
fall. Hildebrand followed him into exile; and so long as
he lived, Wazon, bishop of Liege, refused to recognize as
legitimate pope his successor Clement Ii. In the fifteenth
century the papacy was again engaged in making bargains.
Sixtus iv., Innocent viii., Alexander vi., and Julius n. did
not ascend the pontifical throne without buying with money
the votes of the cardinal electors. These popes, who had not
the excuse of Gregory vi., were nevertheless not deposed ;
but their conduct aroused such a sentiment of reprobation
among Christian people, that Julius II., one of those who
were at fault, was obliged to take measures to prevent a
return of these scandals. In 1505 he issued the bull Cum
tarn divino, which annulled every pontifical election which
should be besimirched with simony.2 Thereafter the con
claves ceased to sell the papacy.
The rules determining eligibility to the pontifical throne
remain to be mentioned. By the canon law it was forbidden
1 See J. Saegmuller, Die Papstwahl und die Stouten von 1447 bis 1555, pp.
72-141, Tubingen, 1890.
2 Id., ib. p. 7.

150 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
to confer ordination upon laymen, and to permit bishops to
pass from one Church to another. These ecclesiastical pre
scriptions were observed at Rome, even as elsewhere, indeed
rather better than in many other Churches. For many
centuries, cases like those of Ambrosius and Nectarius passing
directly from the laity to the episcopate, like those of
Gregory Nazianzen and Meletius occupying successively two
episcopal sees, were unknown in the Roman Church. Yet it
finally did, as was done elsewhere. In 767, Constantine, a
layman, took possession of the Lateran, had himself consecrated
bishop, and became Pope Constantine n.1 A century after
wards, Marinus and Formosus2 became bishops of Rome, one
in 882 the other in 885, both by change of see; for the
first had previously been bishop of Csera, the second bishop
of Porto. These infractions of canonical prescriptions met with
terrible punishment. After ruling one year Constantine, as
we have seen, was imprisoned, blinded, beaten before the
council of 769, and deposed. As for Formosus, he had been
dead nine months before his successor Stephen vi. thought of
punishing him ; but even that did not save him.3 His body
was disinterred, and brought before the council at which
Stephen presided. It was placed in a chair as well as might
be. The act of accusation was read to it, and it was
especially asked : " Why, being bishop of Porto, did you with
ambitious designs usurp the see of Rome ? " The dead pope
was defended by a deacon, who was placed near the body, and
charged to answer in his name. The defence was considered
insufficient. It was decided that his promotion to the
apostolic see had been irregular, and the council proceeded
to depose him, stripping him of his pontifical insignia. To
complete the ceremony, the body was cast into the Tiber (897).
These horrible reprisals had a very real significance.
They condemned the accession of the laity to the episcopate,
and also the translation of sees. They were equivalent to
legislation. This legislation, however, was formulated in the
council of 769. One of the articles then elaborated has
1 Duchesne, p. 115. 2 Id., p. 285. » Hefele, iv. 562.

THE PONTIFICAL ELECTION 151
been already referred to — that which excluded the laity
from the electoral assembly. There was another which fixed
the conditions of eligibility. This article says in substance :
" To occupy the episcopal see of Rome one must be a cardinal
priest or a deacon of the Roman Church."
One must be a cardinal priest or deacon of the
Roman Church ! Then neither laymen nor foreign church
men in the parochial ministry of Rome, nor bishops of other
Churches, can become bishops of Rome. That was the con
stitution of 769. But Leo V. (903) was not a cardinal priest ;
Leo vin., who owed his elevation to Otto i. (963), was not
in major orders ; John xix., who occupied the pontifical
throne (1024), was a layman; his nephew Benedict ix., who
succeeded him (1033), was likewise a layman; and there
is every reason to believe that John xi. (931) and John xn.
(955) received the papacy before receiving major orders.
With reference to the other condition of eligibility, Sergius ill.
(904) and John x. (914) were respectively bishop of Csera
and archbishop of Ravenna before their elevation to the
pontifical throne. A half-century later, among the popes who
owed their appointments to the Ottos we notice, John xni.,
bishop of Narni (965) ; Benedict vn., bishop of Sutrum (974) ;
John xiv., bishop of Pavia (983); Sylvester n., archbishop of
Reims, then of Ravenna (999). In the middle of the
eleventh century, Henry m.'s four popes, Clement n.,
Damasius IL, Leo ix., Victor II., were the German bishops
Suidger of Bamberg, Poppo of Brixen, Bruno of Toul,
Gebhardt of Eichstadt. The constitution of 769 was
practically abandoned.
Such was the case when Nicholas n. — or rather Hilde
brand — convoked the council of 1059. The decree which
that assembly promulgated, determined, as we have already
seen, the college of papal electors. It was also engaged
with the question of eligibility to the papacy. It declared :
" If there is to be found in the Roman Church a subject
fitted to govern it, he should be of the clergy: other
wise application should be made to another church." It
therefore permitted that a pope should be taken from beyond

152 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
the Roman Church. By the same act a bishop might be
invited to change his own, for the apostolic see ; and in the
decree of 1059 the omissions are as important as the asser
tions. That which is not forbidden may be regarded as
authorized. Finally, according to this principle, permission
was given to call a layman to the pontifical throne, provided
he caused to be conferred on him all the ordinations required
after election. The constitution of 769, already abrogated by
custom, was once more abrogated by the decree of 1059.
In fact, after the decree of 1059 no layman was elevated
to the pontifical throne ; but until the time of Urban VI.
several foreign priests and bishops of the college of cardinals
are to be found on the list of popes: Urban in. (1185) was
archbishop of Milan; Urban iv. (1261), patriarch of
Jerusalem; Gregory X. (1271), archdeacon of Liege;
Celestine v. (1294), priest and hermit; Clement v., arch
bishop of Bordeaux ; Urban v., abbot of St. Victor of
Marseilles; Urban vi. (1378), archbishop of Bari. After the
time of Urban vi. all the popes were chosen from the college
of cardinals.

CHAPTEK V
The Pontifical State
The pontifical state was founded by Pepin the Short at
Ponthion (Marne) and at Quierzy (Aisne) early in A.D. 754.
Thereafter the Pope occupied juridical — the place of a
sovereign at the head of his people. But before possessing
this sovereignty de jure, he already exercised it de facto. The
Acts of Ponthion and Quierzy, which have a capital import
ance in ecclesiastical history, were not, at least as a whole, an
innovation : in part they were limited to sanctioning a state
of things which was already actual. In other words, the
pontifical state was the work of Pepin, but this work was
prepared by circumstances. There were two stages of pre
paration for it : before being the legal, the Pope was the
actual sovereign, and before being the actual sovereign he
was the proprietor.
The papacy, that is, the Roman Church, was already a
proprietor during the era of persecutions. Naturally the
edict of Milan greatly advanced its fortunes. Many Chris
tians considered it an honour to make the Church their heir.
To be assured of heaven, in the hour of death, they left
their property to him who had the keys of heaven, — to
the Apostle St. Peter.1 The " patrimony of St. Peter " — the
expression first appears in a letter (549) of Vigilius to
Sebastian,2 but it was doubtless employed long before —
increased almost every year. At the end of the fifth century,
Pope Gelasius drew up a list of the lands which constituted
1 Fabre, De patrimoniis romance ecclesiae usque ad cstatem Carolinorum,
pp. 53-58, Paris, 1892.
2 Jaffe, 923. 163

154 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
this patrimony : his book is called the " Polypticum." When
Gregory the Great ascended the pontifical throne, the Roman
Church had great possessions in Sicily, Calabria, Sardinia,
Corsica, Southern Gaul, Dalmatia, Istria, the exarchate of
Ravenna, Campania, and Central Italy. According to informa
tion given by Theophanius, the annual revenues from Sicily
alone amounted to nearly eighty thousand dollars.1 And in
one of his letters to the subdeacon Peter, inspector of
pontifical property in Sicily, Gregory mentions the fact that
the holdings of the Roman Church in that country were
worth four hundred thousand dollars.2
The vast domains 3 of Sicily, of Africa, of southern Gaul,
of Istria, and of Corsica made the Pope a rich landlord, but
that was all. They brought him treasure, but no political
authority. The Italian possessions present a different
spectacle. There the colonists who laboured for the enrich
ment of St. Peter and of his Vicar had, as a further mission,
to defend him in the hour of danger. They were both work
men and soldiers. The Pope had an army which came to his
assistance whenever he needed it, and to which, if he wished,
he could add the local forces of northern Italy.4
In 692 the emperor Justinian n. sent Pope Sergius the
Acts of the council in Trullo, ordering him to affix his
signature. Sergius refused. Then an imperial officer arrived
at Rome from Constantinople, and sought to remove the
recalcitrant pontiff and bring him before the emperor. But
he had not taken into account the colonists of the patrimony
of St. Peter. The troops hastened from Ravenna and Penta-
polis to defend the Pope. The unfortunate imperial officer
escaped death only through the intervention of the Pope, who
protected him against the fury of the populace. Nine years
1 Jean Diacre, Vita Sancti Gregorii, ii. 24.
2 Ep. ii. 38 (Ewald). Gregory ordered the sale of everything except four
hundred mares, which were to be used in breeding. He adds: "Ex quibus
quadringentis singulis conductoribus singula condonari debent."
3 Fabre, pp. 59-93.
* See the notes of Liber Pontiflcalis on the popes mentioned here. H.
Hubert, "fitude sur la formation des etats del'Eglise," in Revue historiquc,
lxix. (1899) pp. 2-35.

THE PONTIFICAL STATE 155
later (end of 701) the exarch, who had not profited by this
experience, came to Rome to arrest Pope John vi. with whom
he was dissatisfied. But the pontifical army came upon his
heels and obliged him to leave forthwith. In 730 the
emperor Leo the Isaurian also learned the power of the Pope.
He wished to be rid of Gregory il, who was putting obstacles
in the way of his iconoclastic plans. On various occasions
he bade his officers depose or even kill the uncompromising
pontiff; but the forces of Pentapolis, of Venice, of the Roman
Campagna, were threatening. At home, Gregory n. escaped
all murderous attempts ; but the imperial officers were not so
fortunate. The exarch Paul and Exhiliratus, duke of Naples,
were slain. As for Peter, duke of Rome, he was driven away.
The duke of Rome, that is, the officer who represented at
Rome the imperial authority, was obliged to yield to the
Pope. How should he not have done so ? He was only a
decorative historical personage. The real ruler of the city
and of the Roman duchy, who conducted affairs, who
commanded, because he paid, was the Pope. The Liber
Pontiflcalis relates that Zacharias having to make a journey,
set out from Rome " leaving the government to the duke and
patrician Stephen." That phrase sums up the situation.
When he had to be absent, the Pope delegated his authority
to the duke, but ordinarily it was the Pope who governed the
duchy of Rome. At the end of the seventh century this
powerful landlord had the political authority: he was the
sovereign. Not that he did anything to separate himself
from the imperial authority. Far from resisting that
authority, he laboured to strengthen it. He resisted the
emperor when the latter made an attack on dogma, but
supported him when dogma was not in question. He held
in his power the people of the duchy of Rome, while he
still remained a subject of the emperor. This sovereignty
was confirmed at Ponthion and Quierzy by a treaty, under
the following circumstances. About 740 the immense
wealth which the papacy had at its disposal under Gregory
the Great had partly disappeared. In the middle of the
seventh century the Slavs had taken possession of the

156 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
domains of Dalmatia ; subsequently the Arabs had plundered
the African estates, and those in southern Gaul. In 733,
in order to punish Gregory in. for the resistance which he
had offered in the iconoclastic dispute, Leo the Isaurian
confiscated all the revenues furnished by Sicily, Calabria, and
the duchy of Naples.1 The patrimony of St. Peter was
confined to the Cottian Alps, the exarchate of Ravenna and
central Italy, where it was protected by the pontifical forces
against the fury of Leo the Isaurian. But if in these
territories nothing was to be feared from the emperor,
everything was to be feared from the Lombards. Since they
had been installed in northern Italy, the Lombards had
constantly extended their frontiers. In 743 they forced
their way into the exarchate of Ravenna. Pope Zacharias
addressed himself to their king Luitprand and caused him to
yield. The exarchate was saved. By the same king
Luitprand, and by his son Ratchis, the duchy of Rome, too,
was more than once endangered ; yet here again the
diplomacy of Zacharias bore fruit. And so it was until 751.
At this date the warlike Aistulf succeeded Ratchis. The
era of concession was at an end. Aistulf began by annexing
Pentapolis and the exarchate to the Lombard kingdom; and
then set out to subject the duchy of Rome to the same fate.
If this plan were to be realized, if the duchy of Rome 2 were
to pass under the domination of the Lombards, the papacy
would lose the last remnants of the patrimony of St. Peter,
the last remnants of its financial power.3 Stephen II., the
successor of Zacharias, who was then on the pontifical throne,
appreciated the gravity of the situation, and made an effort to
relieve it. He applied successively to Aistulf, to the emperor,
and to heaven. Unhappily the emperor answered that he
could do nothing. Heaven did not answer at all. As for
Aistulf, he made promises that he did not keep, and then
displayed brutality. Stephen cast his eyes across the Alps
towards the country of the Franks, where there reigned a
Catholic prince, Pepin the Short. Perhaps Pepin would
1 Fabre, pp. 61, 75, 87-93. " Hubert, p. 39.
3 Duchesne, pp. 17, 34 ; Hauck, ii. 14 ; Hubert, p. 241,

THE PONTIFICAL STATE 157
consent to come to the help of St. Peter. The Pope resolved
to go in person to seek the Frankish prince and plead before
him the cause of the papacy. To assure the success of this
step, he first sounded Pepin by sending him a private
message. That occurred in the spring of 753.
Thirteen years before, Gregory m., already at war with
the Lombards, had endeavoured to interest Charles Martel in
his fate, but obtained nothing except fair words. But
between 740 and 753 a considerable result had been
achieved. Pepin had excluded the Merovingian dynasty
from the throne, and had taken the place himself. To make
the change acceptable to the Franks, he asked and obtained
the approval of Pope Zacharias. The new Carolingian king
felt bound to pay the debt of gratitude contracted to the
papacy. He received the request of Stephen n. with
deference; other messages were exchanged with equally
favourable results. When all the ways were made plain,
Stephen left Rome, crossed the St. Bernard, and travelled
towards the royal residence at Ponthion.1 Pepin went to
meet him, kneeled before him, and acted as his attendant.
This was on 6 th January 754. Preceded by a large escort
singing psalms, they entered Ponthion on horseback. Pepin
walked on foot at the Pope's side. But when they had
entered the royal palace the scene changed. Then the Pope
and his clergy, robed in sackcloth and sprinkled with ashes,
prostrated themselves before the king, besought him to
espouse the cause of St. Peter, to oblige the Lombards to
restore to the blessed apostle the goods that they had seized,
to take under his protection the patrimony of St. Peter, and
the Roman Church in general. Pepin agreed to grant the
petitions of the pontiff. To testify his gratitude, Stephen
awarded to his benefactor the title " Patritius Romanorum,"
and some weeks later at St. Denis conferred on him the royal
unction, or rather renewed the unction which the bishop Boni
face had already given him. The pontifical state was organized.2
1 Duchesne, p. 54 ; Hauck, ii. 18 ; Hubert, p. 247.
2 Fustel de Coulanges, Histoire des mstiPiUvons politique! de Vancienne
France, vi. 304 ; Duchesne, p. 64.

158 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
It was organized in principle, but actually it did not as
yet exist, and could not exist, so long as the Lombard king
had not given back what he had won by conquest. Pepin
repeatedly urged him to make this restitution, but he
persisted in his refusal. War was necessary ; but the
Frankish warriors could not be led into Italy against their
will. Pepin assembled them, explained the situation to
them, and asked them to follow him across the Alps. Two
national assemblies were held successively, on 1st March
754 at Braisne, on 14th April at Quierzy. There was
some opposition, yet Pepin won in the end, and had the
promise made at Ponthion ratified by the assembly at
Quierzy. War was declared, and it was successful. Aistulf
being conquered, promised to restore what he had taken.
Pepin believed him, and recrossed the Alps in the autumn
of 754. But Aistulf did not act in good faith. After the
Franks had departed, instead of making the restitution
agreed to, he began his pillage once more : he was even
about to lay siege to Rome. Then Pepin received three
letters from Stephen, one of which was thought to have been
written by St. Peter the Apostle in person, which besought
him, and even commanded him on pain of damnation, to
come as soon as possible to the help of the Roman people.
He obeyed without delay, invaded Lombardy with the Franks,
and besieged Pavia. Aistulf, incapable of resistance, promised
to give back what he had taken. This time Pepin was not
satisfied with worda By his orders Fulrade, abbot of St.
Denis, at the head of a small army passed through the
conquered country, collected hostages, took the keys of the
cities and came to Rome, to lay them on the tomb of St.
Peter, together with the act according to which Pepin
bestowed these cities upon the Apostle as a gift. Thereafter
the pontifical state was a reality (756).
Besides the duchy of Rome,1 it included the two provinces,
the exarchate and Pentapolis in the form that they had after
the conquests of Luitprand, who had particularly encroached
upon them. This was not all that Stephen demanded. He
1 Duchesne, p. 74 ; Hubert, p. 265.

THE PONTIFICAL STATE 159
wished to have the exarchate and Pentapolis in their primitive
integrity. He invented a combination that might realize his
wishes, and he failed. His successor, Paul I., cherished the
same dream, without any greater success. But while popes
were making efforts to complete the work of Pepin, Didier,
the Lombard king, was striving to overthrow it. About the
close of 772 he was on the point of attaining this result.
Happily for the papacy, the son of Pepin, he whom posterity
was to call Charlemagne, entertained his father's sentiments.
At the call of Pope Adrian i., Charles crossed the Alps, took
Lombardy, which he annexed to the Frankish kingdom, went
to Rome, entered St. Peter's and confirmed the gift made by
Pepin1 (April 774). The pontifical state proclaimed by
Pepin in 754, and realized by that prince in 756, was twenty
years afterwards consolidated by Charlemagne.
The gift of 774 did not fully satisfy the papacy, any
more than that of 754 had done. For one thing, Leo, arch
bishop of Ravenna, who had a great liking for the Frankish
court, endowed the church of Ravenna with a small estate
which was constituted at the expense of the papal domain ;
and for another thing, the greatness of the Roman Church
deserved something better than the territories ceded by Pepin.
Pope Adrian I. besought Charlemagne to strike a blow at the
proud archbishop of Ravenna, whose ambition he denounced
in vigorous terms. He also begged him to complete the gift
of Pepin ; and to excite his generosity sent him a copy of the
" donation of Constantine," a document forged by his orders,
which accorded vast domains to the Pope.2 For a long time
his efforts remained almost barren of results. At length
(787) he obtained a part of Lombard Tuscany, and of the
duchy of Benevento.3 It was not all that he desired, but it
was at least a partial satisfaction. The pontifical state
created by Pepin (754 and 756), and afterwards consolidated
1 Hauck, ii. 84 ; Duchesne, p. 146 ; Hubert, p. 253.
1 Ch. Bayet, " La fausse donation de Constantin," in Annuaire de lafacultt
des lettres de Lyon, ii. (1884) pp. 17-44 ; Hubert, p. 267 ; Hauck, ii. 25, 26,
attributes the manufacture of this document to Stephen II. ; but the idea of
Bayet is better justified.
* Duchesne, p. 163.

160 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
by Charlemagne (774), received from this prince (787) frontiers
which were never to any important extent enlarged in after
years. The popes claimed this state as the patrimony of St.
Peter : they acted as if they were the owners, who had been
unjustly despoiled, and who asked again to take possession of
their property : they besought the Frankish kings to con
strain the Lombards to restore it. Restricted to the duchy
of Rome, of which they were the real proprietors, and over
which they exercised a real sovereignty, their contention can
be well understood. But the Exarchate, Pentapolis, Tuscany,
and the duchy of Benevento belonged to the emperor of Con
stantinople, before they fell into the hands of the Lombards.
By what right did the papacy lay claim to these lands ?
How could it demand their " restoration " ? We do not know
what subtle casuistry was employed in this case to obscure such
a clear question. In reality the Exarchate, Pentapolis, Tus
cany, and the duchy of Benevento were not restrictions, but
gifts. Pepin and Charlemagne " granted " to the Roman
Church these lands which they had taken from the Lombards,
who had themselves captured them from the emperor of Con
stantinople. They recognized and supported the sovereignty
exercised by the popes over the duchy of Rome ; they sub
mitted new territories to that sovereignty. They consolidated
the patrimony of St. Peter; they also enlarged it, and at
length transformed it into a political power, and made it a
state, a pontifical state.
At the head of the pontifical state was the Pope, who
administered and governed it, who was its master. But this
master wished only the advantages of his sovereignty and not
its expense. He was willing to command his subjects and
to enjoy the fruits of their labour, but was not ready to be
constrained to guarantee their security. This part he left to
a protector, who was none other than the king of France.
Founder of the pontifical state, Pepin did, moreover, police
it. He was obliged to defend the Pope against the
Lombards, and, if occasion arose, against the emperor at Con
stantinople, who at that moment, however, was not to be

THE PONTIFICAL STATE 161
feared. That mission was implied in the title " patrician
of the Romans," which the Pope conferred upon him at
Ponthion. It was thus that things were bound to happen, and that
they did happen so long as Pepin sat on the French throne.
But from the day that he was laid in the tomb, the reality
did not correspond to the theory, and the programme of
Stephen disappeared. Charlemagne, who called himself
" defender of the Roman Church," surely deserved that title.
He defended it by armed force " against the pagans and the
infidels " (the words are his own).1 But this defender wished
to have the right of supervision. He pointed out to Adrian I.
the defects of the pontifical administration, and engaged him
to remedy them. He gave him advice, and imposed his
orders upon him.2 When Leo HI. ascended the pontifical
throne, Charlemagne exhorted him to good behaviour. He
said to him : " Always follow the canons in your exercise of
authority ; let your life be a pattern of holiness ; and let
your mouth never be opened except to give holy exhortations."
This admonition was not enough : he ordered Angilbert, his
representative, to renew it : " When thou shalt arrive in the
presence of the Pope, take heed to warn him ... of the
holy life that he ought to lead, of the kindness with which
he should govern the Church, and especially of the fidelity
which he should manifest in observing the sacred canons . . .
engage him to eradicate simony, which in some quarters stains
the holy body of the Church, and to reform the other abuses,
of which, as thou knowest, I have often complained." 3
At the moment when he was employing this language
(796) he without doubt knew that evil reports were being
circulated concerning the new Pope. Three years later, the
scandal broke out. Leo m., accused of different crimes, par
ticularly of adultery, fled from Rome and came to Paderborn
to ask the help of Charlemagne against his enemies, who
sought to kill him. Charlemagne charged certain bishops to
1 Letter to Leo in., in Alcuin ; M. G., Ep. iii. 136.
2 Cod. Carol. 59, 86 ; M. G., Ep. ii. 584, 622; Hauck, ii. 89.
• In Alcuin, 92, 93 ; M. G., Ep. iii. 135, 136.
II

162 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
make an inquiry into the life of the pontiff. Then he went
himself to Rome (December 800), called a council at St.
Peter's, and with the concurrence of the assembly over which
he presided, settled the painful affair, which for several years
had been troubling Rome.1 The guilt of the accused seemed
to be pretty well established,2 but the sanction gave rise to
difficulties, before which some drew back. In agreement
with the bishops, Charlemagne took a middle course. He
proposed to the Pope that the latter should clear himself by
oath of the accusation aimed at him (i.e. purgatio per sacra
mentum). Leo grasped eagerly at this plank of safety, and
before the whole assembly swore that he was innocent. In
this way the affair was arranged. But Charlemagne had
judged the Pope.3 It is not without reason that in the
preface to the Libri Carolini he represents himself as " hold
ing the rudder of the Church."
Charlemagne intended to hold the rudder; and it may
be added that the popes had no idea of disputing his place.
Adrian had been happy to inform the powerful king of the
Franks that every day in all the churches and chapels of
Rome three hundred Kyrie eleison were recited for him.4 He
was prompt to execute the orders that were given to him.
He protested only when there was a question as to his ad
ministration ; then he defended and excused himself, and
enlightened his judge. He enlightened him, that is to say,
he did not dispute his judicial competence, but recognized and
accepted it. Adrian was the docile vassal of his powerful
friend. Leo in. was not less submissive. Scarcely had he
been elected when he sent to Charlemagne the keys of the
tomb of St. Peter and the standard of the city of Rome. At
the same time he begged him to dispatch a delegate to Rome
to receive the oaths of the Roman people. The day of the
1 Mansi, xiii. 1045 ; Hefele, p. 739.
2 Alcuin, 179, 184 ; M. G., Ep. iii. 297, 309, considers that the Pope was
guilty. 3 See the oath of the Pope in M. G. , Ep. v. 63 : " . . . propter quam causam
audiendam iste sanctissimus et aerenissimus dominus rex Carolus . . , pervenit
ad urbem." * Jaffe, 2409.

THE PONTIFICAL STATE 163
inauguration of the empire (Christmas, 800), when the
ceremony of imperial oonsecration had been finished, Leo
prostrated himself before the august sovereign — He " adored
him," says the annalist, and was prodigal of the marks of
his subjection.1 There is no sky so clear as to remain always without
clouds. The officials appointed by the Pope to administer the
pontifical state complained that they were molested by the
imperial inspectors charged to supervise them. Leo trans
mitted their grievances to the emperor, who in return trans
mitted to Leo the complaints of his own officials against the
papal government. Plainly the Frankish suzerain would
have liked his venerable fief to be more simple, and the latter
would have liked greater independence for himself.2 There
was a misunderstanding between Aix-la-Chapelle and Rome,
but it continued to be unimportant ; it did not degenerate
into a conflict. At the death of Charlemagne the situation
was modified. In 815, Louis the Debonnair learned that a
revolt had broken out in the pontifical state, and that Leo
had drowned it in blood, by putting to death several
hundred conspirators.3 He believed that he discerned an
abuse of power, and he complained to the Pope. The latter
gave explanations with which the pacific emperor declared
that he was not satisfied ; and the incident was closed. But
some years afterwards (823) two dignitaries were put to
death at the Lateran, under the eyes of Pope Pascal i., who
at that time was on the pontifical throne. Louis the
Debonnair did not propose to be paid in words. He sent
delegates to Rome to make an inquiry. Pascal prevented
the investigation, and the commissioners returned to France
without attaining their object. Louis the Debonnair wished
to have the last word. By his orders Lothair his son came
to Rome (824). He corrected the abuses in the pontifical
administration, and then established a constitution by the
terms of which a representative of the emperor was to be
1 Hauck, ii. 96.
2 Jaffe, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2528, 2529 ; M. G., Ep. v. 88, 89, 91, 92, 101, 103.
» Hauck, ii. 476.

164 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
permanently near the Pope, and to receive the reports of the
pontifical officials. The supremacy of the imperial power was
assured.1 Some years later the empire entered into the way
which was to lead to its fall. Louis the Debonnair was
humiliated by his sons ; and the outrages of which he was
the object aided the theocracy to triumph. Gregory rv.,
of whom the rebels asked support, addressed haughty words
to the emperor. The time had gone by when popes pros
trated themselves at the feet of Pepin and of Charlemagne,
and addressed to them their humble supplications. Under
Gregory IV. the papacy resisted the civil power, braved it,
dominated it. Logically, the constitution of 824 should
have disappeared. But the irony of fate intervened, so that
the popes, at the very time when they were making the law
for Christendom, trembled in their own house. In 846 the
Saracens invaded the Roman Campagna, devastated all the
country, sacked the church of St. Peter, and — horrible to
relate — profaned the tomb of the Apostle.2 When Lothair
learned of this catastrophe, he decided to drive the Saracens
from Italy, and to enclose the borough of St. Peter. The
execution of this plan directly followed his decision. The
Saracens were driven — temporarily — from Italy, a great wall
was built around St. Peter's and the adjoining houses. Rome
was more secure. But this advantage it owed to the sword
of the Franks, and to their money. The Pope, who spoke as
master of the Church, did not maintain himself in the ponti
fical state except by the support of the emperor. He knew
this, and therefore did not dream of throwing off the pro
tectorate which had been imposed upon him by the constitution
of 824. The powerful Pope Nicholas, so conscious of his own
authority, kept the officials at Rome, whom the emperor had
given him, who supervised his administration. The Saracens,
driven from Italy in 847, returned about 870. In 875
they invaded the Roman Campagna. At this time the Pope
was John viii. Breaking with established customs, John
wished to do what his royal profession demanded of him
1 Hauck, ii. 482 ; Duchesne, p. 199. s Duchesne, p. 213.

THE PONTIFICAL STATE 165
under such circumstances. He equipped a fleet, took com
mand of it, and went to meet the enemy.1 He gained a
brilliant victory, which he announced to the emperor in these
words : " With the help of the Lord, we have taken eighteen
vessels from the Saracens, many of whom have been slain."
John vin. was the first in a line of military popes. He
created a type which disappeared only with Julius n. Un
happily his triumph was not lasting. The Saracens, who
soon recovered from their defeat, became more terrible than
ever. A disconsolate witness of their ravages, and powerless
to put a stop to them, John called on Charles the Bald for
aid. He did not obtain it ; on the contrary, he received a
visit from certain Italian nobles who took advantage of his
embarrassment to attack him. Finding his position unten
able, the poor Pope left Rome and came to France (April
878). He hoped to rally to him the Carolingian princes as
well as their bishops, and beg them to make a united effort
against the enemies of the Roman Church. His expectation
was disappointed. The council of Troyes, before which he
pleaded his cause, gave him only fair words.2 Returning to
Rome, having obtained nothing, he spent his time in seeking
protectors who robbed him ; he was tormented with anxiety
until the day when assassins ended his life (882).
The fears of John vm. were only too well founded. The
pontifical state was, indeed, hastening to its ruin. But mis
fortune came from an unexpected quarter, and the Saracens
were not concerned in it. In 887 the Carolingian empire fell.
At once from all the cities of the patrimony of St. Peter arose
dukes, marquises, counts, and barons who parcelled out the
domains as best they could, and granted themselves inde
pendence. This was the dismemberment of the pontifical
state. Rome itself became the prey of powerful families who
treated the papacy as a fief, profaned it, cast it into the mire.
The Roman clergy made no effort either to recover the dona
tion of Pepin, or to win back independence and dignity for
the apostolic see. The popes could hardly think of modify
ing a regime of which they were the creatures. Yet two
1 Jaffe, 3008. 2 Mansi, xvii. 348 ; Migne, cxxvi. 961 ; Hefele, iv. 527.

166 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
attempts were made, with this in view, in the course of the
tenth century by the holders of pontifical authority. In 928,
John x., who thirteen years before, by gaining a brilliant
victory over the Saracens,1 had deserved well of Italy,
endeavoured to free himself from the domination of Marozia,
and to be master of Rome. He failed, and paid for his
courageous undertaking with his life.2 Thirty years after
wards, John xn., after an unfortunate expedition against the
dukes of Capua and Benevento, re-established the empire,
gave it to Otto I., who promised to deliver to the apostolic
see all its temporal possessions.3 But this promise was
illusory. Later (1020) the emperor Henry ii. renewed it,
but without result.4 In 1045, when Gregory vi. purchased
the pontifical throne from Benedict ix, the Pope, according
to William of Malmesbury, had no other income than that
derived from certain farms situated near Rome, and from
the offerings of the faithful;5 and in 1048 the emperor
Henry in. saved Pope Damasius from destitution by giving
him an important forest in the valley of Puster ; and in
addition to this, authorizing him to keep the revenues of his
former bishopric of Brixen.6 Upon the re-establishment of
the empire, the papacy gained nothing except a change of
masters, and subjection to another protectorate. Indeed
from Otto I. to Henry in. the German emperors made the
laws for the Roman pontiff, even as they did for the bishops
on the banks of the Rhine.
At this time there appeared upon the scene the monk
who was wholly to transform the pontifical see and the
Church. It was Hildebrand. From the time of Stephen n.,
or rather from the time of Gregory il, the papacy had called
upon the princes to defend its possessions. Hildebrand
thought that the Roman Church before counting on princes,
should rely upon itself; that in order to have its rights
respected, it should be in a position to defend them ; and
1 Jaffe, 3556 ; Hauck, iii. 208. s Duchesne, p. 324.
3 Hauck, iii. 229. * Id., ib. 525.
6 Gesta regum Anglorum, ii. 201 ; Migne, clxxix. 1183.
6 Jaffe, i. 528.

THE PONTIFICAL STATE 167
that the Pope, like any other ruler, should be a captain.
In the past it had had a John vin., a John x., and later
still a Benedict vm. (about 1020), engaged in battle with
the Saracens, defending the lives of Christians with the
sword, But pontiffs took up arms for the maintenance of
the pontifical state. Here was something unexampled save in
the time of John xn., that is to say, in the worst days of the
papacy. Hildebrand introduced this innovation into the
Church. In 1045 he applied his method, and followed by
a small band of soldiers he laboured in the Roman Campagna
in support of Gregory vi.1 In 1053, Leo ix. made war upon
the Normans in Italy.2 Two years later, Victor n. (1055)
led a military expedition into the Roman Campagna ; s and
afterwards it was Nicholas n. (1059) who, to punish the
Roman counts, visited Latium with fire and sword.4 All these
pontiffs were merely executors of the orders of Hildebrand,
who although only a simple monk was, as Peter Damien said,
"master of popes," and governed the Church. At last in
1073 Hildebrand ascended the pontifical throne and became
Gregory vn. One of his first cares was to organize battalions
against the despoilers of the patrimony of St. Peter. The
year following (1074), he made a campaign against the
Normans, who were engaging in increasing invasions.6 But
this last expedition failed miserably before there had been
any encounter. That of Leo ix. was drowned in blood at the
disastrous battle of Civita. As for the military marches
across the Roman Campagna, several seem to have failed ; the
rest were hardly anything more than razzias without any
lasting effect. After forty years of warlike undertakings,
Gregory vn. left the question of the pontifical state just
about as he had found it. More fortunate in diplomacy
than on the field of battle, he persuaded the countess
Mathilda to bequeath her patrimonial estate to the Holy See ;
but the German emperors opposed the execution of this
1 Guido Ferrariensis, De scismate Hildebrandi, M. G., Libelli de lite,
i. 554. 2 Delarc, Saint Grigowe VII. et la re'forme de I'Eglise, i. 308, Paris, 1889.
'Id., ii. 14. *Id., ib. 84, 132. 6 Id., iii. 16, 96.

168 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
legacy. The endowment of the countess Mathilda procured
for the apostolic see certain rights, but nothing more.
To witness the realization of these plans, one must await
the coming of the twelfth century. About 1137, Innocent II.,
with the help of the emperor Lothair of Saxony, secured
control of Albano, Benevento, and several castles south
of Rome. In 1153,1 Frederick Barbarossa at the diet of
Constance signed an agreement by which he engaged himself
to recover for the Roman Church the possessions of the
blessed Peter which were still in the hands of strangers, and
to defend those which were then in the power of the Church
— all this to the best of his ability. It was not an empty
promise. It was by his favour that Pope Eugenius III. took
Terracina, Sezzia, Narni, and Fumona.2 In 1191, Henry VI.,
at the time when he received the imperial crown from
Celestine in, swore to restore to St. Peter all that had been
taken from the dominions of the latter.3 It is not known
exactly what he restored. What is known is, that at the
end of the twelfth century, from the time of Eugenius ill., the
pontifical state did not acquire much, but, on the contrary,
lost some of the territory gained by that pope. It ended at
the limits of the old duchy of Rome, which had been only
partly subjugated. It did not include Romagna (formerly
the exarchate of Ravenna), nor the province of Ancona
(formerly Pentapolis), nor Umbria (formerly the duchy of
Spoleto), nor the property of the countess Mathilda. All its
domains were in the hands of the German emperors, who
administered them through their subordinates.
Innocent in., who took such a long stride towards the
theocracy, also made efforts to develop the pontifical state.4
Circumstances were more favourable than ever. After the
death of Henry vi. (1197), the empire, torn by intestinal
strife, was incapable of serious effort. Innocent had his
1 Baronius, 1137, 6-11.
2 M. G., Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum (legum sectio iv.), i.
201 ; Zeller, iv. 125 ; Baronius, 1153, 11.
3 M. G., Constitutiones, i. 478 (see also 461) ; Zeller, iv. 411.
4 Luchaire, Innocent III., Borne et Vltalie, pp. 98-102, 107.

THE PONTIFICAL STATE 169
hands free, and did not remain inactive. His soldiers went
across the Roman Campagna and restored order in the towns
and mutinous castles. Houses were demolished, rebels were
hanged, fines were inflicted, towns laid under interdict.
That went on for two years; then in 1207, Innocent being
master of the old duchy of Rome could visit his subjects as a
conqueror, and receive their homage. It seemed as if the
conquest of the country administered by the Germans would
be still more simple. At a signal from the Pope, the
peoples of Umbria, of Ancona, of Romagna, drove out the
imperial officials whom they hated, and yielded to the Pope.
At this Innocent was deeply pleased, as we know from an
expression in his letter to the inhabitants of Jesi (17th
March 1199). But he soon perceived that his triumph was
premature. The towns which had banished the German
officials were equally averse to the papal protectorate. They
wished to govern themselves. Disputes arose. Innocent
remained master of Umbria, but Ancona and Romagna in
the end escaped his authority. As to the possessions of
the countess Mathilda, he had doubtless never expected to
keep them in his power. „ He made up for this by having
all his rights recognized, those which he did not exercise,
as well as those which he exercised, by Otto iv. at Spire
(1209), and by Frederick n. at Eger1 (1213). Sixty years
later, Pope Gregory x. caused the recognition of the same
rights by the emperor Rudolph of Habsburg at the second
council of Lyons2 (1274), then at Lausanne (1275), so that
the Pope was juridically master of several provinces over
which he had no effective control.
There was an anomaly here. The popes endeavoured to
remove it. In 1276, Innocent V. committed to Charles of
Anjou the administration of Tuscany, the country which in
other days was subject to the countess Mathilda. He
supposed that he was conforming to the agreements of Lyons
1 Lnchaire, Innocent III., La Papautiet V Empire, pp. 204, 295.
s Raynald, 1274, 5-12; Hefele, vi. 134; Gregorovius, v. 447: Zeller, vi.
127 ; concerning Alexander IV., see E. Jordan, Les Origines de la domination
angevime, p. 310, Paris, 1909.

170 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
and of Lausanne. But Rudolph did not so understand it.
This weak emperor, who had hitherto endured all kinds of
humiliation, now had the courage to resist. In response to
the bold action of the Pope, he tightened the cords which
bound Romagna to the empire, and he threatened to attack
Rome. Nicholas in. (1277-1280) devised an ingenious
solution of the difficulty. Being especially desirous of getting
rid of Charles of Anjou, who was displeased with him, he
began by alarming Rudolph, showing him the old parch
ments which guaranteed the exarchate and Pentapolis to
the papacy. Then, like a generous prince, he proposed to
grant to the emperor the administration of Tuscany, provided
the latter would leave Romagna to the Holy See. The offer
was accepted (30th June 1278). Thereafter Romagna became
a part of the patrimony of St. Peter; and after a useless
revolt (under Martin IV.) it was resigned to its lot. At
Rome, of course, Tuscany had not been lost to sight and a
proper opportunity of incorporating it was awaited. Boniface
vin. believed that he was called by Providence to seize the
prey which had been so long coveted. He was disappointed ;
Tuscany escaped his control.1 Notwithstanding this unim
portant check, the papacy might be proud of its work. After
a century and a half of effort, it had regained the endowment
of Pepin. It did not long enjoy its conquest. Clement v., the
successor of Boniface viii., established himself at Avignon.
The effects of this displacement, which continued until 1377,
were soon apparent. In 1314, Cardinal Napoleon Orsini
wrote to Philip le Bel, king of France : " During the pontificate
of Clement v. the city of Rome is ruined, the patrimony
of St. Teter has been pillaged, and is still being pillaged, by
those who deserve the name of robbers, rather than of rulers." 2
'G. Levi, " Bonifazio vn. ele sue relazioni col commune ii Viienza" (ArcMvio
delta Societa Bomana, v. (1882) 365-474). Boniface demanded the city of Gaeta,
to give it afterwards to his nephew ; see Finke, Aus den Tagen Bonifaz VIII.,
p. xiv, Miinster, 1902. Mark also that the nephew of Boniface bought a part
of Latium, and that the uncle confirmed these acquisitions by a bull. See
Gregorovius, v. 557.
2 Baluze, Vitaepaparum avenionensium, ii. 289, Paris, 1693.

THE PONTIFICAL STATE 171
Hence even during the life of Clement v., the pontifical
state, taking advantage of the absence of its master, had
shaken off the yoke. The work of conquest, slowly pursued
during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, had come to
nought. All had to be begun again; Pope Innocent vi.
(1342—1352) resumed it. At his command, Cardinal
Albornoz, leading a small army, crossed the pontifical state,
subdued all the rebel cities, and set French governors over
them.1 Everything went well so long as Albornoz with his
forces was in the country. When he departed, a wind of
rebellion swept once more over the whole pontifical territory.
Gregory XI. sent Cardinal Robert of Geneva with a band of
mercenaries from Brittany, commanding them to act with
energy. He was obeyed to the letter. Robert of Geneva
drowned the revolt in blood2 (1377). It is here that
mention should be made of the acquisition of Avignon by the
papacy. This town belonged to Jeanne queen of Naples.
Clement vi. bought it from her in 1348 for 80,000 gold
florins.3 A year after Robert's cruel act, occurred the great schism.
The Pope of Avignon confronted the Pope of Rome. Chris
tianity was divided into two parts (1378). It was a godsend
to the cities of the pontifical state. Pretending to doubt
as to which Pope was legitimate, they surrendered to neither
of the competitors, or, which was practically the same thing,
they declared in favour of the more distant pontiff who could
not reach them, and from whom they had nothing to fear.
Urban vi., the Roman Pope, sent troops to ravage the territory
of his rebellious subjects. It was labour lost. The ponti
fical state was again emancipated ; again the papacy had to
raise an army and do battle to enter into its own. Cardinal
Balthasar Cossa, commanded by Pope Boniface IX. of Rome to
suppress the revolt in Romagna, brilliantly fulfilled his
1 J. Wurm, Cardinal Albornoz der zweite Begrilnder des Ki/rchenstaates,
p. 130, Paderborn, 1892 ; J. Mollat, Les Papes cV Avignon, pp. 147, 167, 177,
Paris, 1912.
2 Mollat, p. 164.
3 Christophe, Histoire de la PapauU pendant le xiv' siicle, ii. 467, Paris,
1853.

172 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
mission (1414). He ruled this region for the Popes Boni
face ix., Innocent vn., and Alexander v., as well as after
wards on his own account after he became Pope with the
name of John xxiii.1 But John xxiii. was deposed by the
council of Constance (1415). Romagna immediately resumed
its autonomy. Nothing remained of that which had been
conquered by Balthasar Cossa. When the schism was at
length brought to an end (1417), Pope Martin v. was obliged
to seek the hospitality of Florence. The pontifical state
was closed to him. Fortunately the queen of Naples came
to the rescue of the Pope, whom she needed herself.
Aided by the Neapolitan forces, Martin got rid of the
adventurer Braccio, who wished merely to abolish the temporal
power of the Holy See (1424). Four years later, favour
able circumstances enabled him to occupy the province of
Rimini. Once more the domain of St. Peter was almost
restored.2 But it was like the stone of Sisyphus. Martin v. died,
and was succeeded by Eugenius IV. (1431). Hardly had he
taken his seat upon the pontifical throne when he was
assailed by complaints and threats. Nearly everywhere his
subjects were rebellious.3 Moreover, Eugenius encroached on
the interests of Visconti, duke of Milan, showing little diplo
matic talent. For this mistake he paid dearly. Through
the influence of Visconti, four adventurers invaded the
ecclesiastical state. One of them came as far as Rome.
Eugenius was driven from the Eternal City (1434), which he
was not to re-enter for ten years. Although a king, he had
no kingdom. Nevertheless he placed his expectations on
Vitelleschi, and these expectations seemed justified.
Vitelleschi, bishop of Recanati, then archbishop of Florence
and patriarch of Alexandria, was only an adventurer, like
those whom Visconti subsidized. But this adventurer, who
had given himself to the Pope, laboured a great deal, and
laboured well. In a few years he put an end to the anarchy
which was devastating the domain of St. Peter : under his
1 J. Guiraud, V Etat pontifical apris le Grand Schisme, p. 23, Paris, 1898.
¦ Pastor, i. 166, 173. 3 Id., ib, 222-228, 248.

THE PONTIFICAL STATE 173
hand of iron the cities which had rebelled were reduced to
order. Eugenius had absolute confidence in this minister,
who seemed to deserve it. Yet, just as he reached the zenith
of his power, Vitelleschi was imprisoned in the castle of St.
Angelo, where he died (1440) ; and the Pope was unaffected
by this event, which he seemed to approve.1 It is not
known whether the blow came from him, or whether he
was merely a witness of what he could not prevent.
Whatever the case may have been, in 1440, Eugenius
was in a more critical situation than ever. Among his
enemies, two were especially formidable: Sforza, and
Alfonso of Aragon. The former threatened the pontifical
state ; the latter supported the council of Bale and favoured
the schism. But the Pope, who at the beginning of his reign
knew nothing of diplomacy, at length gained a knowledge of
it. Thanks to skilful concessions, he won over Alfonso and
sent him against Sforza (1443). Directly after making
this arrangement, he was able to return to Rome. This was
his first advantage. But the defeat of Sforza was not
achieved until several years afterwards. At length it
occurred (1447), and at the end of sixteen years of conflict,
Eugenius IV. left the temporal power very nearly at the point
which it had reached under Martin V.
Nicholas V. and Calixtus in., the successors of Eugenius,
lived on relatively peaceable terms with their subjects.
Nicholas even had the pleasure of seeing Bologna of its own
accord resume its place under the pontifical crosier, although
not unconditionally 2 (1447). Calixtus formed the senseless
plan — the execution of which was happily prevented by
his death — of including the kingdom of Naples in the
immediate possessions of the papacy, and of committing its
administration to one of his nephews.8 But the spirit of
rebellion was only waiting for an occasion to manifest itself.
Pius ii. learned this to his cost. Scarcely had he ascended
the pontifical throne when a goodly number of governors or
1 Christophe, Histoire de la Papauti pendant le xv™ sUcle, i. 328, Paris,
1863. 2 Pastor, i. 317. * Id., ib. 600.

174 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
pontifical vicars rebelled. Piccinino, the chief of this band,
retreated before the troops of the king of Naples; the rest
of the rebels were bought over for money. It was pains
taken in vain. After some years the insurgents, supported
by the House of Anjou, once more took up arms and even
at Rome defied the Pope, who gained in the end only an
incomplete advantage.1 Incomplete is, indeed, the word
for it, since Paul ii. and Sixtus IV. were confronted with a
revolt which this time, instead of depending on the House
of Anjou, was supported by Venice and Florence.2 Yet
heretofore the king of Naples, faithful to his obligations to
the Holy See, had always without hesitation taken up the
defence of the popes. Under Innocent viii. he placed himself
on the side of the insurgents, who became the more insolent.
The Pope talked of leaving Italy, and of taking refuge in
France. This threat made no change in the situation of the
Holy See.3 In 1495, Alexander vi. perceived it. At that
time Charles vin., king of France, came to Rome, demanded
the investiture of the kingdom of Naples, and gave it to be
understood that he was ready to dethrone the unworthy pon
tiff who ruled the Church. Immediately most of the Roman
barons and governors of the pontifical state surrendered to
him. To these subjects of the Pope every enemy of their
master was their friend.4
If Alexander vi. had been only a pope, he would have
acted as his predecessors did. He would have left the
pontifical state in the same disorder in which he found it.
But he was also a father, having sons upon whom he wished
to heap honours and wealth. Paternal love gave him the
idea of defending his rights as a sovereign, and gave him the
force to do it. Under pretence of punishing his officials who
had betrayed him, and who in any case did not pay their
tribute, he deposed them, and appointed his sons in their
stead. Of course, war alone could assure the execution of
his tyrannical plan ; therefore war was declared against the
pontifical vicars, The eldest of Alexander's sons, Juan, duke
1 Pastor, ii. 87-90. 2 Id., ib. 427-502.
3 Id., iii. 190-215. * Id., ib. 322, 348.

THE PONTIFICAL STATE 175
of Gandia, began hostilities (1495). He failed, and was
assassinated by unknown persons, who threw his body into
the Tiber. The incapable Juan was succeeded by his brother
Caesar. This man, who is to be counted among the great
criminals of the human race, was also a crafty diplomatist and
a brave soldier. Thanks to his bold efforts and to his
strategies, which excited the admiration of Machiavelli, Caesar
captured successively Romagna and other parts of the domain
of St. Peter. Bologna alone escaped him. He even intended
to annex Florence, but circumstances prevented him from
executing this plan.1 With the help of his son Caesar Borgia,
Alexander vi. suppressed his proud vicars, those rebel officials
who had for so long defied the Holy See. He gave the spoils
to his sons. Caesar, the contriver of the conquest, had, as
was fitting, the greater share. Juan, who in 1501 was still in
the cradle, received several duchies. Roderigo, the son of
Lucretia, was not forgotten. The pontifical state — with the
exception of Bologna and Perugia — became the property of the
Borgias and of their descendants.2 The domain of St. Peter
was alienated, and ceased to exist. Its place was taken by
lay duchies. Alexander VI. demolished the work slowly
elaborated and jealously defended by his predecessors. He
betrayed the Holy See.
Yet by the irony of fate it happened that this traitor
was one of the most active agents in restoring the pontifical
state. It need not be said that this happened in spite of him ;
for he had taken every measure to prevent that result.
This leads us to the mention of Julius n. At the time
when this Pope took in hand the government of the Church,
all the cities which had submitted to Borgia were endeavour
ing to shake off the yoke which Alexander vi. had imposed
upon them ; and Venice took advantage of the movement for
emancipation to make the conquest of Romagna. Another
pope would have yielded ; not so Julius il, who had no eccle
siastical spirit, but, to make up for it, had a genius for war.
With an audacity which increased in the face of danger, he
made himself the intrepid champion of the rights of the Holy
1 Pastor, iii. 370-375, 461, 458, 486, 494. " Id., ib. 475.

176 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
See. In the very beginning (1506) he obliged Venice to
restore some of the towns which it had taken from Romagna.
Then he presented himself at the head of an army before
Perugia and Bologna, which he forced to surrender (1506).
Finally (1509), thanks to the victory of Agnadel, he
summoned the Venetians to give up their spoils and to
evacuate Romagna. For a short time he lost Bologna
(1508), and at the beginning of 1512 he found himself on
the verge of ruin. But, saved by the Swiss, he triumphed
over all his foes ; he recovered Bologna and Romagna, and
extended his sway over Parma, Placentia, and Reggio 1 (1512).
It is to Julius II. that the pontifical state owed its final form.
But it should not be forgotten that the suppression of the
pontifical vicars by Alexander VI. greatly facilitated the work
of Julius II., his successor, in restoring the pontifical state.
Alexander vi., without intending it, prepared the way for this
restitution.

APPENDIX I
The Administeation of Rome
Undek the Byzantine rule, Rome was administered by an
imperial officer, who was called the duke of Rome, and who
was dependent on the exarch of Ravenna. This regime, estab
lished in a.d. 533, existed de jure until the disappearance of
the exarchate of Ravenna (751) ; but actually a long time before
this date, the duke of Rome was replaced by the Pope, who
became de facto the administrator of Rome.2
Under the Carolingians 3 the Pope retained the place
which he had acquired at the end of the Byzantine regime.
He had control of the administration of Rome, and exercised
it through his own officials. This administration, however,
was supervised by the imperial missi. The Carolingian
princes believed that they had received this right of super
vision when they received the patriciate. It is this which
1 Pastor, iii. 583, 591, 602, 610, 665, 702, 713.
2 L. Halphen, Etude sur V administration de Borne au Moyen Age, p. 1,
Paris, 1907.
3 Id., ib. p. 2 ; Duchesne, p. 164.

THE PONTIFICAL STATE 177
explains their exercise of it before the constitution of the
empire. In 800, Charlemagne came to Rome to judge Leo in.
From the fall of the Carolingian empire (887, or more
exactly 896) to the accession of the Germanic empire (962),
Rome was governed successively by the dukes of Spoleto, the
king of Provence, Berenger, and the House of Theophylactus.1
During this entire period the Pope was only the servant of
masters who had raised him to the pontifical throne. From
the advent of the Germanic empire (962) to Gregory vn.
(1059), the administration of Rome was in the Pope's own
hands, but was guarded and controlled by the German
emperor. That was intended by the constitution of Otto. As
we know, however, this constitution, hated by the Romans,
was, until the year 1046, violated by them as often as possible.2
In fact, during this period there were national popes alter
nating with imperial popes. The latter alone were subject to
the emperor's supervision ; the others were under the orders
of the faction which elected them.
Gregory vii. undertook to free the papacy from the yoke of
the empire as well as from the yoke of the Italian nobility.
His programme was to put Rome under the exclusive authority
of the Holy See. But the Germanic empire fought with all
its might to maintain the constitution of Otto, and did not
admit its defeat until the concordat of Worms (1122). It was
in 1059 that Hildebrand carried out his programme, and so it
was at that date that the conflict began. Thus the situation
was as follows: from the year 1059 to 1122, Rome, drawn
asunder by the German and the pontifical claims, fell a prey to
anarchy; but from the year 1122 the Pope was the undis
puted master of Rome.
This situation lasted only twenty years.3 In 1143 a
conflict arose between Innocent n. and the Roman people on
the subject of Tivoli, which the people wished to destroy, which
the Pope wished to spare. Dissatisfied with the mildness of
the pontiff, the people rebelled, took possession of the Capitol,
and installed a senate there. That was the constitution of
1143, by which the city of Rome was made a municipality
independent of the papacy. For two years the papacy opposed
this constitution. In 1145, Eugenius III. consented to recog
nize the senate, on condition that they would grant him the
investiture. During the years following, several attempts at
1 Duchesne, p. 288.
2 See the chapter on "The Pontifical Election."
3 Halphen, p. 54.
12

178 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
rebellion were made, one of which, led by Arnold, was
particularly serious. The Romans had the idea of reviving the
ancient Roman republic, and of confining the papacy within a
purely spiritual domain. The Pope was saved by Frederick
Barbarossa, who arrested Arnold and hung him (1155). At
length, in 1188, Clement III. and the Roman republic signed an
agreement on the basis of the treaty of 1145. The administra
tion of Rome was entrusted to the senate, which derived its
authority from the Pope.1
The constitution of 1188, which gave the people the elec
tion of senators and reserved to the Pope only the investiture,
seemed too liberal to Innocent III. In 1198 this pontiff con
trolled the Roman municipality. The latter made an attempt
at resistance, which lasted six years. Being definitely con
quered it received (1204) a constitution, according to which the
administration of Rome was committed to a single senator or
podestat, who was appointed directly or indirectly by the Pope.
Innocent in. from the beginning of his reign rid himself of the
prefect whom the emperor Henry VI. had given to Rome to
govern in his name, as the missus did in the Carolingian
period.2 The constitution of Innocent in. was soon trampled
under foot, and the Roman senators were independent of the
papacy. To remedy this, Urban IV. committed the senatorship
to Charles of Anjou on condition that the latter should obey
the Pope.8 Charles accepted the proposed condition (1264), but
he soon assumed an authority which made him unbearable to
the popes. To be rid of him, Nicholas in. promulgated the
following constitution (1278) : " The senator charged with the
government of Rome shall be obliged to receive investiture
from the Pope, and shall be elected by the people ; in no case
shall a foreigner be eligible, and the choice of the people must
fall upon a Roman." 4 Disregarding this, Martin iv. reappointed
Charles of Anjou as Roman senator (1281), but the hostility
of the Romans obliged him to revoke the measure (1282) and
return to the national system of Nicholas in.
The constitution of 1278 was enforced during the sojourn
of the papacy at Avignon. Rome, however, which was then a
prey to misery and robbery, hoped to find in independence
a remedy for its misfortunes. Cola di Rienzi, an adventurer,
1 Halphen, p. 56.
2 Luchaire, Innocent III., Rome et Vltalie, pp. 98-112, 120, 141, 143.
8 E. Jordan, Les Origines de la domination angevine en Italie, Paris, 1909,
pp. 420, 459.
* Raynald, 1278, 69.

THE PONTIFICAL STATE 179
exploited this state of opinion, had himself elected tribune of
the people, and governor of the Eternal City (1347). But his
frail fortune collapsed at the end of a few months. Deserted
by every one, he was given up to Clement vi., who imprisoned
him at Avignon. Seven years later (1354) Rienzi came once
to Rome, but this time in the service of Pope Innocent VI., who
conferred upon him the title of senator, and forced him to
support the pontifical authority, which was threatened by a
new rebellion. He died as a victim in a popular uprising.1
During the schism, the Roman popes — those of the lineage
of Urban vi. — governed Rome until the close of the council of
Pisa (1409), except in the time of revolution. Then Rome
fell into the power of Louis il, prince of Anjou, a partizan of
Alexander v., and so became obedient to that Pope, and after
wards to his successor, John XXIII. This system lasted until
1413. At that time Rome was conquered by Ladislas, king of
Naples, who removed John xxiii. and kept Rome for himself.
Ladislas died in 1414. Rome endeavoured to obtain indepen
dence, but became the prey of the adventurer Braccio. Finally,
about 1417, the soldiers of Jeanne II., queen of Naples, obliged
it to submit to the authority of Pope Martin V. Under
Eugenius TV., Rome still sought to win its freedom and to
become a republic (1434). But at the end of some years it
submitted once more to the pontifical yoke. Yet the
republican idea was not stifled. In 1440, Valla published his
book on " The Donation of Constantine," in which the temporal
power of the popes was presented as the cause of the corrup
tion of the Church, and of all the woes of Italy.2 Probably
moved by this virulent indictment, Stephen Porcaro, upon the
death of Eugenius rv. (1457), endeavoured to establish the
republic, and declaimed against the " domination of the priests."
He stopped temporarily at this point, but seven years later
paid for his rash undertaking with his head (9 th January
1453).3 Thereafter Rome rendered docile obedience to the popes,
and if conspiracy occurred, it was not inspired by the
republican idea.

1 G. Mollat, Les Popes d' Avignon, pp. 171-178.
» Pastor, i. 16. » Id., ib. 27 4,

424.

180 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
APPENDIX II
Residence of Popes away fkom Rome
The Gothic kings sent officially the popes John I. (a.d. 525)
and Agapitus (536) to Constantinople in order to defend before
the emperor the interests of the Gothic nation.1 Under the
Byzantine supremacy several popes were constrained to take
the same journey by orders coming from the imperial court.
This was the case with Vigilius, who lived ten years at
Constantinople 2 (545-555) ; with Martin I., who left Con
stantinople only to die in the Chersonesus (653); with
Constantine I., who was able to return to Rome after a forced
stay of two years in the imperial city (709-711). The emperor
tried to bring the popes Sergius and John VI. to him, but the
army defeated his plan. In 730, Leo the Isaurian, who wished
to remove Pope Gregory in., drew back because of the hostile
attitude of the people. During the last days of the Byzantine
supremacy, Zacharias left Rome on several occasions to visit
the Lombard kings at Pavia, whose interests he successfully
defended.3 The successor of Zacharias, Stephen ii., also went to Pavia
(753). He went by order of the court of Constantinople, with
the mission to defend the rights of the emperor. But Pavia
was only a stopping- place, and the journey of Stephen II. ended
at Ponthion, where were laid the foundations of the pontifical
state. In 799, Leo in., whose life "was no longer safe at
Rome," took refuge at Paderborn with Charlemagne, who
defended him and yet acted as his judge in a council at
St. Peter's. In 816, Stephen iv. went to Reims to confer with
Louis the Debonnair. In 878, John viii., driven from Rome,
visited Troyes, where he asked the Frankish bishops to take
charge of his cause. At times the popes travelled in different
directions as protectors, invited by the Frankish princes, who
endeavoured to make use of their political influence. It was
thus that, in 833, Gregory iv., summoned by the sons of Louis
the Debonnair, who had rebelled against their father, met them
1 Lives of John I. and Agapit in Liber Pontificalis ; Annates Maximiani, 88 ;
Liberatus, Breviarium, 21.
a L. Duchesne, "Vigile et Pelage" in Bevue des Questions historiques,
xxxvi. 369-440 (1884).
3 Lives of Martin, Constantin, Sergius, John vi., Zacharias, in Liber
Pontificalis.

THE PONTIFICAL STATE 181
on the field of falsehood. So it was again when, at the invitation
of Charles the Fat, Pope Adrian III. came (885) to the diet of
Worms in which death prevented him from taking part. The
interview which Pope Adrian II. had with Lothair at Mount
Cassin (869) took place likewise at the request of that prince.
The maritime expedition of John viii. against the Saracens
(875), in which the Pope gained the brilliant victory of Tirce\
must be placed in a special category.
From the fall of the Carolingian empire to the accession of
Otto, when there was a desire to get rid of the Pope, time was
not given him for flight. He was slain, or sent to prison to
await death.1 Stephen VI. was strangled (897), John X. was
smothered (928), Leo V. and Christopher died in prison (904).
In 915 occurred the expedition of John against the Saracens ;
in a letter to the archbishop of Cologne the Pope boasts of
having twice charged the enemy.
Under the Ottos (962-1002) we observe the succession of
national and of imperial popes who fled one after the other
unless they were killed, mutilated, or exiled.2 John xn. with
drew to Tivoli at the time when Otto i. deposed him (963).
His successor, Benedict v., was sent into exile at Hamburg,
where he died (965); Boniface VII., banished by Otto n. in
974, fled to Constantinople and did not return until after the
death of his imperial enemy (984) ; John xvi. was captured by
Otto III., who had his nose and ears cut off, his eyes put out,
and his tongue torn out. It was now the turn of the imperial
popes. Leo VIII. was driven away by John xn. (964) ; John xiii.
was imprisoned by the Romans (965) ; Benedict VI. was strangled
by order of Boniface vn. (974) ; John xiv. also was condemned
to death by the same Pope; Gregory v. was banished from
Rome for more than a year (996).
From the end of the reign of the Ottos until that of Henry
in. the only thing to be mentioned here is that Benedict IX.,
who had been driven by the Romans from the Holy See, sold
the pontificate3 (1033-1045). Nor is there more to be said of
the popes of Henry in., except that Leo ix., unfortunate in his
expedition against the Normans, was for nine years their
prisoner at Benevento4 (1053). For more than half a century
the popes lived for the most part in peace ; and Leo ix., who is
1 L. Duchesne, Les Premiers Temps de V Hot pontifical, pp. 311-327.
"Id., ib. pp. 339-369.
3 Hauck, ii. 569.
4 Sigebert of Gemblours, Chronica ad annum, 1050; M. G., Scriptores, vi.
359 ; Bonizo, " Liber ad amicum v.," in the Libelli de lite, i. 589.

182 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
to be met with everywhere in France, in Germany, and in
Italy, left Rome only for apostolic, political, or military
reasons. From the time of Gregory vn. the situation of the popes at
Rome was for a long time precarious. This arose from diffi
culties caused by changes of which Gregory was the author.
One of these difficulties was connected with the quarrel con
cerning investitures. In 1084, Gregory vn., in order to defend
himself against Henry iv., called to his aid the Norman, Robert
Guiscard.1 At Rome the latter committed such excesses that
Gregory, hated by the Romans, who held him responsible for
their misfortunes, was obliged to follow his protector, and died
at Salerno (1085). Urban n., elected in 1088, became master
of the Lateran only in 1094, and of the castle of St. Angelo
in 1098. Pascal n. came into France in 1106 and tried in vain
to effect a settlement with the representatives of Henry v.
concerning investitures. He returned to Rome in 1109, and
was driven away in 1116. He came back again shortly before
his death. His successor, Gelasius II., was banished from
Rome, the first time by Henry v., the second time by the
faction of the Frangipani. He died at Cluny after a pontificate
of one year, most of which was spent away from Rome.
Calixtus n. spent the first year of his pontificate in France,
where he presided at the council of Reims (1119).
Another source of difficulties was the rivalries caused by
the electoral reform of 1059, until this reform was completed
by the decree of 1179. By the authority of this, Alexander n.
(1061-1073), Innocent II. (1130-1143), Alexander m. (1159-
1181), were away from Rome for some years, where a victorious
rival was in power, sustained by either the Roman people or
the emperor.
The manifestation at Rome of the republican idea about
the middle of the twelfth century was a fresh cause of em
barrassment to the papacy. From 1143 down to the constitu
tion of 1188 the popes did not stay at Rome, except at
intervals. In fact, it happened that two of them, Urban in.
and Gregory vni., never set foot there. Lucius n. was killed
by a stone while he was besieging the senators imprisoned in
the Capitol (1145). After 1188 there was no further question
of having a republic, but the Romans found the pontifical yoke
too heavy, and they made this known. In 1203 the powerful
Innocent in. was forced to flee before his mutinous subjects.
His successor, Honorius in., was banished (1220), and returned
1 Delarc, St. Gregoire VII., iii. 606, Paris, 1889.

THE PONTIFICAL STATE 183
to Rome only because of the support of Frederick n. Gregory
rx. was several times expelled, but he also was brought back,
once at least, by Frederick. Alexander IV. ascertained that
there were sentiments of independence about him which
obliged him after a short stay to leave Rome. His successors,
Urban iv. and Clement IV., never entered.1
Finally, mention should be made of the quarrel with
Frederick n. It was to escape this terrible emperor that Pope
Innocent rv. came to Lyons, where he fixed his see for more
than six years2 (1244-1251), after having wandered for two
years in northern Italy. He was driven from there in March
1254, and after various journeys went to Naples, where he
died. At the end of the thirteenth century the popes were
little in residence at Rome, which, however, was not closed
against them.
Thus preparation was made for the long absence of the
popes at Avignon, beginning with Clement v. (1305), and
ending with Gregory xi. (27th January 1377). Already, in
1367, Urban v. had returned to Rome, but had resumed the
way to Avignon. Gregory XI. would have imitated him, if
death had not prevented him.
During the great schism, the French pope, Clement vn.,
resided at Avignon until his death (1394). His successor,
Benedict xin., dwelt in that city until 1403. At that date, he
fled secretly in order to escape the marshal Boucicaut who for
more than four years had besieged him. After divers wander
ings he settled at the castle of Peniscola in Spain, where he
died in 1424, convinced until the very last that he was the
only legitimate pope. The following is what occurred in the
line of the Roman popes. Urban vi., who had begun a sense
less war against the kingdom of Naples, was for seven months
besieged in the castle of Nocera by Charles de Durazzo (1385).
Having successfully escaped from his enemies, he fled to Genoa,
then to Lucques. He returned to Rome in 1388.3 His suc
cessor, Boniface rx., was banished by the Romans (1392), who
shortly afterwards begged him to return to them.4 Innocent vn.
escaped death only by a hasty flight (1405). Gregory xn. left
Rome in 1408 to regulate the question of the schism, and did
not return. One of the Pisa popes, John xxiii., came to Rome,
whence he was soon banished by Ladislas (1413).
1 Luchaire, Innocent III., Borne et I'ltalie, p. 60 ; Zeller, v. 195, 282,
469, 474.
2 E. Berger, Les Begistres d' Innocent IV., Ii. xvi-xxiii, Paris, 1884.
3 Noel Valois, ii. 114, 131, 145. « Raynald, 1392, 6 ; 1393, 5.

184 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
In 1417, the great schism came to an end, and Martin v.
was recognized by the whole Church. The new pope was
established first at Mantua, then at Florence. But learning
that he was ridiculed by children, in their songs, he left the
latter city, and fixed his see at Rome (30th September 1420).
He died there (1431), and his successor, Eugene IV., spent the
first three years of his reign there. He was driven away by
the revolution in 1434, and took refuge at Florence, where he
remained for ten years. In 1443 he came back to Rome, where
his successors thereafter victoriously defied their enemies.

CHAPTEE VI
The Papacy and the Empire
On Christmas Day, a.d. 800, Charlemagne, king of the Franks,
went to Rome.1 He went to judge and to rescue Pope
Leo ni., who was accused of grave offences against ecclesiastical
discipline. On this occasion, kneeling before the altar in the
basilica of St. Peter, he attended mass. After the gospel,
the Pope left his seat, advanced towards him, and placed a
crown of gold upon his head. Then the Romans who were
present exclaimed in transports of joy : " To Charles Augustus
crowned by God, to the great and pacific emperor of the
Romans, long life and victory ! " The pontiff then prostrated
himself before the august sovereign and "adored" him.
Thus was created the Holy Roman Empire. This huge (
colossus, the history of which partly coincides with that of J
the Church, was the work of the papacy. Let us add that
it was its greatest work.
In proclaiming Charlemagne emperor, Leo m., it need not
be said, did not foresee the consequences of his act ; he did
not suspect that one day, the empire having become German
would be the scourge of Italy and the enemy of the papacy.
Yet, on the contrary, no one will believe that he acted without
consideration, without premeditation, without a previous
understanding with Charlemagne. He had an end in view ;
what was that end ? If we are to believe the Frankish
chroniclers, Leo in. did not raise a new empire in place of the
old ; he simply gave the latter a new head in the person of
1 Fustel de Coulanges, Histoire des institutions politiquesde Vancienne France,
vi. 310, Paris, 1892 ; Hauck, ii. 85, 108 ; Leclercq, " Charlemagne," in Diet.
d'arcMol. chritienne et de liturgie, iii. 785 (copious bibliography).
185

186 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
the king of the Franks, and proceeded lawfully to make this
appointment, seeing that the imperial throne, at the time
occupied by a woman — the empress Irene — was actually
vacant. He granted the imperial crown, which had fallen
into escheat, to a Frankish prince ; by the same act he trans
ferred the seat of the empire to Aix-la-Chapelle from
Constantinople, and did nothing more. The empire which
Charlemagne governed was not an empire of the Franks;
it was a Roman empire, the destinies of which were com
mitted to the Franks, and the seat of which had therefore
been transferred to the banks of the Rhine.
This explanation is only a fiction, and its artificial
character is quite manifest, for in 800 the empire of
Constantinople, far from falling into escheat, still preserved
all its institutions. Yet the fiction was not altogether untrue.
What was true was that the empire of Constantinople, which
for many years had been incapable of defending Rome, after
the year 800 ceased to exist for the latter. It is furthermore
true that the new empire had as its mission to defend Rome,
pontifical Rome, and to this it owes the title of Roman empire.
This reveals to us the object aimed at by the Pope when he
crowned Charlemagne. What Leo in. then wished was to
finish the work begun by Stephen n., to sever the last bond
which still attached Rome to Constantinople, and to give
the protector of the papacy the reward which was his due.
After the conquest of Italy by Justinian, that is to say,
after 535, the popes were the subjects of the emperor of
Constantinople. They respected their "lord," even as they
appealed to him. They carried out his orders, except when
the integrity of dogma seemed to be at stake. In return, they
demanded of the emperor safety for themselves and for the
vast domain of which they were the owners. Yet after several
generations these domains were pillaged by the Lombards ;
and the emperor, who, moreover, had made many conquests
in Sicily and southern Italy to the detriment of the papacy,
declared that he was powerless to repress the barbarians.
Having nothing to expect from the region of the Bosphorus,
the popes Gregory in. and Stephen n. addressed themselves to

THE PAPACY AND THE EMPIRE 187
the Frankish princes, and implored their help. Gregory
obtained only fair words from Charles Martel ; Stephen, who
was more fortunate, received effective support. Thereafter
the papacy had a powerful and generous protector beyond the
Alps, who in the person of Pepin consolidated and extended
the pontifical domains; who in the person of Charlemagne
overthrew the Lombard domination. Was it now to be
detached from Constantinople ? Stephen n., either because he
feared the unforeseen turns of fortune or for some other reason,
shrank from making this grave decision, and was content to
confer the patriciate on the Frankish prince. Pepin was the
equal of the highest court officials at Constantinople, the
equal of the exarchs who until 751 ruled at Ravenna; but
he was only an official, a subaltern of the emperor, and the
latter kept his rights over Rome, — rights which were merely
theoretical, since Rome for many years had been practically
independent. The plan of Stephen honoured Pepin and
preserved the authority of the Emperor; it was ingenious.
But after the death of Pepin grave events were to occur.
Charlemagne abolished the power of the Lombards, and at the
same time made himself master of Rome. At Rome he
rescued the Pope from an inextricable situation. The services
he had rendered deserved a reward. What was this to be ?
The force at his command required new honours. What
were they to be ? These were two problems which had one
and the same solution : the imperial crown. As long as he
was a patrician, Charlemagne was only an exarch. Thereafter
he was to be no longer Roman patrician ; he was to be emperor.
The man at Constantinople failed in his mission as defender
of the Latin Church. He was of no further service to the
papacy. His prerogatives were to pass to the Frankish
prince, who had acquired the right to enjoy them. Such is
the meaning of the ceremony in the year 800.
In receiving the imperial crown, Charlemagne extended1"
his dominion over the whole of central Europe. The empire
which he founded seemed called to a brilliant destiny.
Actually it did not last long, In 887, at the diet of Tribur,
it fell. It may even be said that it fell in 814, the date of

188 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
its powerful founder's death. Two principal causes co
operated to cause its decadence : the weakness of Louis the
Debonnair, who permitted his sons to humiliate and even
depose him ; and the law of divided inheritance, which dis
membered the monarchy of the Franks. Louis the Debonnair
(814-840), who had the imperial authority, did not know
how to use it. His successors, Lothair (840-855), Louis
(855-875), Charles the Bald (875-877), Louis the Stam
merer (877-879), Charles the Fat (881-887), shared, at
least until 884, the paternal heritage with brothers, nephews,
and uncles, who were usually jealous of them, and sought to
injure them. They were all only phantom emperors, and the
Carolingian empire itself was only a fiction. Fictions can
satisfy the mind, but they do not suffice to put armies on the
march. In conflict with the Saracens, John viii. called on
Charles the Bald for help. The latter, whose good intentions
were perfect, made an effort which had no useful result (877).
The year following the same Pope appealed to Louis the
Stammerer and the Frankish bishops. He besought them to
protect him against certain Italian counts who were threatening
him. He went to France to plead his cause in person. His
efforts were vain (878). The machine contrived by Leo in.
was still there, but it would not work. It should have
aided the papacy when the opportunity was presented ; it
gave the papacy nothing but occasional chagrins.
Moreover, the right of the strongest was little by little itsj
work. Charlemagne ruled the Church, treated the Pope asj
his grand chaplain, and the Pope acquiesced. When the'
empire became weak the papacy became haughty. In 833,
Gregory IV. wrote to the German bishops saying that the
spiritual power is superior to the temporal,1 a theory which
Adrian I. and Leo in. would not have dared to formulate, but
which did not seem strange at a time when the unfortunate
emperor Louis the Debonnair was engaged in a grievous
conflict with his sons. In 844, Pope Sergius II. caused
himself to be consecrated without asking the authorization of
*M. G., Epist. v. 228: "... majus esse regimen animarum quod est
pontificals quam imperiale quod est temporale."

THE PAPACY AND THE EMPIRE 189
the emperor Lothair.1 The latter at this encroachment
upon his rights — rights which the constitution of 824 had
formally recognized — sent his son Louis with an army to Rome
in order to prevent a repetition of such an abuse in the
future. Sergius forbade the army to enter the city. He
received Louis in the vestibule of St. Peter's, the inner door of
which was closed. Then he said to him : " This door will not
be opened to you until you come with an upright intention,
and for the good of the state." The son of the emperor did
not enter St. Peter's until he had given the guarantee
required. Yet the papacy did not succeed in escaping the
control of the emperor of the Franks, who had a permanent
representative at Rome. It took its revenge in another
way. Leo ni. had placed the imperial crown upon the head of
Charlemagne at St. Peter's; his successors, for their part,
wished to perform this ceremony which enhanced their
prestige. In 816, Stephen iv. went to Reims to crown Louis
the Debonnair. In 823, Pascal I. took advantage of Lothair's
presence to crown him. In 850, Leo rv. crowned Louis n.j
Of course, these popes forgot to end the rite as Leo in. hadj
done, who prostrated himself at the feet of Charlemagne and
"adored" him. Apart from this detail, the papacy again
did for each emperor what it had done for the first. Let
us note that before his death Charlemagne had himself
crowned his son, Louis the Debonnair; and the latter, in 817,
crowned Lothair. Stephen rv. and Pascal I. both found them
selves confronted with an accomplished fact, and they could
only give their benediction. They gave it with alacrity;
their successors imitated them : and because it was repeated,
the pontifical act of consecration was considered at Rome as a
sort of sacrament conferring imperial authority. Leo iv.
(about 848) spoke of the " consecration " given by his prede
cessor Pascal to Lothair.2 Nicholas I. was more explicit. He
declared without circumlocution that the emperor Louis n.
received his sword from the vicar of St. Peter, and that his
empire came to him from the apostolic see, by virtue of the
1 Hauck, ii. 512. ' M. G., Epistoloe, v. 605.

190 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
benediction and the holy unction.1 Plainly he who granted
imperial authority could a fortiori grant royal authority.
Therefore the official biographer of Sergius n. informs us that
he made Louis il. king of the Lombards (844).2 This
theocratic doctrine won acceptance even in the empire itself.
The emperor Louis il being treated as a usurper by his
colleague at Constantinople, asserted that he was the lawful
possessor of the imperial dignity, since he had it from the
Roman pontiff, who had conferred it upon him with the holy
unction.3 Without doubt this language in the mouth of the
Carolingian was not disinterested ; but it is curious to find
politics supporting the pontifical pretensions.
It was in 871 that the emperor Louis II. acknowledged
that he derived his power from the pontifical consecration.
Four years later he died, leaving no children (875). His two
uncles, Charles the Bald and Louis Germanicus, made a
contest for the title ; but Charles speedily came triumphantly
out of the competition and received the imperial dignity. To
whom did he owe this victory ? To Pope John viii., who
preferred the king of the Franks to the king of the Germans,
and who bade Charles go to Rome to seek the crown.4 The
popes Leo ill., Stephen iv., Pascal I., had blessed the Caro
lingian emperor ; Leo rv. and Nicholas I. claimed the right to
confer the imperial investiture. John viii. disposed of the
empire as he pleased : he was its master. In 800 the Pope
"adored" Charlemagne; in 876 the council of Pavia declared
to Charles the Bald : " Since the divine benevolence through
the merit of the Holy Apostles, and through their vicar John,
sovereign pontiff, universal pope, and our spiritual father, has
raised you to empire, according to the decision of the Holy
Ghost, we elect you unanimously as our protector." 6 That is
the path which for three-quarters of a century was followed
1 Ep. 79 ; Migne, cxix. 914.
2 Liber Pontificalis, Vita Sergii, 13 ; Hauck, ii. 513.
3 Baronius, Anno 871, 59 ; A. LapStre, Le Pope Jean VIII., p. 241, Paris,
1895. * Lap&tre, p. 246 ; J. Calmette, La Diplomatic carolingienne du traiti de
Verdun d la mort de Charles le Chauve, pp. 149-150, Paris, 1901.
6 Mansi, xvii. 303 ; Hefele, iv. 513.

THE PAPACY AND THE EMPIRE 191
by the papacy; it was its triumph. But disappointment
followed it. In 887, Charles the Fat was deposed; the
empire, or what was flattered with that name, ceased to
exist. It was dead, but its memory still haunted and possessed
every imagination : it was to rise again. Already Stephen v.
and Formosus (891—896) endeavoured to restore it to life.
Their premature undertaking failed ; but two generations
later, John xn. made a fresh attempt.1 He offered thei
imperial crown to Otto I., king of Germania, who accepted it, I
and swore the following oath : " If by God's help I enter
Rome, I swear to exalt with all my power the Church and
thee John xn. its Head. . . . From him to whom I may
commit the kingdom of Italy, I will require an oath to
defend with all his power the state of the Church, the lands
of St. Peter." 2 This time the undertaking was successful ;
the empire was re-established.
It was re-established, but it was no longer the property of
the Carolingian House ; it was no longer Frankish. It was
delivered to Germany, and became Germanic. It was there
after to be called the Holy Germanic Empire ; and this
monarchy, which pretended to be a reproduction of the empire
of Charlemagne, was really only a reduced form of the latter.
It was for this reason that in the course of the ninth century,
nationalities began to appear ; and this movement, which may
be remarked for the first time in the treaty of Verdun (843),
was afterwards only accentuated. France had its autonomy,
Italy claimed its own. The Teutonic monarch was never,
except very transiently, to extend his dominion beyond the
Vosges; and when he persisted in sending his forces across
the Alps, the end was to be only useless massacre. How
ever much he might desire it, he was never to include the
Roman Church under his sway. It was especially for this
reason that he was not to be the equal of Charlemagne.
This is not all; for in 962 the papacy,8 although for a long
1 Hauck, iii. 226 ; Zeller, Histoire d'Allemagne, ii. 337, Paris, 1892.
2 M. G., Constitutiones et acta publico imperatorum, i. 21.
» Hauck, ii. 231, 239.

192 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
time it had fallen into the mire, had a prestige which it did
not have at the beginning of the ninth century. It was not
in vain that it had given the imperial crown to emperors, nor
was it in vain that Nicholas^, had ruled weak and isolated
princes, had humbled proud metropolitans, and had proclaimed
theocratic maxims. In 962, to become emperor, one had to
be crowned and consecrated by the Pope ; and the pontiff who
conferred the imperial dignity was besides the head of the
episcopate. Otto and his successors might still be able to
bestow the pontifical throne on their creatures, and in this
indirect way have power over the Church, but they were no
longer to govern it as Charlemagne had done. Even when
nominated by them, the Pope, once installed at the Lateran, was
to be a power with which they must reckon. What would
be the result if destiny should raise to the pontifical throne
an autocrat who decided to practise the principles laid down
by Nicholas ? Would not terrible calamities have to be
feared ? Unhappily this question was soon to be answered
experimentally. For a century, except during the reign of Conrad I., the
Pope was nominated by the emperor ; and he endeavoured to
be agreeable to his benefactor, who for his part displayed his
amiability. When the emperor undertook some reform, the
Pope supported him. Thus it was that Benedict vni. placed
himself at the service of Henry n., who, observing that the
marriages of priests were disastrous to the possessions of the
Church, wished to suppress them. Emperor and Pope were
satisfied with each other, and thought that, on the whole, all
was well. Moreover, this feeling was general. Hardly any
malcontents were to be found except at Rome, where the
imperial Pope was held in horror, and at Cluny, where lamen
tations were uttered over the marriage of priests, over the
simony which sullied the ordinations as well as the elections,
over the slavery to which the Church was reduced by being
compelled to endure the yoke of lay investitures. But the
Romans, who in 1033 had been authorized to elect their Pope
themselves, were so unfortunate in their action (their choice
fell upon the infamous Benedict ix.) that they finally gave

THE PAPACY AND THE EMPIRE 193
Henry in. full powers to appoint the Vicar of St. Peter.
As for the monks of Cluny, their virtues were admired, but
that was all. Outside of the cloister there were few who
admitted, or even understood, their claims.
Yet from the year 1050 there was one in the habitual
company of the Pope who was inspired by the spirit of Cluny.
That man was Hildebrand.1 It is easy to know why. Born
about 1020 in a small town in Tuscany, Hildebrand had
passed his youth in the monastery of Santa Maria on the
Aventine, of which his uncle was the abbot. There he made
the acquaintance of the famous abbot of Cluny, Odilon, who
whenever he visited Rome stopped at Santa Maria. Later,
when Hildebrand followed Pope Gregory into Germany, who
had been deposed and sent into exile by Henry in., he came
into contact with sons or friends of Cluny. Although dwelling
in the world, he was a monk ; and while he had not lived at
Cluny, at least for any length of time, he had the ideas of
Cluny. He wished to put an end to the marriage of priests,
and to simony ; he wished the suppression of lay investitures,
and a return to episcopal elections. Moreover, it was not
only Cluny which inspired him ; he was also heir of the
doctrines of Nicholas. He shared the theocratic ideal of that
pontiff. Like him, he was convinced that the Apostle Peter
has authority over all the kingdoms of the earth, and that all
princes should submit to St. Peter, and to his vicar the Pope.
In a word, this little frail monk had a complete programme of
government. Furthermore, he had a method, the military
method, with the brutality and savagery which goes with it.
For several years he had given proof of this. In 1045 he
had been seen passing through the Campagna at the head of
a troop of soldiers and restoring to order the barons who had
rebelled against the Pope. Here, moreover, is a fact charac
teristic of him. The superior of the monastery of Tremiti
having a grievance against four of his monks, caused the eyes
of three of them to be put out, and the tongue of the fourth to
1 Delarc, St. Grigoire VII. et la rtforme de VEglise au xi*" sUcle, i. xxxv,
6-9 38-43, 393, Paris, 1889 ; W. Martens, Gregor VII. seinLebenund Wirken,
i. 7-16, ii. 251, Leipzig, 1894 ; Analecta Bollandiana, xiv. (1895) 214-223.
13

194 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
be torn away. He was then ordered to Mount Cassin, and
was deposed on account of his cruelty. But Hildebrand took
up the defence of the accused, who, according to him, had
done his duty. He set him at the head of another monastery,
and finally gave him a bishopric.1
In 1059, Hildebrand, who had hitherto occupied only a
subordinate place at the Lateran, was put at the head of
the pontifical administration. Immediately employing his
favourite method, he hired three hundred Normans, and with
them ravaged Latium.2 Some weeks later he caused to be
published the famous decree of Nicholas il, which removed
the pontifical election from lay influences. By the same act
was abrogated the decree of the Roman council of 1046,
which conferred upon the emperor the right of appointing
the Pope. It was the first satisfaction rendered to the
claims of Cluny.
During the troubled pontificate of Alexander n., Hilde
brand was prevented by circumstances from executing his
plan; but in 1073 he was called to ascend the throne of
St. Peter. Then being master of his actions, Gregory vn. —
that was the name which he was thereafter to bear — re
sumed the execution of his programme, and laboured to
suppress the three abuses which stained the Church : the
marriage of priests, simony, and lay investitures. There
were three reforms to be carried out ; the last was a particu
larly delicate matter, as it involved an attack on the princes,
and especially on the emperor. Gregory postponed the last
of these, and at the council of March 1074 he confined
himself to condemning the marriage of priests, and simony.
The circumstances — particularly so far as Germany was con
cerned — were very favourable. In fact, Henry rv. was en
gaged in a dangerous conflict with the Saxons, who wished at
any price to separate themselves from his throne. In the
month of September 1073 he wrote an obsequious letter to
1 Leo de Marsi, Chronica Montis Cassini, iii. 25 ; M. G., Scriptores, vii. 715 ;
Guido Ferrariensis, De scismate Hildebrandi, M. G., Libelli de lite, i. 554 ;
Delarc, I. xxxix, 15.
2 Delarc, ii. 83.

THE PAPACY AND THE EMPIRE 195
Gregory, intended to gain the pontifical sympathies. In
reply to this, Gregory imposed his arbitration on the Saxons
and on the king,1 — an arbitration which from the force of
circumstances served the interests of Henry. Besides this,
the latter, always in difficulty with the Saxons, and therefore
always weak, gave a free hand to the Roman legates who
were charged with promulgating the pontifical decrees in
Germany. He bore hard even upon his archbishops, and
forced them, at least in appearance, to bend to the Roman
conditions.2 Emboldened by this official success, Gregory
went a step farther, and in the council of 24th February
1075 he forbade lay investitures.3 Perceiving, however, that
some caution was necessary, he did not announce this new
decision to the public. He made it known to Henry by
means of a confidential message, and he promised to mark
well the observations which might be made to him on the
subject of the investitures.
When he received this message, Henry was preparing to
march against the Saxons. This was not the moment for
him to dissipate his efforts ; he remained silent. But some
months later he won from his enemies the brilliant victory
of Hohenburg on the banks of the Unstrut (2nd June
1075). Now that he had the power, what was he about
to do ? Plainly fearing the consequences of this military
success, Gregory heaped compliments and flatteries upon the
conqueror. Vain diplomacy ! Soon he learned that the
king, without respecting the decree of the Roman council, had
conferred the investiture upon three bishops, and that he was
renewing or preserving relations with men who had been
excommunicated. He then sent him the letter of 8th
December 1075, — a terrible letter, which gave promise of
a still more terrible oral message.4 Henry, because of his
offences, deserved excommunication and deposition. He was
1 Reg. i. 39 ; Delarc, iii. 75, pretends that Gregory limited himself to pro
posing arbitration.
2 Delarc, iii. 78-80 ; Hauck, iii. 771.
* Mansi, x. 443 ; Hefele, v. 42-50 ; Delarc, iii. 131 ; Hauck, iii. 776-782.
* Reg. iii. 10 ; Delarc, iii. 180 ; Mirbt, p. 172 ; Hauck, iii. 787.

196 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
to be inexorably punished unless he repented ; therefore let
him return without delay to better sentiments, let him give
pledges of his repentance by appearing before the council to
be held at Rome in February.
The letter of 8th December 1075 was, as its author
intended it to be, an ultimatum ; in fact, it opened hostilities.
To the threats directed at him, Henry replied by a declara
tion of war to which the Pope opposed a vigorous offensive.
At intervals of several weeks, blows were delivered from
Worms and from Rome which were intended to be decisive.
At Worms, the emperor, surrounded by his bishops and in
agreement with them, proclaimed the decadence of the Pope,
of " Friar Hildebrand," as the prelates said1 (24th January
1076). At Rome, in the council of 14th February, Gregory
in the form of a solemn prosopopeia issued a sentence depos
ing the king : " Blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, lend
me, I pray thee, a favouring ear. ... It is because I am thy
representative that thy grace has descended upon me, and
this grace is the power granted by God to bind and loose in
Heaven and in earth. Strong in this faith, for the honour
and defence of thy Church, on behalf of Almighty God,
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, by virtue of thy power and
i authority I deprive the son of the emperor Henry [Henry ill.],
| who has opposed thy Church with unheard of insolence, of
J the government of the whole kingdom of the Teutons and of
j Italy ; I release all Christians from the oath which they have
made to him or that they shall make to him. I forbid every
one to obey him as king." 2
Directly after the assembly at Worms,3 being not sure
of Germany sufficiently to leave it and to lead an army to
Rome, Henry sent the Romans a proclamation in which
he vehemently adjured them to banish the monk Hildebrand
from their city. For his part, Gregory warned the Germans
that if Henry did not repent they must give him a successor.
Each of the two adversaries was thus preoccupied with
1 Mansi, xx. 463 ; Hefele, v. 64 ; Hauck, iii. 788 ; Martens, i. 91.
2 Mansi, xx. 467 ; Hefele, v. 71 ; Delarc, iii. 206 ; Martens, i. 97.
8 Delarc, iii. 199.

THE PAPACY AND THE EMPIRE 197
executing his sentence. But the appeal of Henry violated
the juridical axiom, according to which the Pope could be
judged by no one.1 It found no echo at Rome ; on the
contrary, the pontifical letter was welcomed joyfully by the
Saxons and by the great feudal lords of the empire, to whom
it furnished a pretext for satisfying their grudges or their
ambitions. The assembly of Tribur, which met on 16th
October 1076, ordered the king to betake himself to
Augsburg on 2nd February of the following year to be
judged by the Pope in the presence of all the dignitaries of
the empire ; it also gave notice that if, on the anniversary of
his excommunication, he had not become reconciled to the
Church, he would be irrevocably deposed.2 Some wished to
go farther, and proceed directly to the deposition of the
culprit. It was the pontifical legates present at the assembly
who prevented this radical solution. It need not be said
that their tactics were wholly intended to reserve to the Pope
the direction of events, to make him arbiter of the situation.
It will be seen that they had temporary success.
When the news of the decision reached at Tribur became
known, Henry was dismayed. To resist would have been
madness. He took this into account. He knew that the
enmity of the Saxons was not of the sort which can be dis
armed, that he was lost if he appeared before them at the
assembly of Augsburg, and that a fortiori he was lost if he
let the anniversary of his excommunication pass without
being reconciled to the Church. His sole resource, therefore,
was to make Gregory yield, and yield before the appointed
date of 2nd February, above all, before the 22nd. It was a
precarious and uncertain resource in dealing with a man like
the fierce Hildebrand. Yet at all hazards Henry tempted
fortune, and set out for Rome to meet the Pope. The latter,
who was already travelling towards Augsburg, was at this
moment in the territory of the countess Mathilda, in the
fortified castle of Canossa (the northern limit of Tuscany).
1 A principle which, nevertheless, was admitted only with restrictions ; see
Mirbt, pp. 566-572.
2 Delarc, iii. 247 ; Hauck, iii. 797.

198 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
It was there that the mournful drama was unrolled which
will be for ever remembered in history.1 Having been intro
duced into the enclosure of the fortress clad in the woollen
robe of the penitent, fasting and barefooted, Henry stood for
three days in the snow at the door of the castle, asking the
favour of being admitted to the presence of the pontiff
(25th to 27th January 1077). For three days Gregory
was inexorable. At length, yielding to the prayers of the
countess Mathilda, who pleaded the cause of the penitent,
orders were reluctantly given to open the doors of the castle.
When he arrived at the threshold of the church, Henry pros
trated himself before the pontiff, confessed his faults, received
absolution, and was admitted to the Communion. He was
saved (28th January 1077).
He was saved, but not for very long. Furious at the
Pope who wished to rob them of their prey, the Saxons were
the more eager to continue their campaign. With their
assistance the assembly of Forcheim (13th March 1077) de
posed Henry, and placed in his stead Rudolph of Swabia, who
thirteen days afterwards was consecrated at Mayence. But
Henry found several bishops arrayed on his side ; he could
still fight, and he fought. And now Gregory, unable to direct
events, watched them. For three years he affected to remain
neutral : in reality he was waiting to see what armed force
would do. On 27th January 1080, Rudolph won a victory
at Miihlhausen ; then believing that Henry was irremediably
lost, Gregory for the second time pronounced against him a
sentence of excommunication and deposition2 (Roman council
of March 1080). After this, Rudolph was emperor.
He was a temporary emperor. In the month of October
in the very same year, 1080, Rudolph fought on the banks
of the Elster a battle which cost him his life. His death
threw the Saxons into disorder. Hemy was now free to act.
He took advantage of this by bringing to Rome, Guibert the
anti-Pope, who in the month of June had been elected at the
council of Brixen by the German bishops devoted to his
1 Delarc, iii. 257-275 ; Martens, i. 116.
2 Mansi, xx. 531 ; Hefele, v. 141.

THE PAPACY AND THE EMPIRE 199
cause.1 Gregory, having foreseen that this would happen,
had taken action. Without delay he reconciled the terrible
Norman duke Robert Guiscard to the Roman Church, against
whom he had formerly hurled excommunication. In return
for this favour he obliged him to promise under oath that
he would render succour and assistance. But Robert was
accustomed to treat oaths with indifference. He left the
Pope to fate ; and Henry's small army upon arriving at
Rome encountered no obstacle but the walls of the city,
which it is true barred his passage. They hindered him for
three years, that is, so long as the Romans remained faithful
to Gregory. But in the spring of 1084 the followers of the
Pope, influenced by German money, betrayed the cause which
it was their mission to defend. The gates were opened, and
Henry entered Rome, installed his Pope at the Lateran,
three days later caused him to be crowned at St. Peter's,
and finally received from him the imperial crown. He was
master of the whole city of Rome except the castle of St.
Angelo. But that checked his triumph. Imprisoned in
the fortress, Gregory was impregnable : moreover, he made a
hasty appeal to Robert Guiscard.2 The latter, who knew that
he was himself threatened by Henry, advanced with a power
ful army, put the German emperor to flight, and punished
unfaithful Rome by giving it over to fearful pillage. The
Pope was free ; yet execrated by the Romans, who held him
responsible for the excesses committed by the Normans, he
was reduced to following his defenders. He took refuge at
Salerno, where shortly afterwards he died (1085). Notwith
standing the help given him by the terrible Robert Guiscard,
he left Rome in the hands of the anti-Pope. Thus died the
conqueror of Canossa, having himself been conquered.
The conflict was, however, not ended. Upon his return
to Germany, Henry encountered more formidable opposition
than ever before. His sons Conrad and Henry, each in turn,
betrayed him and went over to the enemy. The unfortunate
emperor, fearing to prolong any longer this unequal conflict,
being conquered and humiliated, was obliged to abdicate
1 Hefele, v. 147 ; Hauck, iii. 822. 2 Delarc, iii. 602.

200 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
(1105). In committing to the young Henry the imperial
insignia, the legate made this insolent declaration : " If thou
dost not govern justly and conduct thyself as a true protector
of the Church of God, it will be done unto thee even as was
done unto thy father." The papacy was now the protector
of the empire, and when he ascended the throne, Henry was
the ward of the Pope.
This ward was not slow to emancipate himself — that is a
spectacle which is to occur again. Henry V. had scarcely
come into power when he unmasked, and- on his own account
assumed, his father's pretensions. At the conference of
Chalons-sur-Marne his envoys demanded the investitures of
Pascal II.1 (1107). Being unable to obtain anything from
the Pope, they informed him that their master would go to
Rome himself, to settle the question with the sword. Henry
went to Rome and haughtily demanded of Pascal the imperial
crown. The latter, in order to reconcile the contradictory
claims of Gregory vn. and the German monarch, could think
of nothing better than to despoil the churches of their feudal
property. It was a radical remedy, which suppressed inves
titures by taking away the reason for their existence. But it
was a chimerical remedy, for the rich prelates of Germany
decided not to accept an arrangement which would ruin
them. Pascal became quickly aware of this. At the end of
the year 1110 he submitted his proposal to Henry, who
declared that he was ready to accept it. Following this
agreement, the grounds of which were secret, the ceremony
of the imperial coronation began at St. Peter's on 12th
February 1111.* It began, but was not completed. At the
very moment when the terms of the agreement were made
known to the assembly, the German bishops, vassals of Henry,
and the lay lords, vassals of the bishops, broke out into vocifera
tions and insults in opposition to Pascal. At first the latter
attempted to calm the storm. He might have succeeded if
he had been aided by the monarch. But Henry had accepted
1 Suger, De Vita Ludovici grossi regis, M. G., Scriptores, vi. 242; Zeller,
iii. 443.
2 Hefele, v. 303 ; Zeller, iii. 457-470.

THE PAPACY AND THE EMPIRE 201
the pontifical plan only because he knew that it could not be
executed. He did nothing to quell the tumult which he had
foreseen and discounted. Pascal at length understood the
crafty manoeuvre of which he was the victim, and refused to
proceed to the coronation. But Henry intended to be the
master. By his orders the recalcitrant pontiff was arrested,
with sixteen of his cardinals, and imprisoned in the castle
of Sabina. Pascal was a prisoner. For two months the
German despot who held him in his power tried in vain to
extort the investitures from him. The inflexible pontiff
made no concession. But eight weeks of captivity sufficed
to break the force of his resistance. On 11th April the
surrender occurred. Pascal recognized the right of Henry v.
to grant the investitures. Two days afterwards (13th April
1111), he set the imperial crown upon his head.1 This time
the emperor had avenged Canossa, and the papacy was brought
back to the point where Hildebrand had found it.
It was this which compromised the success of . Henry.
He wished again to forge the chain of the tradition which had
been violently broken by Gregory vii., and to exercise the
rights which the German emperors had exercised until the
middle of the eleventh century. He did not perceive that
since that time the ideas of Cluny had gradually become
predominant in the Church. He soon became aware of this.
The capitulation of Pascal II. created a scandal in Italy and
in France. It raised protestations which were sometimes
moderate, sometimes threatening. Being called to order, the
poor Pope made a retraction, and annulled the concession
which he had made to the emperor. The latter returned in
anger to Rome, whence Pascal had hastily fled. The conflict
began once more. But their minds were wearied, and
instinctively they sought a ground of agreement. After
some attempts this was found. The two belligerents made
mutual concessions. The Pope left the investitures to the
emperor, who for his part relinquished the right of re
appointing bishops. On the basis of this transaction the
agreement was signed at Worms (1122). After a half-
1 Hauck, iii. 896.

202 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
century of conflicts the two greatest Christian powers were
at length reconciled.1
Henry v. died childless (1125), and his successor was
Lothair of Saxony. This prince mistrusted the electors who
had raised him to power. To assure himself against a reverse
of fortune, he asked Honorius n. to " confirm ,; his election.2
Honorius hastened to grant this favour, which made the
empire dependent on the Holy See. Lothair was therefore
king of Germany by the grace of the Pope. He knew it,
and acted accordingly. When Innocent n. went to Liege
(1131), he set out on foot to meet him; in one hand he held
the bridle of the Pope's horse, in the other a staff with which
he kept back the crowd. In this manner he led the Pope to
the door of the church, and there held the stirrup in aiding
him to dismount.3 He afterwards conducted him to Rome,
and received the imperial crown from the pontiff. Until the
last, Lothair of Saxony was the humble servant of the Pope,
whose support was necessary to maintain him on the throne.
His successor, Conrad in., spent the first years of his reign
opposing a dangerous rival ; then he went on a crusade and
had no time to engage in conflict with the papacy.
The situation changed with Frederick Barbarossa (1152—
1190); but the opening of the new reign was most reassur
ing. When Frederick received the royal unction at
Aix-la-Chapelle from the archbishop of Cologne, he promised
to the Pope his respect and affection, and to his holy mother
the Church his protection.4 At the diet of Constance
(March 1153) he made an engagement to bring back the
rebellious Romans to the authority of the Pope. He kept
his word, and it was, in fact, by his orders that the anti
clerical Arnold of Brescia was delivered to the Pope, who put
him to death (18th June 1155). How was such a protector
of the Holy See to become its adversary ?
1 U. Robert, Histoire du Pape Calixte II., p. 145, Paris, 1891 ; M. G., Constit.
et acta pub. imp. i. 159.-161.
2 Hauck, iv. 114, who refutes Knbpfler (in Hefele, v. 889).
' Id., ib. 139 ; Hefele, v. 412.
* Hauck, iv. 185 ; Zeller, iv. 120.

THE PAPACY AND THE EMPIRE 203
Near at hand, it is not so easy to answer this question.
Frederick wished to be, and was, the protector of the Holy
See ; yet only after the manner of his predecessors, of the J
princes whose heir he was. But this Teuton had around
him jurists who initiated him into the Roman law. Having
learned in their school, he knew that the authority deposited
within him came from Otto and from Charlemagne, who
received it from Justinian and Constantine. He claimed to
have inherited it from the ancient Roman emperors, and he
demanded universal hegemony. After Gregory vn., however,
the Holy See was haunted by the same idea. Hence a
conflict was inevitable.1 Already during the first years of
the reign of Adrian rv. war almost broke out on two
separate occasions ; first, in 1155. Adrian had gone to visit
Frederick, who was encamped at the gates of Rome. When
about to dismount, he waited for the German monarch to hold
his stirrup. The latter did nothing of the sort. To punish
him for this lack of respect, the Pope refused to give him the '
kiss of peace, and at once departed. The second time was at
the diet of Besancon in 1157.2 Roland, the pontifical
legate, had just delivered a letter in which the Pope recalled
the " beneficia " granted by the Holy See to the emperor, and
the German prelate charged with interpreting the Latin text
translated " beneficia " into the term fief. This caused
Frederick some dissatisfaction, which degenerated into anger
when the legate replied : " From whom then does the Emperor
receive the empire, if not from his sovereign lord the Pope ? "
Roland was shamefully banished, and Frederick caused a
manifesto to be published in all his states, declaring that he
held the empire from God alone, and not from the Pope.
These two differences, however, had no sequel. In the first
case, as Adrian was able to prove that Lothair of Saxo'ny had
once held the stirrup for Innocent il, Frederick consented to
perform the same ceremony. In the second case, Adrian,
alarmed at the threatening attitude of Frederick, yielded, and
1 Hefele, v. 538-550.
2 J. Watterich, Pontificum Bomanorum Vitce, ii. 357, Leipzig, 1862 ;
Hauck, iv. 211 ; Zeller, iv. 153.

204 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
declared that he had never regarded the empire as a fief of
the papacy.1At the end of 1158, after the diet of Roncaglia, where
Frederick formulated his imperial claims, relations between
the empire and the papacy were once more strained. But
this time Adrian was not alone : he had with him all those
towns of northern Italy which Frederick professed to control,
and which for their part desired independence. Relying on
the Lombard league, he held himself in readiness for the
contest. His death, which occurred meanwhile, postponed
hostilities.2 It was only a postponement. Adrian died (September
1159), and Frederick pretended to do what the Ottos had
done, what Henry in. also did, to dispose of the pontifical
see at his good pleasure. To Alexander in., elected by a
majority of the cardinals, he opposed his own Pope Victor rv.,
and had him proclaimed by the council of Paris.3 A chimeri
cal undertaking ! Alexander had on his side France and
England, whom the arrogant attitude of the German emperor
had offended. He had on his side especially the towns of
the Lombard league, which hated Frederick. He excom
municated the emperor. The latter pursued him, and
installed his own protege" at Rome. After being a long time i
victorious, Frederick was at length conquered at Legnano J
by the Lombard league (1176). He then submitted to
Alexander.4 At Venice, under the porch of St. Mark's, he
performed this important act (24th July 1177). When he
came into the presence of the pontiff, the emperor spread his
cloak upon the pavement, kneeled upon it, and kissed
Alexander's feet. The Pope made him rise, and gave him
the kiss of peace. Two other meetings took place : one on
25th July, the day following; the other on 7th August.
Frederick solemnly renounced his anti-Pope, recognized
Alexander as the lawful pontiff, held the stirrup when the
1 Jaffe, 10386.
5 Hauek, iv. 226 ; the celebrated letter (Jaffe, 10575), attributing threaten
ing language to Adrian, is apocrvphal.
3 Hefele, v. 583. * Id., ib. 705 ; Hauck, iv. 290.

THE PAPACY AND THE EMPIRE 205
latter mounted, and walked for some distance holding the
bridle. The man who had once treated the successor as
his chaplain, was now his humble servant. After the
lapse of a century the peace of Venice was a second edition
of Canossa. Decidedly the papacy was triumphing over the
empire. Twenty years afterwards its triumph was greater still,
when Henry vi., son of Barbarossa, died. Henry left a son,
still in his minority, who was later to be Frederick II. But
the ecclesiastical and lay lords remembered that the crown of
Germania was bestowed by election, and they decided to
appoint a king without taking hereditary considerations into
account. Unfortunately there was a division among them.
Two parties were formed, two kings were elected, and war
was declared. Germany fell a prey to brigands who pillaged
it. The Pope had it in his power to put an end immediately
to this lamentable situation. As a matter of fact, if the
Germans could elect two kings, it was the Pope alone who
could appoint the emperor, since he alone could dispose of
the imperial crown. The two antagonists were so sure of his
right, that both appealed to the Pope. Thus he had only to
tell one or the other of them to come to Rome to be crowned,
and order would be established in Germany. The choice was
marked out for him. Of the two rivals, Otto of Brunswick
represented only a small number of electors; but Philip of
Swabia had been elected by the majority, and he was the
more powerful of the two. He it was to whom the Pope,
had he cared for the welfare of Germany, should have granted
the imperial crown.
But Innocent m., who then occupied the pontifical throne,
saw in this only an excellent occasion to increase the pre
ponderance of the papacy. By a carefully calculated silence,
he allowed both parties to weaken themselves, to wear them
selves out, so that he might hold Germany more surely in
his power.1 After three years (1201), thinking, no doubt,
that anarchy had sufficiently done its work, he was roused
1 A. Luchaire, Innocent III., La Papauti et V Empire, pp. 30, 45, 55, Paris,
1906.

206 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
from his silence and spoke.1 He disregarded the young
Frederick, to whom, however, he was greatly attached, whose
guardian he was, but who as king of Sicily would have been
a menace to the papacy, if to the imperial had been added
the royal crown. He likewise discarded Philip, and his
choice fell upon Otto, who had been elected by the minority.
The majority protested against this scandal, and the Pope
was accused of suppressing the right of election, of treating
Germany as a conquered country. Innocent explained to
these objectors that their complaint was unfounded. He
preserved the rights of the electors, the more so because they
had been " granted by the papacy." But on their side the
electors should recognize the Pope's right to examine the
one who had been elected. " Is it not we," he asked, " who
are charged with anointing the elect, with consecrating and
crowning him. But a general absolute rule prescribes that
the examination of the person pertains to him who is to con
secrate him. See how this is : if the princes agree to elect
one who has committed sacrilege, who has been excommuni
cated, a tyrant, a madman, a heretic or a pagan, should we
be obliged to anoint, to consecrate, and to crown such a
candidate ? " 2 To sum up the matter, the Pope when he sees
fit is to appoint the king of Germany. With this reservation
the German electors have the right — a right which emanates
from the apostolic see — to choose their own king. It is
simply a question of convention.
The most clever strategy is of no avail, unless it is served
by circumstances. The strategy of Innocent was not so
served. The pontifical protege" Otto was defeated by his
rival (battle of Wassenburg, 1206). The Pope then decided
to discard a tool which was of no use to him, and while
beguiling Otto with fair words, he dealt secretly with the
conqueror. But at the moment when an arrangement was
1 Luchaire, p. 76. About November 1200, Innocent prepared the " Deliber
ate domini papse super facto imperii de tribus electis" (Huillard-Breholles,
Historia diplomatica Frederici seeundi, i. 70, Paris, 1852 ; Luchaire, p. 67).
The first of January he announced to the Germans his intervention, which
took place in the spring of 1201.
2 Decretal Venerabilem ; see Hefele, v. 788 ; Luchaire, p. 96.

THE PAPACY AND THE EMPIRE 207
about to be reached, Philip was assassinated (1208). This
unforeseen event changed completely the pontifical policy. To
all who cared to hear him, Innocent declared that he had
never ceased to be the patron of Otto, and he granted the
latter the imperial crown at St. Peter's (1209). Of course,
he demanded safeguards before conferring this honour. He
required the imperial candidate to take a vigorous oath in
detail, which delivered him into the hands of the papacy.
Otto promised whatever was required of him (promise of
Spire, 1209).1
But scarcely had he been made emperor when, without
respecting his oath, he emancipated himself and behaved like
his predecessors, whose tradition he intended to follow. He
had to pay dearly for this attempt at independence. First
he was excommunicated, a little while afterwards deposed,
and, lastly, replaced by the young Frederick, the son of
Henry VI. At one time the Pope had resolutely kept this
child from occupying the imperial throne. In 1211 he
ordered the Germans to elect him king. They fumed at this
change in the pontifical diplomacy. Nevertheless they obeyed,
and at the diet of Niirnberg, Frederick was elected (1211).
He was then sixteen years of age. Delighted with his good
fortune, he went to Rome, knelt before the Pope, and offered
him his feudal homage. Then in the following year he
signed the constitution of Eger, which gave all the desired
guarantees to the pontifical theocracy.2 Finally, he promised
to surrender Sicily so soon as he should be crowned emperor
(1216). Innocent applauded this decision; he had at length,
as he supposed, found a servant, supple and docile, who would
aid him in governing the world. It was an illusion which
he had the happiness to cherish to the very last ; for he
died soon enough not to witness the overthrow of his
calculations, soon enough to remain ignorant that he had
himself raised up one of the most formidable enemies of
the papacy (1216).
For some years this enemy dissembled. In 1220 he
1 Luchaire, pp. 204, 238 ; Hefele, v. 813.
2 Luchaire, pp. 272, 295 ; Hefele, v. 816 ; Hauek, iv. 739.

208 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
brought back Honorius in. from banishment, and from this
Pope received the imperial crown. At the close of the
ceremony he signed the " constitutive Catholic law," which
more fully than ever put the emperor into the power of the
Church. In return for these concessions, it is true, he was
authorized to keep in his hand the government of Sicily.1
In 1227 the fiery Gregory ix. succeeded the mild
Honorius. It was then that hostilities began. They were
manifested on two separate occasions. The first time was in
1227, on the subject of the crusade. During the pontificate
of Honorius, Frederick was urgently and repeatedly invited to
set out for Jerusalem, and had made fair promises, the fulfil
ment of which he had always postponed. The indulgent
Honorius scolded and threatened, but to end the matter,
accepted the explanations and excuses which were offered to
him. Thus Frederick remained in his beloved Sicily, beneath
the blue Italian sky. In 1227 the situation changed.
Gregory was an arbitrary old man who intended to be
obeyed, and who, above all, was not satisfied with mere
words. On men of this temper the small game of dilatory
schemes makes no impression. Frederick knew this, and
took ship at Brindisi on 8 th September. Scarcely had he
sailed when he became ill, and returned (11th September).
His expedition lasted just three days. Upon getting the
news of this, Gregory was furious. Without admitting any
explanation, he excommunicated the emperor, and in a
virulent letter made this excommunication known to
Christendom. Then to repair his shattered prestige,
Frederick left for Jerusalem in earnest, where he made
his entry in March 1229. Moreover, he had previously,
by way of revenge, banished the Pope from Rome. The
latter had monks at his bidding ; he sent them in companies
to Germany and to Sicily to excite an uprising in these
countries against their sovereign. Meanwhile he ordered
the crusading army to refuse obedience to the excommuni
cated emperor. For a moment it might have been supposed
that this duel would have a tragic result ; but no, in the
1 Zeller, v. 195 ; Hauck, iv. 762.

THE PAPACY AND THE EMPIRE 209
summer of 1229, Frederick returned to Sicily. The revolu
tionary bands recruited by the monks fled at his approach :
and the country was speedily pacified. In Germany the
revolt was drowned in blood. Gregory, being incapable of
continuing the conflict, made proposals for peace, which
Frederick promptly accepted. The reconciliation was com
pleted by the treaty of San Germano (1230).1
But the peace of San Germano was only an armistice,
an interval between two battles. War was resumed several
years later, and this time it was a duel to death.2 The
cause of it was Lombardy. Frederick wished to deprive the
Lombard cities of their municipal liberties, to bring them
under his sway — in other words, to realize the plans of his
grandfather Barbarossa, and to avenge that emperor for the
defeat which he had suffered. As a matter of principle,
Gregory detested the municipal liberties, but he foresaw that
the German colossus after swallowing up the Lombard cities,
would also swallow up the papacy. Sacrificing his principles
to his interest, he posed as the defender of Lombard liberties.
When protests were useless, he resorted to deeds. On
20th March 1239 he excommunicated Frederick, and re
leased his subjects from their oath of fidelity. Then by
every means in his power he sought to bring about a
revolution in Germany ; but he failed, while Frederick
invaded the pontifical states and became more and more
threatening. Despairing of his cause, Gregory called a
council at Rome, and ordered all the bishops to attend it.
The German episcopate, which was devoted to the emperor,
did not respond to the pontifical appeal. The prelates of
other countries obeyed. From France, England, and Spain
they gathered at Genoa ; there they embarked upon twenty-
seven vessels and went to Rome by sea (25th April 1241).
But the crafty Frederick, who expected nothing good from
the council of Rome, contrived a radical means of embarrass
ing it. By his order the episcopal fleet was stopped near
1 Zeller, v. 225-250 ; Hefele, v. 957-975.
2 Huillard-Breholles, v. 237, 1020, 1112; Hefele, v. 1002, 1059, 1076,
1081 ; Zeller, v. 324, 343, 355.
14

210 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Cape Meloria (south-east of the island of Elba). One ship
was sunk ; four succeeded in escaping ; twenty-two were
captured. By this act, more than one hundred bishops fell
into the hands of Frederick, who imprisoned them. Moreover,
Gregory died shortly afterwards (August 1241).
Gregory died, but the papacy did not die. The council,
which could not be held in 1241, assembled in 1245 ; not
at Rome, however, which was still in the power of the
emperor, and from which the Pope had been banished, but
at Lyons, an independent city, where, in case of attack, the
Church could count on the help of St. Louis, king of France.
At that time Innocent IV. was on the papal throne. Con
voked by him, bishops came from all over Christendom —
Germany and Italy sent only a few prelates. Moreover, a
representative of Frederick, Thaddeus of Suessa, made his
appearance there, charged with the defence of his master.
He defended him ably, but in vain. In the session of
17 th July the Pope excommunicated Frederick, took away
his empire and the kingdom of Sicily, authorized the German
electors to put another king in his place in Germany, and
announced that he would himself provide for the throne of
Sicily of which he was the suzerain.1
This second deposition, ratified by the bishops from all
Christendom, was more serious than that of 1227. Frederick
appreciated this ; he made an immediate appeal to public
opinion. In a circular addressed to the princes he accused
the Pope of exceeding his rights, and then declared to them
that all the kings were bound together. "A beginning is
made with us,'' he said to them, " but it will end with
you. . . . Therefore defend your rights with ours." While
uttering recriminations, he negotiated. He resorted to the
mediation of St. Louis, and asked that pious king to defend
him against the Pope, and to obtain the revocation of the
sentence pronounced at Lyons.
Vain efforts ! St. Louis met the Pope at Cluny, and
there pleaded the cause of Frederick, with no effect. The
other princes made no move. Innocent, on the contrary,
1 Huillard-Breholles, vi. 319 ; Hefele, v. 1124.

THE PAPACY AND THE EMPIRE 211
redoubled his activity. He sent his monks to cause an
uprising in the region of Naples. He distributed indulgences
among the common people in Germany, money for the princes,
both lay and ecclesiastical, and privileges for the cities. As
for the Lombards, they profited by this conflict, and took
advantage of it to shake off the imperial yoke. Germany
and Italy were subjected to fire and sword. A great con
flagration laid waste these unhappy countries. Frederick,
who tried to extinguish it, only increased it. He died at
the moment when he was preparing to enter Lombardy
(1250).1 After this Germany remained a prey to anarchy,
without finding a ruler. Meanwhile the empire had ceased
to exist. It was not to be revived until 1273, when
Rudolph of Habsburg, who was elected at Frankfort, respect
fully caused his election to be confirmed by Pope Gregory x.
at the second council of Lyons2 (1274).
It should be said rather, that with Frederick n. the
empire died for ever. Innocent rv. succeeded in killing it.
What Rudolph established was not the ancient empire, with
its pretension to universal hegemony. It was a kingdom
resembling the kingdoms of France and England. The Holy
Germanic Roman Empire was nothing more than a fiction ;
but the popes used this fiction to their own advantage. They
still bestowed the crown which they called " imperial " ; and
from this they deduced useful consequences. In 1303,
Boniface vni. obliged Albert to admit that the prince electors
derived their right from the Pope. In 1314, . Clement v.
declared that while the imperial throne was vacant, the
administration of the empire was in the hands of the Pope,
and by virtue of this principle, he appointed a vicar to govern
Lombardy. Three years later (1317), John xxii. renewed
the declaration and the action of Clement. By this indirect
method imperial Italy found itself temporarily annexed to
the pontifical domain.
Are the conflicts of the past to be repeated ? Alas !
they reappeared, less disastrous, it is true, but more odious
than before. The following are the facts.
1 Hefele, v. 1132-1141 ; Hauck, iv. 843. 2 Zeller, vi. 127.

212 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
In 1323, Charles le Bel, king of France, coveted the
imperial crown. He made known his desire to John xxii.,
who like all the popes of Avignon was devoted to the interests
of France, and agreed to grant him satisfaction. Yet this
was not easy. For nearly eight years (1314—1322) two
candidates, Louis of Bavaria and Frederick of Austria, had
disputed the throne of Germany; but the decisive battle of
Miihldorf destroyed the pretensions of Frederick, and put an
end to the civil war. From 1314-1322 the throne of the
empire was vacant, but after the victory of Miihldorf this
was no longer the case, at least it had a titular, Louis of
Bavaria. This prince was now king of Germany. He was
recognized as such by the whole kingdom. It was to him,
therefore, that the imperial crown was rightly due, to him
that it should have been given. Had the Pope believed that
there were reasons for refusing it to him, he should have
informed the electors as promptly as possible. It was not
that time was wanting for him to form an opinion ; for since
1316 he had occupied the apostolic see. By letting the
conflict of the two competitors drag on, and by leaving the
matter to be decided by force, — what was at that time called
" the judgment of God ," — he gave up the right of interven
tion, a right real or pretended. To keep from the throne
him whom " the judgment of God " favoured, would be to
plunge Germany, which had at length been pacified, into a
new revolution, and to bring down upon his head the male
diction of history.
John xxn. did not allow these considerations to stand in
his way. In October 1323 he ordered Louis of Bavaria to
abdicate before three months had passed, and to revoke, as
far as possible, the administrative measures which he had
undertaken ; all this on pain of excommunication. All
persons who obeyed him were to incur the same punishment
of excommunication ; the cities which remained faithful to
him, were to incur the interdict. Naturally this Draconian
decision was accompanied by juridical reasons intended to
make it legitimate. The following is the substance of them :
the administration of the empire belongs to the Pope, so

THE PAPACY AND THE EMPIRE 213
long as the throne is vacant; but the throne is vacant so
long as the Pope has not confirmed the vote of the electors.
Now, Louis of Bavaria had assumed the administration of
the empire without waiting for the election to be confirmed
by the apostolic see ; therefore he had encroached upon the
right of the Pope, and was guilty of sacrilegious usurpation.1
Louis of Bavaria having been attacked, defended himself.
He protested a first time at Niirnberg (18th December
1323), a second time at the diet of Sachsenhausen (22nd May
1324). He declared that the right to administer the empire
was conferred by election, and election only. He branded
as an usurpation and innovation the jurisprudence which
subordinated the validity of the election to the pontifical
confirmation, — but he did not know that this jurisprudence
had been introduced by Innocent m. He accused John xxn.
of conspiring to destroy the empire, and of being the
scourge of Germany. He appealed from the Pope to the
council ; and then he went to Rome, deposed John xxn., who
was in residence at Avignon, and invited the monk Peter of
Gorbara to take the place, with the name of Nicholas V.2
(1328). In return he was abundantly excommunicated, and
repeatedly deposed by John xxn. The war between the priest
hood and the empire was rekindled as in the days of Gregory vn.,
Pascal IL, Innocent in., Gregory IX., and Innocent iv.
The papacy brought on this war, and the papacy pro
longed it. Louis soon gave up his warlike plans. He had
as allies, it is true, the Franciscans, who, being in conflict
with John xxn. on the subject of the poverty of Christ,
eagerly arrayed themselves on his side, and put their powerful
influence at his service. But Italy, which more and more
refused to become German, rose against him and against his
anti-Pope. Besides, he had to consider the fact that John xxn.,
supported by France and dwelling in France, was beyond
attack. Furthermore, he had not consistency of character.
In short, being discouraged, he abandoned his anti-Pope,
1 Raynald, 1323, 20 ; Zeller, vi. 293 ; Hefele, vi. 587.
2 Hefele, vi. 588-597 ; E. Baluze, Vitas paparum avenionensium, ii. 478,
Paris, 1693.

214 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
humbled himself before John xxii., and asked to be relieved
of the excommunication. John, whose wrath was implacable,
refused any agreement. Indeed, he set to work to prosecute
his enemies until the bitter end ; but death arrested him
(1334). Louis humbled himself once more before Benedict xn.,
who with tears in his eyes acknowledged that the king of
France had forbidden him, at the risk of incurring severe
penalties, to reconcile the emperor to the Church.1
Now the proof of this was produced. The papacy
introduced anarchy into Germany to subserve the interests
of France. Was Germany to submit to this unworthy
treatment ? No, at the diet of Rens (15th July 1338) the
electors declared that the right to administer the empire was
granted by election, that it was not derived in any way from
the apostolic see ; and at the diet of Frankfort (5 th August
1338), Louis gave the declaration of Rens the dignity of
a Pragmatic Sanction.2 The papacy betrayed the empire,
which was now nothing more than the Germanic nation.
To protect its existence, which was being threatened, the
empire escaped the yoke of the papacy. Thereafter the
prince upon whom the suffrages of the electors were be
stowed would not need to go to Rome to be crowned.
Election conferred on him all rights, including the imperial
dignity. The Pragmatic Sanction of Frankfort, which was a
response to the papal policy, took the imperial crown away
from the papacy and brought to an end an order of things
dating from the time of Charlemagne. By often inflicting
a blow upon Germany, the papacy in the end wounded itself.
Compared with this important event, the fate of Louis
of Bavaria has no special interest for us. His case may be
explained in a few words. By unskilful policy Louis
offended the electors, who deserted him ; and Pope Clement vl
cleverly taking advantage of this circumstance, which was so
favourable to the Holy See, issued once more the major ex
communication against Louis, declared that he had lost the
1 Matthias of Neubourg in J. Bbhmer, Pontes rerum germaniearum, iv.
222, Stuttgart, 1868.
2 Hefele, vi. 640 ; Zeller, vi. 315.

THE PAPACY AND THE EMPIRE 215
empire, and urged the electors to choose another sovereign.1
The electors appointed Charles iv., who had previously given
the Holy See all necessary guarantees2 (1346). Louis was
making ready to oppose his rival when death came to relieve
him from the -pain of defeat, and to save Germany from a
fresh intestinal conflict (1347). Thus the same electors
who in 1338 had shaken off the yoke of the papacy, eight
years later consented to be its instruments ; and the emperor
who had removed the constitution from the influence of the
popes was deposed by one of them. Politics, with their
coalitions and intrigues, are not strangers to such incon
sistencies; and it was not only during the life of Louis of
Bavaria that the decision of Frankfort was ineffective. In
1355, Charles iv. went to Rome to receive the imperial
crown. A half-century later (1400), when the electors
deposed Wenceslas and elected Robert, they acted only by
the authority of Boniface ix. In 1418, at the council of
Constance, Sigismund kneeling before Martin V. begged him
to confirm his election, and to recognize him as king of the
Romans. In 1433 this same monarch received the imperial
crown from Eugenius IV.; and in 1452, Frederick HI. was
crowned by Pope Nicholas v.3
All these facts prove that even after the diets of Rens
and Frankfort, electors and emperors were not always to
act without the Pope ; but they acted without him as often as
they could. This same Charles iv., who in 135 5 went to Rome
to be crowned, took care in his famous " golden bull " to isolate
the election of the emperor from pontifical intervention.4 The
right was gradually and definitely established, and became actual.
After Sigismund no emperor was preoccupied with having his
election confirmed by the Pope, and after Frederick in. no one
went to Rome to seek the imperial crown ; for Charles v. was
crowned at Bologna. The Holy Roman Germanic Empire had
ceased to be holy and Roman ; it was only Germanic.
1 Raynald, 1343, 42 ; Matthias of Neubourg in Bbhmer, Fontes rerum
germanicarum, iv. 222, 228 ; Hefele, vi. 664.
3 Raynald, 1346, 49. 3 Zeller, vi. 366, vii. 123 ; Pastor, i. 221, 379.
4 M. Goldast, Constitutiones imperatorum, i. 352 ; Zeller, vi. 381-385.

CHAPTER VII
The Political Advance of the Papacy
From St. Leo to Nicholas i., the popes were subjected to the
civil power, which gave them their orders and supervised their
administration. Nicholas undertook to put the empire of the
Franks under a theocratic regime, to transform the Caro
lingian princes into lieutenants of the bishop of Rome; but
his plan, betrayed by unfavourable circumstances, was not
carried out. Two centuries later Gregory VII., in extending it,
renewed the attempt of Nicholas and achieved a partial
success. The political situation of the papacy from the time
of St. Leo to the end of the Middle Ages includes, therefore,
three periods separated by the pontificates of Nicholas I. and
of Gregory vn., with the following characteristics : subordina
tion to the civil power ; an abortive attempt at theocratic
government ; incomplete theocratic hegemony.
The regime of subordination, which was prolonged until
the middle of the ninth century, while it lasted, underwent
the vicissitudes of politics. The Western Empire broke up
a.d. 476 and gave place to the military sway of Odeacer,
which at the end of seventeen years was conquered by
Theodoric, the leader of the Goths. The Gothic kingdom
itself fell at the end of forty years owing to the attacks of
Belisarius, who conquered Italy in the name of the emperor
of Constantinople. Two centuries later (754) the Lombards,
who since 568 had been settled in the north of the peninsula,
set out to take Rome ; but they were arrested by Pepin, king
of the Franks (756), only to be crushed at length by
Charlemagne (774). The popes were thus obedient
successively to the emperors of the West, to Odeacer, to the

THE POLITICAL ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 217
Gothic kings, to the sovereigns of Byzantium, and to the
Frankish princes. Under the Gothic rule it happened that
they even had two masters : the Gothic king established at
Ravenna, and the Byzantine monarch, who regarded the
former as his lieutenant. They, in return, did not have to
render account to the phantoms of emperors who from 455 —
the date of the death of Valentinian in. — until 476 occupied
the throne, and their real subjection did not begin until the
fall of the Western Empire.
This subjection was manifested in several ways. At first
the prince had the right to supervise, or even to decide, the
pontifical elections. Odeacer, Theodoric, Theodat, Justinian,
placed their creatures, that is to say, the men who would
best serve their policies, or who, like Silverius, paid them
most, in the apostolic see. From the end of the sixth to the
middle of the eighth century the pontifical elections were
ratified by the emperor of Constantinople or by his repre
sentative the exarch of Ravenna. The Pope-elect of the
Latin Church did not acquire the right to govern it until he
had been approved by the higher authority. And this regime,
which was abolished (769), was again put into operation under
the Carolingians by the constitution of Lothair (824).
Appointed by the prince, or with his approval, the Pope
received his orders from the prince and carried them out.
That was another result of his situation. In 525, the Gothic
king Theodoric commanded Pope John I. to go to Constan
tinople to plead the cause of the Arians who had been
persecuted by the emperor. John obeyed this strange com
mand. Eleven years afterwards (536), Theodat ordered
Agapitus to go to the court of Byzantium to negotiate a peace.
Agapitus obeyed.1 Almost two centuries later (709), Pope
Constantine made the same journey by order of Justinian n.2
In 593 the emperor Maurice forbade public officials as well
as soldiers in active service to adopt the monastic life, and
charged Pope Gregory v. to publish this order in the West.
1 Liber Pontificalis, Vita Joannis I., Vita Agapiti ; Liberatus, Breviarium,
21. 2 Liber Pontificalis, Vita Conslantini.

218 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Gregory deplored the imperial edict, which, according to him,
endangered the salvation of souls ; but as a loyal subject he
first carried out his master's orders, and it was only after
obeying them that he protested. These protests, however,
were respectful : " I who address my lords (the emperor and
his son), what am I but an earth worm ? ... To show my
submission to your orders, I have published this law in
various parts of the world ; but I have also told my serene
lords that this law is not conformed to the will of Almighty
God. I have obeyed the emperor, and yet I have taken up
the defence of the interests of God. I have therefore fulfilled
all my obligations." x Later the emperor commanded Gregory
to deal kindly with the patriarch of Constantinople, John the
Faster, and to give an honourable welcome to Maximus of
Salona who was shortly to arrive at Rome. These orders
were difficult to execute, for John the patriarch was proud,
and claimed for himself jurisdiction over the whole Church ;
and Maximus of Salona was an unworthy bishop, belonging to
the patriarchate of Rome, who consequently owed submission
to the Pope, and yet who had rebelled against the latter.
Nevertheless Gregory carried out the order. He wrote to
Maurice : " In obedience to the commandment of my lords, I
have written an affectionate letter to my colleague at Con
stantinople, and have given him notice humbly to renounce
his vain pretensions." To the empress he wrote : " In
obedience to the commandments of my lords, I willingly
forgot the irregularities of the election of Maximus."2 In
781, Charlemagne ordered Adrian I. to confer the episcopate
upon one of his proteges whom he sent to him. The Pope
replied to the powerful prince of the Franks : " We have
directly executed the commands of your will as we are in the
habit of doing." s
Submission implies deference. The popes gave pledges of
their respect to the princes whose subjects they were ; and
1 Jaffe, 1266.
2 Id., 1360, 1352 (see 1359, where Gregory complains, because the emperor
has called him mad).
» Id., 2434.

THE POLITICAL ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 219
that was yet another manifestation of their submission. In
476, Pope Simplicius presented to the emperor Basilicus, who
had just overthrown Zeno, his " willing homage." 1 The year
following, Zeno drove out Basilicus and once more ascended
the imperial throne.2 Simplicius presented to the conqueror
"the homage which was due to him." In 483, Felix in. in a
tearful letter cast himself in spirit " at the feet " of the same
emperor,3 and St. Gregory sent to Maurice his wishes that the
latter might have a long life4 — wishes which, however, were
not sincere ; for upon receiving the news that Maurice and
his five sons had been murdered, Gregory was filled with joy,
and blessed Phocas 6 the murderer. When Theodoric entered
Rome (500), Pope Symmachus walked before him in the
procession to the gates of the city.6 A century and a
half later (662), Pope Vitalian, learning that the emperor
Constantius n. wished to visit the Eternal City, went to meet
him six miles beyond the walls. In 774, Adrian surrounded
by his clergy awaited Charlemagne at the door of St. Peter's.7
On Christmas Day, 800, when the imperial coronation
ceremony was ended, Leo III. prostrated himself before the
first emperor of the Franks and " adored him." 8
Thus at the beginning of the ninth century the papacy
was again the servant of the civil power. It may be said
that it now possessed a rich treasure of prerogatives, and it is
important to take cognizance of these prerogatives, varying
as to date as well as with respect to origin, since they
prepared the evolution which we shall soon have to notice.
The oldest of all, that which was the germ of the others,
was the majesty, a supreme transcendent majesty, due really
to political circumstances, which was artifically attached to
the tomb of St. Peter. As Rome was the mistress of the
world, the Church of Rome, of course, considered itself the
1 Thiel, i. 186. ' Id., ib. 186 ; Jaffe, 576. 3 Thiel. i. 223.
1 Jaffe, 1343, 1360, 1476. • Id., 1899.
8 Pfeilschifter, Der Ostgothenkbnig Theodorich der Grosse, p. 60, Miinster,
1896. 7 Liber Pontificalis, Vita Vitaliani, Vita Adriani.
'Annates Laurissenses et Eginhardi, 801, Migne, civ. 459, "Post laudes
ab apostolico more an ti quorum principum adoratus est."

220 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
queen of other Churches, and the Christians of Rome made
their overwhelming superiority felt by the Christians of the
rest of the world, who humbly recognized it (see the letter
of Clement to the Corinthians). Thus it was at the end of
the first century, that is to say when the communities were
still under a democratic regime modified by inspired oracles.
So soon as the monarchical episcopate appeared, the custom
had taken root. The Roman bishops followed the tradition,
and made a display of their pre-eminence (Victor, Calixtus,
Stephen, etc.). The other bishops submitted, and willingly
exalted the episcopal see of the imperial city — except to resist
when they believed that they were confronted with tyrannical
measures suggested by pride (Polycrates, Irenaeus, Hippolytus,
Cyprian, Firmilian, Dionysius of Alexandria).
In the middle of the second century, however, Ephesus
arrayed its forces against Rome, pretending that it possessed
the tomb of the Apostle John, and on this account it
exercised a considerable influence throughout Asia Minor.
In this encroaching influence of Ephesus, Rome saw a danger
to its own prestige ; and to the apostolic glory of its rival it
opposed apostolic glories which were superior to the former.
About 170 the Church of Rome compared itself to a tree
planted by Peter and Paul : it narrated, as something
beyond all doubt, how these two Apostles had been associated
in founding and in instructing it, and had suffered martyr
dom at the same time. It showed their tombs, even
as Ephesus showed the tomb of St. John. Hereafter its
supremacy in apostolicity was assured. Yet Rome did not
rest satisfied with its first success. The Gospel of St.
Matthew puts into the mouth of Christ the famous text :
" Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my Church " ;
" I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ;
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt lose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven." The bishops of Rome appropriated to
themselves the " Tu es Petrus " ; they made of it spolia
optima. And to prove to the whole world that this incom
parable treasure belonged to them alone, they identified them-

THE POLITICAL ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 221
selves with Peter. The Church of Rome became the Church
of St. Peter. The episcopal see of Rome became the see of
St. Peter ; the bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter, who
was regarded as speaking and acting through his vicars.
Immediately Paul, if not evicted, was almost forgotten. This
rhetoric began with Calixtus (about 220); in the fifth
century, Innocent I. and St. Leo used pompous formulas to
which nothing essential was subsequently added. They had
indeed no success in the East, but in the West they met
with a sympathetic welcome. There the combination of the
Tu es Petrus with the Roman Church gave rise to the devotion
of St. Peter, — a devotion which, as we shall presently see,
was the point of departure for new conquests.
In 369, Valentinian I., in favour of the bishop of Rome
and at his request, passed a measure which Gratian confirmed
in 37 8,1 and which Valentinian m. in 445, at the bidding of
St. Leo, reiterated by a rescript of which the following are
the essential outlines : " The excellence of St. Peter, chief of
the corps of bishops, the majesty of the city of Rome, and the
legislation of the holy council [of Nicaea, in reality, Sardica]
conferred primacy on the Apostolic See. Consequently any
undertaking opposed to the decisions of that see is unlawful,
and as such is forbidden. . . . All the orders, past and future,
of the Apostolic See shall have for the bishops of Gaul and
for all other bishops the force of law."
Hence the papacy from the end of the fourth century had
obtained the power to legislate for the bishops of the Occident.
In the order of time, that was the second prerogative which
the popes themselves demanded as something due to " the
excellence of St. Peter" which had its immediate source in
the imperial decrees, but which in the last analysis was
derived from the city of Rome, since the excellence of St.
Peter is only a dissimulation of that majesty. After 476,
even after 455, the date of the death of Valentinian m., the
emperors ceased to assure the execution of their edicts, and it
should not be forgotten that after 430 the empire of the
1 Constitutio Valentiniani III., among the letters of St. Leo, Ep. xi., Migne,
liv. 537.

222 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
West, after repeated amputations, was reduced to Italy and
Gaul. The legislation inaugurated by Valentinian I. and
confirmed by Gratian and Valentinian hi., had been only a
precarious work. Yet it had a considerable psychological
bearing. The popes at once assumed the spirit of their new
office, which they never again lost. The exercise of govern
ment for eighty years (369-455) created in them a need
of governing, of administration. They had the souls of
prefects. In 452, when Attila presented himself at the gates
of Rome, Pope Leo, escorted by two officials, went to meet
the barbarian and negotiate for the latter's retreat. Three
years later (455), when Genseric arrived, Leo parleyed with
him.1 Popes Felix in. and Gelasius resisted the emperor of
Constantinople, and while they declared themselves to be his
docile subjects in the material sphere, they claimed the right
to command in the spiritual sphere. Gelasius said, in
substance, to the emperor : " Two powers lead the world, that
of the pontiffs and that of kings. The spiritual power is the
more important of the two. . . . The bishops are subject to
you in civil matters; in spiritual matters you ought to
submit to the bishops, and especially to the bishop of
Rome."2 To return to the devotion of St. Peter. It was a result
of this principle that the leader of the Apostles, having
received from Christ the keys of heaven, could open or close
to whom he would the gates of the abode of the blessed,
and hence it was of the greatest importance to obtain his
favour. This useful devotion at an early day spread
throughout Italy and into neighbouring countries. On the
eve of the seventh century the Roman monk Augustine went
to England. Among the Anglo-Saxons, even as among the
Latins, this devotion guaranteed salvation to those who
practised it. The object of it was therefore everywhere the
same, but its forms differed according to the country. The
Latins believed that the best means of pleasing St. Peter was
1 Jaffe, 68, 72.
2 Thiel, i. 349; Jaffe, 632; see also Thiel, p. 247, and Jaffa", 601 (lettei
of Felix m. to Zeno).

THE POLITICAL ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 223
to enrich his vicar, and they loaded wealth upon him.1 The
Anglo-Saxons thought that St. Peter should, above all things,
value docility, so they adopted Roman rules and Roman usages.
Thus the Pope had the Anglo-Saxon Church in his power ;
while in the basin of the Mediterranean he held vast estates
which made him a wealthy landlord, and which towards the end
of the seventh century assured him independence of the emperor
of Constantinople. He was in a certain sense king in the
spiritual and in the temporal realm. His temporal sovereignty
— a sovereignty de facto, but without any juridical character —
was, it is true, considerably curtailed by the Lombards in the
eighth century ; but in this period his spiritual authority over
the Church, established by Augustine of Canterbury, was more
flourishing than ever. Every day the Anglo-Saxons gave
fresh proofs of their filial submission to St. Peter and his
vicar. One of them, the monk Boniface, even entertained
the plan of subjecting the Frankish Church to Rome, to
infuse the Roman spirit into the episcopate of that country.
It will be seen hereafter that this did not succeed.
Here it is appropriate to quote from a dialogue which
took place between Pepin the Short and Pope Zacharias
wheu the Frankish duke undertook to dethrone the Mero
vingian king Childeric (751) :2 " Is it not better to give the
title of king to him who in reality rules the kingdom, rather
than to leave it to him who has only the title without the
authority ? — He deserves to be called king who has the
authority." This dialogue, in which the Pope is content to
respond to a consultation, was in itself considered only a
commonplace event. But the Frankish annalists transformed
it. They related that Zacharias by an act of authority had
dethroned Childeric and had put Pepin in his place. And
perhaps Pepin suggested, in any case he surveyed with a
complacent eye, this version, which served his interests, since
it gave a sacred character to his usurpation. Moreover, he
1 See chapter "The Pontifical State."
2 Annates Laurissenses et Egmhardi, p. 749 ; Migne, civ. 373 ; FusteJ de
Coulanges, Hist, des institutions politiques de Vancienne France, vi. 198. On
the date, see Hauck, ii. 14.

224 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
paid generously for the service which the papacy rendered
him, by constituting the pontifical state (754). After the
consultation of Zacharias, the popes were temporal sovereigns,
endowed with juridical titles ; and in certain extreme cases
their right was recognized even to dispose of thrones. They
did not remain the less submissive to Charlemagne, who
treated them as his grand almoners, and who throughout his
reign was the veritable head of the Church, of which, to use
his own expression, he " held the rudder." J
A new condition of things arose during the disastrous
reign of Louis the Debonnair, who in the year 822, in the
assembly of Attigny, publicly asked pardon for all his sins,
and showed always an inconsequent mind. In the presence
of this scrupulous and irresolute prince, ambitious men could
dare to do anything. They did not fail to do so. In 833
the Frankish bishops assembled at Compiegne judged the
unfortunate monarch, condemned him to leave the throne, to
do public penance, and to pass the rest of his life in a
monastery. And the execution of this odious sentence began
some weeks later at St. M^dard of Soissons.2 It was, it is
true, shortly afterwards annulled because of popular indigna
tion. The papacy, for its part, knew how to take advantage
of circumstances so favourable to its interests. To show his
importance, Stephen rv. went (816) to crown Louis the
Debonnair, who had received the imperial crown from his
father, Charlemagne.3 In 823, Pascal repeated this cere
mony for Lothair; and in 848, Leo rv. was not afraid
to say that Lothair had been " consecrated " by Pascal.4
Moreover, when the sons of Louis the Debonnair rebelled
against their father, they called upon Gregory for help ; they
1 Libri Carolini, prsefatio, Migne, xcviii. 1002: " Ecclesia mater nostra ...
cujus quoniam in sinu regni gubernacula Domino tribuenti suscepimus . . .
nobis quibus ... ad regendum commissa est."
2 Relatio Episcoporum de exauct. Hludovici, in Baronius, 833, 9, and in
Mansi, xiv. 647 ; Agobardi Cartula, Migne, civ. 319 ; see also M. G., Leges,
i. 366. * Astronome, Vita Ludovici, Migne, civ. 940 ; Annates Eginhardi,
p. 823. * M. G., Epistolae, v. 605.

THE POLITICAL ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 225
obliged him, so to speak, to play a political r61e. They even
endeavoured to obtain from him a decree of excommunication
against the unfortunate emperor, — a decree to which Gregory
would not give his consent, or at least, one which he could not
issue. In the middle of the ninth century the Church
asserted the right to govern the Frankish kingdom, which
accepted this protectorate. Theocracy was in the air. The
only question was who would retain the hegemony : would it
be the episcopate, or would it be the papacy ? This question
was settled when Nicholas I. broke the power of the metro
politans. This warlike Pope, not fearing the rivalry of the
episcopate, was able to publish his theocratic programme.
What was this programme ?
It is not to be sought in the letters of the pontiff to the
emperor of Constantinople. In so far as he was concerned,
Nicholas I. left to that prince full liberty in the political
realm, and confined himself to demanding respect for his own
independence in the religious realm. He said : " Jesus Christ
separated the two powers (the spiritual and the temporal).
The emperors need the pontiffs for eternal life, and the
pontiffs need the imperial law for temporal affairs, but for
these alone." x He made petitions, he did not issue orders to
the emperor. And to the Roman pontiffs he applied the text
of the Psalms, which speaks of princes " established over the
whole earth." He limited its significance by remarking that
the biblical passage indicates the Church : " We are appointed
princes over the whole earth, that is say, over the whole
Church."2 He claimed supremacy over the whole Church in
things religious. . He did not go beyond the language of Pope
Gelasius. But the correspondence with the Frankish princes
changed the scene. Let us first consider the affair of Lothair n.
This young man, unable to control his desires, conceived the
idea of repudiating Theutberge, his lawful wife, in order to
marry Waldrade. Three councils were assembled at his
request at Aix-la-Chapelle (9th January 860, 15th February
860, 2 9 th April 862), and approved. A fourth council which
1 Ep. 86, Migne, cxix. 960.
1 Loe. cit., p. 949 ; Hauck, ii. 541, exaggerates the meaning of the passage.

226 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
met at Metz, presided over by the pontifical legates (June
863), showed the same leniency.1 Lothair was sure of
success. But Nicholas I. intervened. This formidable pope
instituted an inquiry into the whole affair. He perceived
that the bishops of Lorraine were only playing a part, and
that at Metz his own legates had been corrupted. He forth
with annulled the proceedings and deposed the two archbishops,
Gunther of Cologne and Theutgaud of Treves, on whom rested
the responsibility for the decisions of the councils.2 These
first measures were decreed in the Lateran council (October,
863). They were followed by others.3 In April 865,
Arsenius the pontifical legate left Rome carrying certain
instructions. He went to find Lothair — that was one of his
missions — and ordered him, upon pain of excommunication, to
follow the right way. Lothair obeyed : Theutberge became
his wife once more ; as for Waldrade, she was surrendered to
the legate, who brought her to Rome. She fled, it is true,
and returned to Lothair. But Nicholas was watching. He
excommunicated Waldrade (February 866), and threatened
Lothair with the same punishment. The blow would have
been fatal to this unhappy prince; for his uncles Charles
the Bald and Louis Germanicus were only waiting for an
excuse to take possession of Lorraine. Nicholas appreciated
the situation ; moreover, he hesitated at a sanction which
would carry catastrophe with it. But he showed at least to
Lothair the danger to which he was exposed, and gave him
sound advice ; he acted as his master.4
He made himself equally the master of Charles the
Bald and Louis Germanicus, yet not always. At times he
confined himself to giving advice and addressing petitions to
them ; — for example, a letter asking them not to make war
on the emperor Louis n., their nephew.5 But in certain
cases he did not fear to speak to them imperatively. He
1 Hefele, iv. 224, 266.
2 Mansi, xv. 651 ; Hefele, iv. 272 ; Ep. 56, Migne, cxix. 868.
3 Ep. 93, Migne, p. 973 ; R. Parisot, Le Boyaume de Lorraine sous Us Caro-
lingiens, pp. 286, 292, Paris, 1899.
4 Ep. 83, p. 924 ; Ep. 149, p. 1149 ; Parisot, p. 263.
5 Ep. 78, p. 911.

THE POLITICAL ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 227
ordered them to endeavour to convert their nephew Lothair n.
Upon pain of excommunication he forbade Louis Germanicus
to preserve relations with the archbishops Gunther and
Theutgaud.1 He commanded Charles the Bald to send
Rothade to Rome.2 But it was especially with respect to the
empire that he claimed authority. He declared explicitly
that the emperor Louis II. held his sword from the vicar of
Rome, and that the unction received from the Pope had con
ferred upon him the empire.3 To sum up the matter,
Nicholas claimed the right to supervise the policy of the
Carolingian princes, and even their private behaviour. He
pretended to the control of the Frankish empire, and to give
his orders to its leaders, — orders the sanction of which was
not deposition but excommunication, or rather the threat of
excommunication. Such was the programme of this great
Pope. What was its result to be ?
In conformity to the wishes of the Pope, Charles the
Bald and Louis Germanicus refrained from making war upon
their nephew Louis II. Moreover, they urged Lothair to
banish Waldrade, and to take back Theutberge. But Lothair,
who gave abundant promises of submission, never submitted
sincerely. He used artifices, gained time, prolonged negotia
tions until the death of Nicholas I., and he died at the
very moment when the conciliatory Adrian n. was perhaps
about to authorize his marriage to Waldrade.4 The emperor
Louis ii. showed greater energy. As soon as he learned that
Gunther and Theutgaud were deposed, he went to Rome to
insist that the Pope should withdraw the sentence.6 Nicholas,
who did not wish to yield, had no resource other than to take
refuge at St. Peter's. He was about to be captured and de
posed when the superstitious emperor, believing himself to be
pursued by the wrath of God, suddenly paused. After the
death of Nicholas, his successor, Adrian il, wished to follow
the path that had been marked out for him. Learning that
Charles the Bald had taken advantage of the death of
1 Ep. 83, p. 924 ; Ep. 61, p. 874. 2 Ep. 36, p. 636.
• Ep. 79, p. 914. * Parisot, p. 318.
5 Annates Bertiniani ad annum, 864 ; Parisot, p. 242 ; Hefele, iv. 276.

228 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Nicholas to possess Lorraine (869), he wrote him a wither
ing letter, threatening him with excommunication and with
hell if he did not yield the succession of Lothair to the
emperor Louis n.1 But the only result of these threats
was a haughty letter from Hincmar informing him that
" kingdoms are acquired by battles and victories, not by the
excommunications of popes and bishops " ; and, besides, ex
plained to him that " his predecessors had concerned them
selves with the government of the Church, not with that of
the state."2 Less than twenty years afterwards (887) the
empire of the Franks disappeared at the diet of Tribur.
Then for nearly a century the papacy became the sport of
Roman factions, and was not delivered from this shameful
subjection, except to fall into the hands of the German
emperors. Therefore let us conclude that Nicholas could
not cause the acceptance of his pretensions ; he failed.
His failure, however, was not complete. At first he won
over the episcopate victories which reacted in favour of the
political situation of the papacy.3 After his time the popes
were the heads of the Church, and were treated as such even
by the most arbitrary of the German emperors. Nicholas suc
ceeded besides in acclimatizing his conception of imperial power.
In 871, Louis n. declared that he held the imperial dignity
legitimately, since he had received it from the Roman pontiff ; 4
and in 962, when Otto revived the empire, he appealed to
the papacy, and was consecrated by John xn. Yet he kept
the Pope dependent on him, and for nearly a century his
successors imitated him. The emperor gave orders to the
Pope ; the Pope made the emperor. This was a contradic
tion which was one day to disappear.
Nicholas, notwithstanding his defeat, was thus one of the
creators of the political power of the papacy. Before him
and after him another agency was effective in realizing this
object, with which we are already familiar. It was the
1 Jaffe, 2920 ; Parisot, p. 354.
2 Ep. 27, Migne, cxxvi. 174 ; see pp. 179-182.
3 See chapter " The Religious Advance of the Papacy."
4 Baronius, 871, 59.

THE POLITICAL ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 229
devotion of St. Peter. This devotion, which at other times
heaped gifts upon the illustrious apostle, assumed a special
form in the middle of the sixth, but especially in the ninth
century. Monasteries, to defend themselves against the
rapacity of brigands, bishops, nobles, and kings, committed
themselves to St. Peter, and sought his protection.1 By
means of his vicar the Pope, who had the power to excommu
nicate the delinquents, St. Peter conscientiously fulfilled his
mission. He kept a faithful watch over the property con
fided to his care, and preserved it from pillage. Moreover,
the number of monasteries committed to him constantly
increased. Kings followed their example, and to escape a
threatening danger, committed their kingdoms to the prince
of the Apostles, or else asked him to bless their undertakings,
as William the Conqueror did before he landed in England.
Of course, these clients of St. Peter paid a fee to his vicar,
and were much attached to him. Yet this was not always so.
Kings have singularly short memories ; no sooner were they
out of danger than they forgot the services which Rome had
done them. But the monasteries, which had always need of
the protection of St. Peter, remained faithful to him. Con
sequently, by assuring itself of St. Peter's protection, the
papacy acquired rich revenues as well as considerable influ
ence — an influence to which Cluny gave a tremendous
impetus. The abbey of Cluny placed its vast dependencies
under the protection of St. Peter: it contracted a debt of
gratitude to St. Peter. It paid this debt generously. The
monks of Cluny were ardent defenders of the prerogatives of
the Holy See. They created a force which for more than a
century the popes did not think of employing to their own
advantage, but which one energetic man knew how to make
use of. This energetic man appeared in the middle of the
eleventh century, and his name was Hildebrand. After
1073 he bore the name of Gregory vn. In a letter of
1081 to Hermann of Metz, Gregory vn. exposed his social
philosophy. He claimed for the papacy the right to depose
1 See chapter " The Pontifical Exchequer."

230 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
kings. He founded this right on the words of Christ to
Peter: Quodcumque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum et in
ccdis. Furthermore, he founded it on tradition, especially on
the act of Pope Zacharias.1 He added : " Is it possible that
a dignity (the civil power), invented by men of his age,
especially by men who do not know God, should not submit
to that dignity which the Providence of Almighty God has
established for his honour, and which he has mercifully
granted to the world ? Who can doubt that the bishops of
Christ are the fathers and the masters of kings, the princes of
all the faithful ? Is it not a proof of miserable madness, if
the son seeks to govern the father ? . , . No layman has a
power equal to that which is conferred on the exorciser, since
he is appointed ' spiritual emperor ' [form of the liturgy], to
cast out devils : a fortiori, they have this power over those
who are subject to devils, who are members of the devil
[kings]. Now, if such is the power of the exorciser, that of
the bishops is superior to this. . . . Hence a very little
knowledge is sufficient to make it plain that bishops are the
superiors of kings. If kings, because of their sins, can be
judged by bishops, a fortiori kings can be judged by the
Roman pontiff."
It can be affirmed without fear of error that these ideas
expressed by Gregory vn. in the evening of his life, were
entertained by the monk Hildebrand at the beginning of his
career. A disciple, if not a child of Cluny, he had from his
youth upward received the inspiration of this mighty abbey.
He applied himself to affairs with a clearly elaborated plan
of a theocratic society. All his life was to be spent in carry
ing out this plan, in causing the theocratic ideal to descend
into the realm of reality. But what means will he employ
in imposing his commanding maxims upon kings who. are not
prepared for them ?
He was to employ those which were suggested by
circumstances. In 1056 the German throne was occupied
by a child. Hildebrand took advantage of the weakness of
the young Henry rv., and caused Nicholas II. to promulgate
1 Ep. viii. 21 ; Jaffe, 5201.

THE POLITICAL ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 231
the decree of 1059, which removed the pontifical election
from the influence of the German court.1 This was his first
victory. Fifteen years later, Henry rv. was no longer a child
who could be treated as such, but he was opposed by the
Saxons, who were eager for his overthrow. It was a good
thing for Gregory, who, supported by the Saxons, spoke as a
master to the unfortunate prince, gave him his orders, and in
the letter of 8th December 1075 uttered threats : 2 " Remember
what happened to Saul ! " Prophetic threats 1 Henry, who
was deposed (1076), regained his throne only at the price of
the humiliation at Canossa. And for having endeavoured to
emancipate himself, he was again deposed (1080). Gregory
bestowed the empire' on the duke Rudolph, who promised him
obedience. That might be called the stringent method.
Equally stringent was that which he employed in the
case of Philip I., king of France. Hardly had Hildebrand
ascended the apostolic throne when he manifested his dis
satisfaction with this prince, who, according to him, was
oppressing the Church of France. He informed the French
bishops that if their king did not mend his ways, he would
make every effort to dethrone him.3 And this is one means
that he counted on employing : to cast his interdict over the
whole of France, in the hope that the French, desirous of
escaping this evil, would rise against Philip.
But William the Conqueror, a powerful and formidable
prince, was treated with greater consideration. Gregory
lavished flatteries upon him : 4 " I love thee more than other
kings " ; " Thou art the pearl of princes." He also boasted of
his own services : " I have aided thee to obtain the kingdom
(an allusion to the standard of St. Peter, sent to William as
a talisman at the time of the conquest of England) ; certain of
my brethren on account of this have even murmured against
me, and have accused me of approving massacres." He asked
as a reward that William should declare himself to be a
1 See chapter " The Pontifical Election."
2 See chapter " The Papacy and the Empire."
» Ep. ii. 5 ; Jaffe, 4878. See also i. 35 (4807).
* Ep. i. 70, vii. 25 (Jaffe, 4850, 5168).

232 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
vassal of the Holy See, that England and Normandy should
be fiefs of St. Peter.
As for the other kingdoms, Gregory claimed them in the
name of historic rights founded on the " donation of Constan- j
tine," or on later gifts. The " donation of Constantine " was '
manufactured by one of the popes of the eighth century,
probably Adrian I. It was a valuable title to property, but
it could offend susceptibilities, provoke disputes, and for this
reason it was not to be shown to every one. Gregory took
good care not to show it to William the Conqueror. He
hardly dared to mention it to the king of France. He
relegated it to the second place when he addressed the
German emperors.1 He had more freedom in facing those
whom he did not fear. " We shall not allow the rights of
St. Peter to lapse," he wrote to the rulers of Sardinia. To
the French nobles who prepared to make the conquest of
Spain, he said : " You are not ignorant that for a long time
past the kingdom of Spain has belonged to St. Peter, and
even to-day, although it is invaded by pagans, the right
has not been suppressed, and it belongs to no mortal but to
the apostolic see alone.2 Solomon, king of Hungary, who
had become dependent on Germany, received the following
admonition : " Thou hast offended the blessed Peter. Thou
canst learn, indeed, from the great men of thy country that
the kingdom of Hungary belongs to the Holy Roman Church ;
that king Stephen in other days piously granted it, with all
his rights and powers to the blessed Peter." 3
Another vassal of the Holy See, Robert Guiscard, who in
1059 put himself Under subjection to St. Peter, afterwards
violated his engagements. To punish him, Gregory wished to
take his duchy from him and give it to the king of Denmark.
He wrote to Svend Erithson : " Inform us if we can rely on
thee, in case the Holy Roman Church should have need of
soldiers. . . . Not far from us, on the border of the sea, is a
very rich province in the power of vile heretics (the Normans) :
we should be happy were one of thy sons to take possession
1 Jaffe, 5206 (oath impos"d on the king of Germania).
2 Id., 4817 (see also 4800), 4778, 5041. 3 Id., 4886.

THE POLITICAL ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 233
of it, become duke or prince, and at the same time a defender
of the Christians." 1
The plan was the more promising in that Svend Erithson
had already promised Alexander n. to grant Denmark as a fief
to St. Peter. Moreover, the son of the king of Russia in
friendly rivalry with the king of Denmark had lately gone
on a pilgrimage to Rome, and had become a vassal of St.
Peter.2 Threats, flatteries, entreaties, legates instructed to
cause disturbances, parchments partially or totally falsified, —
all served Gregory's purpose ; all means were fair to him in
realizing his theocratic pretensions.
But the facts did not answer his expectations. Philip i.,
king of France, who did not intend that any one should
" dim the lustre of his crown," forbade his bishops to obey
the injunctions of Rome. The French bishops arrayed them
selves on the side of their king, and at the council of Poitiers
(1078) they insulted the pontifical legate.3 Gregory aban
doned the dethronement of Philip.
He was not more fortunate with the king of England.4
Being invited to put himself under the yoke of the papacy,
William returned an absolute refusal : " I have not wished,
and I do not wish to swear fealty, because I have not
promised to do so, and because I do not find that any of my
predecessors have done so to yours."
At this haughty answer, Gregory was overcome with
anger, and exclaimed that William was worse than the pagan
kings : he prepared to make him feel " the wrath of St. Peter."
But some months of reflection inspired him with calmer feel
ings. " Treat him with deference," said he to his legate, " for
he is still better than all the other kings."6
There was yet another disappointment. Gregory, who
had besought the king of Denmark to drive Robert Guiscard
and his " vile heretics " into the sea, received ho reply. Ho
1 Jaffe, 4928. 2 Id., 4955, 4956.
'Letter of the legate Hugo to Gregory vn., Migne, cl vii. 509; Delarc,
Saint Gftgoire VII. et la reforms de I'Eglise au xi™* siicle, iii. 356, Paris, 1889.
4 Migne, cxlviii. 748 ; W. Stubbs, The Constitutional History of England,
i. 309, Oxford, 1884 ; Delarc, iii. 373.
5 Ep. viii. 1, ix. 5 ; Jaffe, 5135, 5208.

234 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
soon took notice of the fact that the Danes were bad clients
of St. Peter, and did not afford him any aid. Then he fully
excommunicated the formidable Robert Guiscard, and with the
help of diplomatic manoeuvres endeavoured to cause an up
rising against him on the part of the Norman barons settled
in Italy.1 But these expedients had no effect. In spite of
the obstacles put in his way, Robert gradually extended his
power. Fortunately, Gregory was never at the end of his
resources. Being unable to crush Robert Guiscard, he relieved
him of the excommunication, showed him some kindness, and
employed him in his service. In 1080 the powerful duke
became a willing vassal of St. Peter.2 He was not a very
docile vassal, and being more preoccupied with his own
interests than with those of bis suzerain, on several occasions
he turned a deaf ear to the entreaties of Gregory. Yet in
1084, when Henry was master of Rome, Robert hastened
with his army against him. He drove out the German
emperor, inflicted fearful punishment upon the Romans, freed
Gregory, and granted an asylum in his states to the aged
pontiff who had been obliged to leave Rome, which hated him.
It need not be said that Hungary, Spain, and Russia were
not more docile than Denmark, Germany, and France. In
almost all his theocratic undertakings, Gregory failed. It
may even be said that he won only a single victory, — that of
Canossa, — which in itself was without value, and which owed
its importance wholly to the mental disposition which it
imparted to Gregory's successors. The scene at Canossa,
indeed, infused into the papacy a spirit of pride and domina
tion. From the time when one of them saw the king of
Germany at his feet, the bishops of Rome believed that they
were masters of the German empire. Armed with this
Gregorian method, that is, excommunication and deposition,
they pretended to legislate for those who wore the imperial
crown. They suffered temporary checks, the most trouble
some of which was the capitulation of Pascal n. (1111); but,
on the whole, success crowned their efforts.3 Henry v., who
1 Delarc, iii. 436, 518. • Id., ib. 523.
3 See chapter "The Papacy and the Empire."

THE POLITICAL ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 235
conquered Rome, was obliged to capitulate at Worms (1122);
Lothair II. was the lackey of Innocent n. (1131); Frederick
Barbarossa renewed at Venice the scene at Canossa ; Otto IV.
was deposed by Innocent ni. ; at the council of Lyons (1245),
Innocent IV. inflicted the same fate on Frederick II. All
these pontiffs who consolidated and developed the suzerainty
of the papacy over Germany were disciples of Gregory vn.,
heirs of his theocratic pretensions and of his method of
action. And the credit for the victories which they won
was due to the master by whom they were inspired.
Gregory being suzerain of Germany, suzerain of Naples
and of Sicily, which had been granted to him as fiefs of
St. Peter by Robert Guiscard, did not let his ambition stop
there. He believed that as vicar of St. Peter he was called
to legislate for the whole world. His successors cherished
this dream. They, too, professed to have received from
St. Peter, and consequently from Christ, the empire of the
world. This political programme was announced with the
utmost calmness by Innocent in. : " The government, not
only of the Church universal, but of the whole world, fell
to Peter. This is proved by the conduct of Peter, who at
the approach of the Lord cast himself into the sea. . . ,
The sea, according to the Psalmist, signifies the world. . . .
That Peter ventured into the sea, thus symbolizes the
power that he received over the whole world. . . . Peter
walked upon the waves of the sea, as a proof that all
peoples are submitted to his authority."1 Furthermore
besides the rights which emanated from St. Peter, the
papacy had at its disposal the "donation of Con
stantine " ; and it profited by it, as was shown when
Adrian IV., in 1155, on account of that " donation," author
ized Henry II., king of England, to make the conquest of
Ireland.2 Yet notwithstanding the patronage of St. Peter
and of Constantine, the political dominion of the Holy See at
1 Ep. ii. 209 ; Migne, ccxiv. 759.
3 Bull Laudabiliter (Jaffe, 10056), the authenticity of which, although
frequently attacked, should be regarded as certain. See Thurston, "The
English Pope and the Irish Bull," in the Month, cvii. (1905) 415, 483.

236 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
the end of the twelfth century hardly went beyond the point
to which Gregory vn. had brought it. At the most, some
very small states, in order to protect their independence
against dangerous neighbours, declared themselves fiefs of St.
Peter. Such a state was Portugal, whose first king, Alfonso
Henriquez, acknowledged himself to be a vassal of Innocent
11. in 1143, and renewed his oath under Alexander ni. in
1179.1 Such also was Aragon, whose king, Sancho (1089),
professed to have received his realm from St. Peter.2 But
the great nations did not follow such examples. In 1189,
however, pontifical diplomacy made an attempt which, had it
been successful, would have brought France under the theo
cratic yoke. The legate of Clement in. ordered Philip
Augustus to make an alliance with the king of England,
under penalty of seeing the whole of France placed under an
interdict. But from Philip he received this haughty reply :
" The Roman Church has no right to censure the kingdom of
France when the king subdues his rebel vassals and avenges
the affronts inflicted on his crown."3 Some years before
(1155), Henry II. of England, in conflict with his rebellious
sons, called Alexander III. to his aid, and wrote him a humble
letter which had no practical effect.4 France and England
remained politically independent of Rome.
Innocent ill. sought to bring this situation to an end,
and to extend the empire of the papacy. The archbishopric
of Canterbury furnished an opportunity.6 In 1206, Innocent
in., contrary to custom, appointed Stephen Langton to this
see. King John Lackland, thinking that his rights had been
encroached upon, refused to accept the pontifical candidate.
The Pope insisted upon the appointment, but the king was
obstinate. War was declared, and Innocent III. was vigor-
* Fabre, pp. 126, 127 ; A. Luchaire, Les Royautis Vassales du Saint- Siige,
p. 6, Paris, 1908.
2 Jaffe, 5399.
3 Roger de Hoveden, Chronica (edited by Stnbbs), ii. 363, London, 1869.
4 Baronius, 1173, 10 : " Vestrae jurisdictionis est regnum Angliae, et
quantum ad feudarii regis obligationem vobis dumtaxat obnoxius teneor et
astringor." See Luchaire, p. 146.
5 Matth. Paris, Historia major, 1205 ; Luard, ii. 492, 496.

THE POLITICAL ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 237
ously hostile. He began by putting the whole of England
under an interdict (March 1208). Fourteen months later King
John was excommunicated (1209). He was then deprived
of his throne, and his subjects were released from their oath
of fidelity (May 121 2).1 The sentence was formidable, but
how could it be executed ? How could the king of England
be forced to abdicate ? Innocent looked towards the king of
France. In January 1213 he ordered his legate Pandolph
to visit Philip Augustus and authorize him to take possession
of England. Philip was pleased with the mission entrusted
him, and, losing no time, he prepared to land an army on the
farther shore of the Channel.2 He believed that he already
held the pontifical gift, when an unexpected manoeuvre de
prived him of it. In May 1213, John Lackland, during a
solemn ceremony, gave the legate Rudolph a diploma in
which it was stated : " We grant to God, to his holy apostles
Peter and Paul, to our Mother the Holy Roman Church,
to our lord Innocent and to his Catholic successors . . . our
kingdoms of England and Ireland, with all their rights and
dependencies, in order to receive them anew, as a vassal of
God and of the Roman Church. In testimony whereof, we
take the oath of vassalage before Pandolph . . . and our heirs
will be always obliged to take the same oath. And as a sign
of our being vassals, we and our successors will pay annually
to the Holy See, besides the denarius of St. Peter, seven
hundred marks for England and three hundred marks for
Ireland, derived from the royal revenues." 3 Then he com
mitted his crown and sceptre to Rudolph, who returned it to
him after keeping it for five days as a sign of suzerainty.
John, it need not be said, did not come upon this plan
of his own accord. He adopted it at the suggestion of
the pontifical legate. It was not long before he reaped
advantage from it. Indeed, Innocent, who had hitherto
hated the king of England, had only fondness for him
after becoming his suzerain, with the prospect of receiving
every year a tribute of one thousand marks. He at once
1 Matth. Paris, ii. 527, 536. 2 Id., ib. 536, 537.
« Id., ib. 546.

238 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
informed the king of France that there was no reason for
attacking England, that on the contrary, it would be an
offence against the apostolic see, and therefore worthy of
blame. Philip was greatly displeased at the action of the pontiff,
and made an angry reply : " Is it not at the Pope's command
that I have made all these preparations, which have cost me
sixty thousand franks ? " x He made ready to advance at all
hazards ; but the defection of one of his great vassals, the
count of Flanders, who was won over by the Roman legate,
stood in the way. Thus, in spite of himself, Philip obeyed
the orders of the pontiff. In this dispute Innocent had the
last word.
Two years later he was not so fortunate. On 15th June
1215, John Lackland, subdued by the English barons who
had revolted, granted them the Magna Charta which limited
the royal authority.2 Then after making this forced conces
sion, he complained to his suzerain the Pope of the affront
to which he had been subjected. In the revolt of the
barons, Innocent saw an attack upon his own suzerainty.
" The English barons," he exclaimed, " think they can take
from his throne a king who is about to go on a crusade, and
who is under the protection of the Apostolic See. Such an
injustice will not remain unpunished by St. Peter." And by
a bull, dated 24th August 1215, he abolished the Magna
Charta, all the articles of which he declared to be "now
and for ever null and void." 3 The barons rejected the ponti
fical bull, continued the dispute with John, and called to
their aid the French prince Louis, son of Philip Augustus.
Innocent then excommunicated the barons and Prince Louis.
But in London this measure was ridiculed. It was said :
" Why does the Pope interfere in temporal affairs ? God
appointed him to have authority only in things spiritual. Is
the insatiable cupidity of the Romans to be extended even to
other things ? " and religious services continued as if nothing
1 Matth. Paris, ii. 547. 2 Id., ib. 589.
3 Id., ib. 616 ; Potthast, 4990 ; Stubbs, The Constitutional History of England,
i. 6, Oxford ; Luchaire, " Innocent III. et le quatriemeconcile de Latran," Rev.
historique, xcvii. (1908), 243.

THE POLITICAL ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 239
had happened (December 1215). Seeing that the first
excommunication was useless, the Pope issued a second
which contained names.1 He sent Galon his legate to
France with power to deal with Philip Augustus and make
him oppose the expedition of Prince Louis to England, which
was " the property of the Roman Church." But the second
excommunication made no more impression on the barons
than the first. As for Galon the legate, he received this
reply from Philip (at the assembly of Melun, April 1216):
"England has never been the patrimony of St. Peter . . .
besides, no king can make his own kingdom tributary to
another without the consent of his barons, who are charged
with its defence. And if the Pope intends to make such a
mistake, he is setting a dangerous example to all kings."2
Innocent died on 16 th July 1216 after vainly excommuni
cating Prince Louis, who at this date was master of England.
Three months later, John Lackland died. The barons
then, delivered from their hated king, drove Prince Louis
from England and rallied to Henry ra., the son of John, who
was innocent of his father's misdeeds. But in doing this
they were obeying a patriotic sentiment, and not the orders of
the papacy. Furthermore, they obliged Henry m. to accept,
with some modifications, the Magna Charta, all the articles
of which had been annulled by Rome. It was in spite of
them that England had become a fief of the Holy See.
Innocent III. had hardly ascended the apostolic throne
when he had to take action in France in the affair of the
queen Ingelburge, whom Philip Augustus wished to put away
in favour of Agnes of Meranie. After vainly appealing to
the king (17th May 11 98),3 he resolved to display his
authority, and placed France under an interdict (5th February
1199). The punishment was severe; yet it fell only upon
the clergy and the faithful whose customs it interfered with :
it did not directly affect the king, who, pitying his subjects, at
the end of seven months (7th September 1199), made a sem
blance of satisfaction. Upon this occasion Innocent did not
1 Matth. Paris, ii. 627, 642, 648. 8 Id., ib. 651.
* Ej>. i. 171 ; Potthast, 199.

240 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
depart from the spiritual domain : he did not encroach upon
the political authority of Philip. Moreover, in a famous letter,
Per venerabilem, written to the count of Montpellier, he made
the following declaration : x " The king of France is our
subject in things spiritual (in spiritualibus), while thou (the
count of Montpellier) art our spiritual as well as our
temporal subject. . . . The king of France does not recognize
any superior in the temporal sphere (superiorem in tempor-
alibus minime cognoscat)." In theory, Innocent adhered to
this position. He never attempted to treat France as a
vassal country, or the king of France as his lieutenant.
Practically, however, he tried to interfere with the political
affairs of Philip, although he confined himself to the spiritual
domain. He solved this difficult problem in the following
manner. In 1203, Philip Augustus, thinking that John Lackland
had been guilty of felony, resolved to deprive him of the
fief of Normandy. John appealed to the Pope. The latter
urged the king of France to make peace with his enemy or
to refer the settlement of the dispute to the apostolic see.
Philip answered contemptuously that he was not accountable
to the Pope in matters concerning his own fiefs and vassals,
and that transactions between kings were no concern of the
Pope. Innocent replied in the famous letter Novit,2 in which
after explaining that the king of England had accused the
king of France of offending him, added : " We do not pretend
to judge concerning the fief, for this judgment belongs to the
king of France. . . . But we wish to pass sentence on the offence.
Beyond a doubt it is in our province to suppress the offence.
And this suppression we can and we ought to exercise in
opposition to any man, no matter who he may be. . . .
Indeed, we are bound to reprove every Christian whatever
offence he may have committed ; and if he disregards our
reproof, we are bound to inflict ecclesiastical penalties
upon him."
It was thus that Innocent, who admitted that he had
1 Ep. v. 128, Migne, ccxiv. 1130 ; Corpus juris decret. iv. 17, 13.
2 Ep. vii. 42, Migne, ccxv. 325 ; Corpus juris decret. ii. 1, 13.

THE POLITICAL ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 241
no jurisdiction over the " fiefs " — that is to say, over the
temporal affairs — of the king of France, endeavoured to
subject royal disputes to his control, because of the offence
involved ; as was afterwards said ratione peccati. It was a
principle pregnant with results, which practically authorized
the papacy to examine into all decisions of the civil power,
in view of the fact that in every dispute one of the parties
accused the other of committing an injustice. In fact, John
Lackland accused Philip Augustus of perjury. Armed with
this formidable decretal, Innocent threatened France with
an interdict unless Philip should submit the litigation to the
apostolic tribunal, and he directed his legate to carry out
this order (1204). Philip remained inflexible. Faithful to
his mission, the legate assembled the French bishops at
Meaux and announced to them that he was about to issue
his interdict. But the bishops appealed to the Pope, and
sent delegates to Rome to support their appeal. In the
presence of these delegates, Innocent pronounced judgment
on the conflict which divided the kings of France and
England, and decided in favour of Philip. The king of
France did not recognize this ratione peccati, by virtue of
which the Pope assumed to revise the policy of kings; he
did not yield because of the threatened interdict. But' the
bishops yielded, and, thanks to their capitulation, Innocent
exercised the right which he demanded. The conflict of
1203, without being a defeat for the French kingdom, was
a triumph for the papacy. After the decretal Novit, the
king of France had a good right to proclaim his independence
of the apostolic see, but the Pope for his part was in a
position to deny this independence.
Let us now notice the lesser states, and consider their
attitude. In Portugal the king Sancho, who for a time
sought emancipation, ended by yielding, by admitting that he
was a vassal of St. Peter (1211).1 His successor, Alfonso n.,
emphasized this submission, and gave fresh pledges of vassal
age (1212).2 The king of Aragon, Peter il, went to Rome
to receive his crown from the Pope (1204), and swore the
1 Mansi, xxii. 746 ; Hefele, v. 1231. 2 Fabre, pp. 21-23.
16

242 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
following oath : " I will always be the obedient feudatory of
my lord Pope Innocent, and of his Catholic successors, as
well as of the Roman Catholic Church,"1 Emeri, king of
Hungary, and his brother and successor Andrew il, obeyed
Innocent, who addressed them as their master, and haughtily
declared that the crown of Hungary was dependent on the
apostolic see. Bosnia, under the sway of the king of Hungary,
who himself only carried out the orders of the Pope, was
admitted to the Roman Church, to which it had hitherto
been an alien (1203). Servia, which had formerly been a
satellite of Constantinople, entered into the orbit of Rome.
It, too, wished to be a fief of St. Peter ; and Innocent in.
wrote to Prince Vouk : " We send you enclosed the text of
an oath of allegiance which you should swear to our
legates, and which binds you to us and to our successors." 2
Galicia also separated itself from Constantinople, being forced
to do so by the Hungarian army ; and its king gave the
oath of obedience to Rome (1214).3 The Bulgarian prince
Johannitza, who wished to be freed from the Greek yoke,
asked of the Pope the right to wear a royal crown. Innocent,
after asking and obtaining pledges of submission, founded the
kingdom of Bulgaria.4 He wrote (1204): "We appoint thee
king of the peoples of Bulgaria and Wallachia. We grant
thee the right to coin money in thy name. We will send to
thee our legate, the royal sceptre, and the crown which will
be placed on thy head by my own hands." To this list of
vassal kingdoms must be added the empire of Constantinople,
which became Latin in consequence of the fourth crusade. The
conquerors of 1204, it is true, endeavoured to complete their
conquest without help from the Pope. But they were not slow
to perceive that they could do nothing without Rome. And in
1205, Henry of Flanders, the second emperor, threw himself
into the arms of Innocent in. " All our acts, all our con
quests," he said, " are accomplished in the name of St. Peter." 5
1 Raynald, 1204, 71 ; Fabre, p. 126 ; Luchaire, p. 55.
2 Luchaire, pp. 68, 86, 90. 3 Id., p. 121.
4 Id., pp. 94, 105.
5 Luchaire, Innocent III., La Question de I' Orient, pp. 174, 183.

THE POLITICAL ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 243
As has been seen, Innocent ra. had as his vassals the
majority of the princes of Christendom. Besides, the ex
pedient of the ratione peccati permitted him to bring France
under his temporal jurisdiction, although he had not dared
to inscribe its name on the list of the fiefs of St. Peter.
Suzerain de jure of almost all Christian nations, thanks to
the ratione peccati, he was universal suzerain. Under him
the political power of the papacy acquired an extent which
it had never had before.
It was a passing extension. The structure raised by
Innocent soon crumbled away. In 1261 the Latin empire
of Constantinople fell. Bulgaria quarrelled with Rome in
1232; forty years later the separation was complete.
Servia, directly after the death of Innocent in., returned into
the orbit of Constantinople. Bosnia afterwards followed
this example. These were defeats for the Roman theocracy.
But the most serious blow was that inflicted by France at
the beginning of the fourteenth century. The following are
the facts. In 1294, Philip le Bel, without giving notice to
the Pope, demanded a subsidy from his clergy. Boniface viii.
then issued the bull Clericis la'icos, which under pain of ex
communication forbade princes to levy taxes on ecclesiastical
property without the authorization of the apostolic see, and
which under the same penalty prohibited ecclesiastics to pay
any taxes which were not authorized by Rome x (24th
February 1296). To the pontifical bull, Philip le Bel
replied by forbidding his subjects to bring money to Rome.2
Confronted with this attack on the part of the king, Boni
face at first drew back3 (bull Ineffabilis, September 1296;
bulls Bomana mater and Etsi de statu, 1297); then taking
courage, he resumed the offensive, and renewed his prohibi
tions (bulls Salvator Mundi and Ausculta fili, 5 th December
1301), which reached a climax in the bull Unam sanctam,
18th November 1302.4 He applied himself especially to
1 Dupuy, Histoire du diffirend entre le Pope Boniface VIII. et Philippe le
Bel, roy de France, p. 14, Paris, 1655.
2 Id., ib. p. 13. 3Id.,ib. p. 15.
4 Id., ib. p. 54 ; Finke, Aus den Tagen Bonifaz VIII., p. 157.

244 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
avert the discussion, and claimed the right to keep the
political authority of the king of France dependent on
himself. This pretension, the only thing in all this conflict
which interests us here, assumed two forms. In the bull
Ineffabilis, Boniface employed the expedient invented by
Innocent III. He did not dare to appoint himself suzerain
of the king of France ; he did not arrogate to himself the
right to direct French policy ; he claimed only the right to
supervise it, in order to prevent sins from being committed.
He re-edited the Ratione peccati. After 1301 his tactics
were more open and his attitude was more authoritative.
In the bull Ausculta fili it is said : " The Vicar of Jesus
Christ is placed above kings and kingdoms, to uproot,
destroy, ruin, scatter, build up, and plant. Therefore,
my dear son, be not persuaded by any one that you
have no superior on earth, and that you are not subject
to the head of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Whoever has
that idea is mad." And the bull TJnam sanctam contains
the following assertions : " . . . the Church has two swords
at its command, the spiritual and the temporal. . . . Each
of these is in the power of the Church, but the former
should be drawn by the Church and by the hand of the
Pontiff, the latter by the hand of kings and soldiers, but
on behalf of the Church, at the command and with the
authorization of the Pontiff. One of these swords must be
subordinate to the other, that is to say, the temporal power
must be subordinate to the spiritual power. ... It belongs
to the spiritual power to establish the temporal power and
to judge it if it goes astray. ... It is necessary for salvation
for every human creature to submit to the Roman Pontiff."
Here Boniface no longer takes pains to restrict himself to
the Ratione peccati, to his right to intervene in the policy of
kings. He treats all princes, the king of France included, as
lieutenants who have received the sword from him, and who
should use it only according to his orders. He declares that
terrestrial powers have been " founded " by the spiritual
power ; he attributes to himself the empire of the world.
But his repulse was complete. When he had received

THE POLITICAL ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 245
the Ausculta fili, Philip le Bel convoked the States-General
(April 1302). He informed them of the intentions of
Boniface, and asked their advice as to keeping watch for " the
preservation of the ancient liberty of France." His wishes
were granted. The nobles and the tiers Mat declared them
selves ready to die rather than to support the undertakings
of the Pope ; and in letters which they sent to the cardinals
— they did not deign to write to Boniface — they said : " The
kings of France, as is everywhere known, have never been
subject except to God alone." x To the bull TJnam sanctam
Philip replied by the assembly of the Louvre (March 1303),
and by the new States-General (June 1303). The States
interposed an appeal from the Pope to a general council
where Boniface should be constrained to appear, in order to
be judged. Immediately the emissaries of Philip, Nogaret
and Colonna, repaired to Anagni to arrest the Pope and bring
him to the council. The result is known. At the last
moment, saved by the populace of Anagni, Boniface was
buffeted, but was not arrested. His two successors, however,
Benedict XI. and Clement v., in order to appease Philip, con
sented to make humiliating concessions. The letter Meruit
of Clement (1306) relieved France from the dependent
position in which the bull TJnam sanctam placed the other
states in relation to the Holy See.2 The bull Ex parte of
the same Pope revoked and annulled various institutions of
Boniface viii., as attacks on the " liberties " of the kingdom
of France.3 On this account the bull Ausculta fili was
suppressed. Philip le Bel came out a victor from that
terrible duel with Boniface in which he had been engaged.
He made this pontiff and his successors understand that he
was in no humour to permit himself to be treated as a fief of
the papacy. The lesson had its effect. For more than two
centuries Pope Julius n. alone dared to place France under
an interdict, and to depose its king, Louis xn. (1512). This
double measure, however, had no practical effect ; and when,
1 Dupny, Differend, p. 60.
2 Id., ib. pp. 101, 109, 112, 288, 598 ; Extravag-comm. v. 1.
' Raynald, 1311, 26 (especially 31).

246 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
in 1516, Leo X. in his bull Pastor ceternus republished the
bull TJnam sanctam which placed kingdoms under the Roman
pontificate, he took care to renew the dispensation granted to
France by the letter Meruit of Clement v.1 To sum up the
matter, the papacy was obliged to respect the " liberties " of
France and of its king.
There were other deceptions which the papacy had to
endure. This is the place to speak of Sicily and of Naples.
Sicily had been given as fief to St. Peter by Robert Guiscard
(1059); after that the popes were its sovereigns, and could
dispose of it as they pleased. Popes Urban iv. and Clement
IV. assigned it to Charles of Anjou, a brother of St. Louis.2
But Charles made himself hateful to his new subjects. At
the end of nineteen years, Sicily rebelled against its master,
killed all the French (Silician Vespers, 30th March 1282),
and surrendered to Peter in. of Aragon, who quickly made his
entry into the island (August 1282). Peter was a vassal of
the Holy See, for his grandfather had given Aragon as a fief
to St. Peter. The sanctions, therefore, followed their normal
course. Pope Martin rv. excommunicated Peter, then he pro
claimed a crusade against him, promising remission of sins to
all those who would endeavour to wrest Sicily from his
control. Finally, he deposed him, and invited Philip the Bold,
king of France, to make the conquest of Aragon for his son
Charles of Valois 3 (March 1283). In conformity to the Pope's
wishes, war was waged simultaneously in Sicily — where
Charles n., the son of Charles of Anjou, was endeavouring to
hold his own — and in Aragon, which Philip the Bold invaded
with a large army. Unfortunately the repulse was decisive.
Philip the Bold died before he had taken possession of
Aragon. In Sicily, Charles n. was made prisoner. Theoreti
cally, Sicily belonged to the House of Anjou, and Aragon to
Charles of Valois ; but actually, when Peter ni. of Aragon
died (1285), one of his sons, Alfonso, ruled in Aragon,
the other, James, in Sicily. Charles n. of Anjou was
1 Hardouin, ix. 1830 : " . . . sine tamen praejudicio declarationis sanctse
memoriae Clementis papas v. quae incipit Meruit."
3 Raynald, 1263, 78 ; 1264, 9. » Id., 1291, 53.

THE POLITICAL ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 247
languishing in prison ; the pontifical pretensions were
defeated. For several years the popes made a courageous effort
against misfortune. In 1291 we find Nicholas rv. still
calling upon James to abandon Sicily, and at the same time
forbidding him to succeed his brother Alfonso in Aragon, who
had just died. Yet this opposition could not be indefinitely
prolonged, and the papacy was bound, sooner or later, to
yield to the inevitable. In fact, a Pope arose who understood
that it was necessary to capitulate ; and this conciliatory
Pope was Boniface viii. Boniface tore up the bulls which
had been issued by his predecessors.1 Indeed, he made two
attempts to perform that painful operation. In 1296 he
authorized James to reign in Aragon, but he was uncom
promising with regard to Sicily. Six years later he made
the most extreme concessions, and surrendered Sicily to
Frederick the brother of James.
The kingdom of Naples, which had also been granted by
Robert Guiscard as fief to St. Peter, caused the same kind of
difficulty to the papacy — not once, but six times. In 1128,
Roger of Sicily took possession of that country. Honorius n. at
once excommunicated the invader (council of Troyes), and in
order to give effective sanction to the sentence, advanced to
meet him at the head of an army. But being too weak to
pursue the powerful Norman duke, he was obliged to leave
to him the provinces of southern Italy — Apulia and Calabria.2
Eleven years later (1139), Innocent II. again excommuni
cated Roger, and like Honorius n. resorted to armed force.
He was not more fortunate than his predecessor. Taken in
ambush by the Normans, he was made a prisoner, and to
regain his liberty was forced to recognize as lawful the
conquests of Roger.3 Towards the end of the fourteenth
century, Urban vi., displeased with Charles of Duras, excom
municated him (1385). Notwithstanding this condemna-
1 Raynald, 1297, 18 ; 1302, 2 ; 1303, 24.
2 Mansi, xxi. 358 ; Hefele, v. 400 ; F. Chalandon, Hist, de la domination
normande en Italic et Sidle, i. 190, Paris, 1907.
3 Chalandon, ii. 86-91.

248 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
iion, Charles continued to rule at Naples. When he died
the crown passed to his son Ladislas, whose successor was his
sister, Jeanne II. When she died, Jeanne n. left the
kingdom of Naples to Rene" of Anjou ; and Pope Eugenius rv.,
in his capacity as suzerain, confirmed the deed (1435). But
he had not taken into account Alfonso of Aragon, king of Sicily,
who proceeded to annex Naples to his kingdom. To oppose
him Eugenius made use of all the arms at his command.
After eight years of futile efforts he yielded to overwhelming
force, and recognized Alfonso as king of Naples (1443). This
3ame Alfonso left the kingdom of Naples to his natural son
Ferdinand (1458). Pope Calixtus ni. ordered Ferdinand to
refuse the throne, excommunicated him, and made his people
rebel against him. Ferdinand held his own. It was the
papacy which yielded. Pius II. gave up the useless struggle,
and sent a cardinal to crown him whom his own predecessor
had excommunicated and deposed. In 1485, Ferdinand
was again excommunicated and deposed by Innocent vm.
As in previous cases, this had no effect.1
Until the sixteenth century the attitude of England was
more consoling to Rome. It was not that the English
nation willingly accepted the humiliating situation in which
it had been placed by John Lackland. On the contrary, it
had difficulty in remaining the fief of the Holy See. It
made this- very evident at the council of Lyons (1245).
There, in fact, the English, while complaining of the Roman
exactions, protested against the Act of 1213 which had placed
them, without their consent, under the pontifical suzerainty.2
But kings often agreed to the pretensions of the papacy so as to
gain its support either against foreign princes or against their
own subjects. In 1237, King Henry ra., to whom Rome had
rendered personal services, summoned the pontifical legate
and -made- him legislate. At the end of the year 1305,
1 Pastor, i. 248, 569, 600, ii. 20, iii. 190.
2 Matth. Paris, 1245, iv. 440 : " per curiam romanam extortum est tributum
injuriose in quod nunquam patres nobilium regni vel ipsi consenserunt nee
consentiunt, nee in futurum consentient. " It is generally believed that this
phrase refers to the donation of John Lackland.

THE POLITICAL ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 249
Edward l, who swore before the English nation to respect the
Magna Charta, caused Clement v. to free him from that
troublesome engagement. His son Edward n. paid tribute to
John xxn. (1317). Of course, this obedience had its limits.
Boniface viii. had some experience of this when he wished to
prevent Edward I. from taking possession of Scotland ; for
the Pope pretended that this country was a fief of the Holy
See. To the pontifical thesis, Edward opposed his own,
which he thought more plausible.1 But the few differences
which arose did not diminish the cordiality of their relations.
The tragic sequel of this ancient friendship is well known.
On 17th December 1538, Paul II. issued a bull, prepared
and communicated to the Christian princes since 1535,
according to the terms of which Henry vni. was deposed, and
Christian princes were required (requirimus) to take up arms
against him and his adherents.2 Never was an attempt more
ineffective. Henry viii. remained master of his subjects, and
the Christian princes, instead of making war upon him,
sought alliance with him.
Germany was above all others the country of theocracy.
Its rulers were nominated, crowned, and deposed by the
papacy. But Germany itself became gradually emancipated.
The Pragmatic Sanction of Frankfort (1338) and the Golden
Bull (13 5 6) removed the -imperial election, at least theoretically,
from Roman influence. And these two constitutions little by
little made their way into the realm of reality. After the
time of Sigismund (1418), the emperors did not ask the
Roman pontiff to confirm their elections. Indeed, they soon
ceased to receive the imperial crown from him.
While the princes were endeavouring to emancipate them
selves from the protectorate of Rome, the theologians were
disputing. Some protested against the pontifical pretensions,
and opposed them ; others sought to justify them. The chief
of the former school was Hincmar, whose haughty reply to
1 Haller, pp. 380, 400.
2 Raynald, 1299, 14. Besides, the English parliament on several occasions
repudiated the authority of the Pope. See Stubbs, i. 561, ii. 158, 433 ;
Haller, p. 429.

250 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Adrian II. we have already noticed.1 After Hincmar occur Sige-
bert of Gembloux, Wenrich of Treves, Peter Crassus, Guy of
Ferrari, Benzo, and others who were contemporaries and adver
saries of Gregory vn. ; 2 Pierre Dubois who was the adviser of
Philip le Bel, Occam, and Marsilius of Padua, who wrote
during the period of the Avignon popes. The book of Pierre
Dubois, Be recuperatione terre sancte (about 1305), contains
radical ideas. The author thought that the papacy should be
deprived of all temporal power, and confined to the spiritual
realm. And seeing that the Roman pontiffs would not
readily agree to this evolution, he concluded that the king of
France should take the matter in hand, and should therefore
confiscate the patrimony of St. Peter and exclude the Romans
from the apostolic see.3 Occam also would limit the
ecclesiastical power to the spiritual domain ; and he admitted
the right of the Church to be free from the papacy.
Marsilius of Padua had the same ideas.4 In opposition to
these theologians who were friendly to the civil power, was
arrayed what may be called the Gregorian school, because it
was inspired by the ideas of Gregory vn. Its principal
representatives were : in the eleventh century, the author of
the Bictatus papce (Cardinal Deusdedit), Anselm of Lucque3,
Bernold, and Bonizo ; in the twelfth century, Ives of
Chartres, Hugo of St. Victor, John of Salisbury, St. Bernard,
Gervais of Tilbury ; in the thirteenth century, Alexander of
Hales, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventura, Robert Grosseteste,
Hostiensis (Henry of Suze) ; in the fourteenth century, Gilles
of Rome, James of Viterbo, Henry of Cremona, Tolom^e of
Lucques, Augustine Trionfo, Alvarez Pelayo. The Bictatus
papce5 teaches that the Pope has the right to wear the
1 See above, p. 228.
2 E. Mirbt, Die Publizistik in Zeitalter Gregors VII., pp. 12, 18, eto.
3 Edited by Langlois, Paris, 1891 : "Et quoniam papa romanus abusus est
potestate et hoc fecit in quantum Romanus, expedit . . . tantum honorem per
tales exerceri qui summum honorem christianissimi principis rapere non
nitantur" (p. 100; see pp. 26, 98).
4 Haller, pp. 74, 77.
6 W. Martens, Gregor VII., ii. 314, Leipzig, 1894; Mirbt, Quellen zur
Geschichte des Papsthums, p. 113, Tubingen, 1901.

THE POLITICAL ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 251
imperial insignia, and to depose emperors. Hugh of St.
Victor set forth the following doctrine which Boniface vm.
borrowed from him and inserted in the bull TJnam sanctam :
" It belongs to the spiritual power to establish the temporal
power in such a way as to give it existence, and to judge it
in case of misconduct." 1 St. Bernard taught this other
doctrine which was also afterwards made use of by Boniface
vni. : 2 " Two swords are at the disposal of St. Peter to be
drawn whenever he may need them, one when he asks for it,
the other in his own hand." The same idea is to be met
with in the expressions of John of Salisbury3 and of Robert
Grosseteste.4 Hostiensis says : " Even as the moon receives
the light of the sun, so the royal power derives its authority
from the sacerdotal power. And even as the sun illumines
the world by means of the moon when it cannot itself give
light, which happens at night, so the sacerdotal power
illumines the world through the royal power, when it cannot
itself give light, which happens when blood has to be
spilt." 6 All these authors express themselves with a certain
moderation. Gilles of Rome goes farther than his prede
cessors.6 If he is to be believed, the right of property itself
has its source in the papacy, and to be valid, every possession
must be authorized by the Church. A fortiori the papacy is
the fountain of all political power. He says : " All kings
hold their realms from the Church : it is the Church which
gives them the right to reign, and without the Church their
reign is unjust."
It need not be said that the theologians of this second
school alone had the sympathy and favour of Rome. They
represented the official theology. Until the end of the
fifteenth century the popes claimed the empire of the world,
1 De Sacramentis, il. 2, 4, Migne, clxxvi. 418.
2 Ep. 256, x ; see also De considerations, iv. 3.
3 Polycraticus , iv. 3, Migne, cxcix. 516.
4 Ep. 23, Luard, p. 91, London (1861).
5 Summa aurea, iv. 9, Lugduni, 1568 ; Commentaria, iii. 34, 8, 26,
Venice, 1581, iii. 128 give a text analogous to that of Hostiensis.
6 Jourdain, Un Ouvrage inidit de Gilles de Rome, p. 14, Paris, 1858 ; Finke,
Am den Tagen Bonifaz VIII., pp. 160-163, Miinster, 1903.

252 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
and whenever they could do so they adjusted their attitude
to conviction. In 1344, Clement VI., acting by virtue of his
apostolic authority, appointed Louis de la Cerda prince of the
Canary Islands, gave him the ownership and entire temporal
control over them, and as a sign of investiture placed a gold
crown on his head, on condition that the prince would pay an
annual tribute to the Roman Church. These islands were
inhabited by infidels. In 1454 Nicholas v. authorized the
Portuguese to subdue the infidels of the west coast of Africa.
In 1493, Alexander vi. published several bulls, according to the
terms of which America was made subject to the Spaniards.
In one of these bulls (inter ut. 3rd May) he says : " By the
authority of Almighty God, which has been committed to us
in the person of the blessed Peter, by virtue of our title as
Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, we give, grant, and attribute
to you and to your heirs and successors for all time, all the
islands, and all the continents already discovered or to be dis
covered (outside the limits of the imaginary line drawn one
hundred leagues west from the Azores, and of Cape de Verde),
with their dominions, cities, rights and dependencies. . . .M1
1 Raynald, 1493, 18 ; Pastor, iii. 518.

CHAPTER VIII
The Religious Advance of the Papacy
During the Middle Ages the popes continued to advance to
gain supreme authority. They continued the work of the
pontifical monarchy, an outline of which had been given by
Victor, Stephen, Damasius, Innocent, and Leo. They did
everything to subject the special churches to their laws.
This undertaking, sometimes favoured, sometimes opposed by
circumstances, was unfolded simultaneously in the Greek and
in the Latin world ; but with results so opposite that we
must divide our inquiry, and study successively the acts of
the papacy in the East and in the West.

In the East the situation, so far as Rome was concerned,
remained the same as was disclosed in a letter of Polycrates
to Victor, by the council of Antioch (a.d. 341), by the council
of Constantinople (381), and by the twenty-eighth canon of
Chalcedon. There was an old dispute, raised from time to
time, which well-meaning men sought to settle, but which
they could not suppress. It was an opposition of ideas,
which became an opposition of attitudes. Rome considered
that it was the source of authority ; the East placed the
supreme authority in the councils. Rome issued its orders :
the East refused to obey them. This, however, was not
always so. At times the East yielded, but its submission
when there was agreement, was dictated by considerations
which robbed the agreement of all its value. Moreover, the
agreement was merely temporary. The East could never

254 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
forget its federal idea of the Church. If it had any idea of
monarchical authority, it was only to arrogate this authority to
itself. Such was the situation. The following are the facts :
In 484, Pope Felix ra. deposed Acacius from Constanti
nople, who had insisted upon protecting the heretic Peter
Mongus. The sentence was as follows : " Know that thou
art dismissed from the priesthood, cut off from the Catholic
communion, and from the number of the faithful ; that thou
no longer hast a right to the name of priest, nor to perform
sacerdotal functions." And to justify this extreme measure,
the Pope cited the text, " Tu es Petrus," which he said im
posed upon him the duty of watching over the whole Church
in Christian countries.1 At this serious juncture, what was
the attitude of the people in the East, not of the decided
Monophysites who for a long time had anathematized Rome,
but of the orthodox, of those who were in agreement with
the council of Chalcedon, and had hitherto been loyal to the
papacy ? They affirmed that a general council alone had the
right to depose a prelate from his patriarchal see ; that
Felix in. had exceeded his powers, and that his sentence was
null and void.2 Acacius thus kept his see. The entire East
remained in communion with' him, and separated itself from
Rome, or rather accused Rome of separating itself from the
Catholic communion. The only effect of the measure taken by
Felix in. against Acacius was to divide the Church into two
parts, to create a schism between the East and the West.8
The schism lasted thirty-five years, during which Pope
Gelasius defended rudely and unnecessarily the Roman pre
tensions. In 519 the Roman emperor Justinian, having
witnessed the relations existing between the Gothic king
Theodoric and the papacy, saw in this alliance a danger which
he tried to avoid by gaining the sympathies of the apostolic
see. He therefore sent an embassy to pope Hormisdas,
1 Thiel, Epistolae romanorum pontificum, p. 246, Brunsberg, 1867 ; Corpus
of Vienne, xxxv. 159.
2 Gelase, Thiel, p. 893 ; Pagi critica ad annum 484, 4 ; Hefele, ii. 608.
3 F. Puller, The Primitive Saints and the See of Borne, pp. 387 - 414,
London, 1900.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 255
which was charged with the re-establishment of communion
between Rome and the East. Hormisdas understood that
the emperor was seeking the services of the papacy. He
made him pay for it. He consented to renew the bonds
which since 484 had been severed. But he imposed a con
dition. He required the signature of all the bishops to a
profession of faith which he had himself prepared. The
following are the principal passages of this formulary in which
the monarchical idea of the Church and the supreme authority
of the papacy are boldly proclaimed :
"The first condition of salvation is to preserve the
standard of true faith, and not to forsake the tradition of the
Fathers. The saying of Christ, ' Thou art Peter, and upon
this Rock will I build my Church,' cannot be annulled. These
words have been verified ; for the apostolic see has always
preserved untainted the Catholic religion. ... By following
in every respect the apostolic see, by teaching what it has
already established, we hope to abide with you in this sole
communion which the apostolic see proclaims, in which
verily is to be found all the power of the Christian religion." 1
The emperor ordered his bishops to sign the Roman
formulary. Disturbed by the imperial threats, the bishops
of Thrace signed, but without sincerity. Moreover, John,
bishop of Constantinople, prefaced his confession of faith with
a commentary which took away its value ; for in it he declared
that he himself at Constantinople occupied the chair of the
Apostle St. Peter.2 In opposition to this the bishops of
Pontus and of Asia refused to yield. They declared that
they were ready to submit to any penalty rather than to give
way to the requirements of Rome, and they were content to
sign the profession of faith of Chalcedon. It was the same
with the patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch. Egypt,
won by the Monophysites, did not sign at all.8
We have reached the time of Justinian. So long as this
emperor was not master of Rome, he paid the papacy great
1 Corpus of Vienne, xxxv. 520, 800.
2 Puller, p. 400 ; Corpus of Vienne, xxxv. 608.
9 Puller, pp. 401, 408, 421 ; Corpus of Vienne, 701, 703, 708, 728, 730.

256 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
deference, which he carried so far as to convey to Pope
Agapitus a copy of the formulary of Hormisdas, signed by
himself1 (16th March 536). After he held Rome in his
power (December 536) he was less obsequious ; and in 541
he reaffirmed the canon of Chalcedon which made the see of
Constantinople immediately after the apostolic see. Then, in
544, he condemned the Three Chapters and brought Pope
Vigilius to Constantinople (545) to subscribe to this con
demnation.2 Of these two measures, the first had no effect.
This was not the case with the second. On arriving at the
imperial city, Vigilius, after some resistance, submitted and
condemned the Three Chapters (Judicatum of 548). Soon
afterwards, alarmed by protests from the West, he made a
retraction (550 ; see particularly the constitution of 553), and
refused to take part in the council which had been convoked
by Justinian.3 The Eastern bishops informed him that, in
conformity to the will of the emperor, they would collectively
judge the Three Chapters. They begged him to take part
in their deliberations, and said : " If you do not wish to act
with us as judge, we will judge without you." 4 In fact,
they did without his assistance. They condemned the Three
Chapters, and to punish the Pope for his attitude they
excommunicated him.6 Acacius was avenged ; and the
vengeance was complete, for Vigilius apologized, acknowledged
that he had been uncharitable in separating himself from hit
brethren, and gave adherence to the condemnation which had
been pronounced against the Three Chapters by the council,
which thereafter had a place among the general councils.8
The capitulation of Vigilius restored peace. It was an
1 Corpus of Vienne, xxxv. 338 ; H. Grisar, Histoire de Borne et des popes au
moyen Age, i. 291, 377, Paris, 1906.
2 Hefele, ii. 799; Duchesne, "Vigile et Pelage," in Bevue des questions
historiques, xxxvi. 392 (1884).
3 Mansi, ix. 61, 104 ; Hefele, ii. 817, 832, 880 ; Duchesne, p. 401 ; Grisar.
ii. 132. 4 Mansi, ix. 194 ; Hefele, ii. 868.
B Mansi, ix. 366 ; Hefele, ii. 889 ; Duchesne, p. 420.
6 Letter to Eutychius, Mansi, ix. 413 ; Migne, lxix. 122, 143 ; Hefele, ii.
907, 908 ; also Mansi, ix. 457.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 257
imperfect peace, which was always being threatened. When
the defeat of the Goths put Rome under the sway of the
Eastern emperors, the patriarchs of Constantinople were not
content to take the second rank which the council of Chalcedon
had assigned to them. They wished to supplant the bishops
of Rome — of "ancient Rome," as was said at the imperial
court. They claimed the first place in the Church, and they
took it. Indeed, they bore the title of " oecumenical
patriarchs," that is, patriarchs of the universal Church.
Formerly, when the emperor of the West or the king of
the Goths was at their side, the popes for less weighty
motives issued excommunications, and made high claims to
the primacy of St. Peter. But at the end of the sixth
century, violent or even haughty measures were no longer
at their disposal ; they could only protest. St. Gregory, who
at this time occupied the apostolic throne, protested. He
denounced what he called the monstrous pride of the bishop
of Constantinople, John the Faster. He conjured the
patriarch of the East, and even the simple bishops, to resist.
To influence them more effectively he appealed to their
interests. He said to them: "If John is the universal
bishop he is the only bishop in the Church, and you who
believe that you have the episcopal dignity are simply
priests." He stimulated the ambition of the patriarchs by
a special consideration. He said to them: "Like myself,
you who are at Alexandria and at Antioch are successors of
Peter, seeing that Peter before coming to Rome held the see
of Antioch, and sent Mark his spiritual son to Alexandria.
So, do not permit the see of Constantinople to eclipse your
sees which are the sees of Peter " ; in a word, he made a
disturbance. It was useless, however ; for the bishops and the
patriarchs themselves remained indifferent to these appeals
to their self-interest. He went no farther ; he did not pro
nounce an excommunication; he hardly made use of the
Tu es Petrus. John the Faster kept the title of oecumenical
patriarch ; his successors, except under the emperor Phocas,
did the same, and the papacy swallowed the affront.1
' Jaffe, 1354, 1357, 1360, 1451, 1474, 1476, 1477, 1483, 1518, 1683, 1908.
17

258 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
In the field of theology the papacy had its revenge. In
619, Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople, worked most
diligently to spread the Monothelite heresy. This propaganda
had a pacific object. Sergius wished to rally around his symbol,
both Catholics and Monophysites, the partizans and the enemies
of Chalcedon. Experience showed that his views were right :
the results were satisfactory. The emperor Heraclius supported
him and (634) Honorius addressed his congratulations to him.1
Thus Monothelism seemed destined to be an agent of pacifica
tion ; in reality it was a cause of discord. It provoked a new
disagreement between Rome and Constantinople. It was a
bitter conflict, in which the two adversaries exchanged for
midable blows. Rome began the hostilities, thinking it could
brave with impunity the emperor, who was harassed by the
Arabs. It did brave him. John IV. had hardly ascended the
pontifical throne when he condemned Monothelism2 (at the
beginning of the year 641), and after some vicissitudes which
are noticed elsewhere, Rome, aided by fortunate circumstances,
came honourably out of a war which it had itself provoked.
Nevertheless it was obliged to sacrifice Pope Honorius.
The Eastern Church had its revenge twelve years later in
the council of Trullo (692). There the law of the Latin
Church, with respect to the celibacy of the clergy, was con
demned in these terms : " As for us who observe the apostolic
canons, we permit them (priests and deacons) to continue to
live a married life. Whoever may dissolve such unions will
be deposed." Another law which was in force at Rome and
had reference to the Saturday fast, was proscribed under
penalty of deposition on the clergy and of excommunication
on the laity. This was not all. Under pretence of renewing
the provisions of the second and of the fourth council, it
was decreed that the see of Constantinople should enjoy " the
same privileges as the see of ancient Rome." The protest
of St. Cyprian against those who made themselves bishops of
bishops acquired the force of a canon.8 The meaning was
1 Mansi, xi. 537 ; Jaffe, 2018 ; Hefele, iii. 147.
* Jaffe, 2040, 2042 ; Hefele, iii. 183.
» Canons 2, 13, 30, 36, 55 ; Hefele, iii. 329.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 259
this : that the Roman discipline differed in several respects
from the apostolic tradition; and the arbitrary authority of
Rome was as unlawful as it was unpleasant. Of course,
Rome did not accept the lesson which it had received from
the East. Pope Sergius contemptuously rejected the acts of
the council of Trullo. The emperor Justinian II. wished to
resort to force ; but the days of Vigilius and of Martin I.
were past. Some years afterwards a compromise was
effected. The papacy accepted the decisions of the said
council, which were in agreement with its own discipline, and
it rejected the others.1
In the iconoclastic dispute we find a council of three
hundred and eighteen Eastern bishops approving the war on
images which was being waged by the emperor, and they
made a dogma of a doctrine which had been condemned by
Rome (753). Yet it is true that the Greek like the Latin
Church was a victim of the brutalities of Leo the Isaurian
and of Constantine Copronymus. Therefore, the rivalry be
tween the East and the West was less manifest in the icono
clastic council of 753 than in the general council of 787
(second council of Nicsea),2 convoked by the empress Irene
at the instance of Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople.
This was at the request of the Sicilian bishops, and with the
consent of all the other bishops. Tarasius made the opening
speech and directed the debates. Thus the Roman legates
were forced back into the second rank until the time of
signing arrived. Then they succeeded in passing to the
first rank. And here is another incident which is not less
significant.3 The empress Irene summoned the Pope to the
council and, in her letter, called Tarasius "universal patri
arch." Adrian complained of that title : " If Tarasius is
universal patriarch," said he, " he is primate of the Church,
and it is evident to every Christian that this is a ridiculous
pretension." Tarasius, who presided, did not wish this
complaint to come to the knowledge of the council. He
had the pontifical letter publicly read, it is true, and also
1 Hefele, iii. 346. 2 Id., ib. 458.
• Mansi, xi. 1055, 1073 ; Jaffe, 2448 ; Hefele, iii. 448.

260 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
the letters of other patriarchs, but that passage was sup
pressed. To make up for this, he praised, in the council,
the doctrine of the Pope, and admitted that it was thoroughly
orthodox. On the whole he was inspired by the council of
Trullo, which put on an equal footing the sees of Rome and
Constantinople. He treated Adrian I. as a colleague.
Photius was prominent in the second half of the following
century. From 857 to 867, Photius, being raised by the
emperor Michael to the see of Constantinople, made a vain
effort to secure from Pope Nicholas I. the recognition of his
election. It was an unlawful election inasmuch as Ignatius,
whom he succeeded, had been unjustly deposed. From 867
to 877 he was deprived of his title, confined in a monastery
by the emperor Basil, and was deposed and anathematized by
the council of Constantinople (869). Ignatius, on the
contrary, was restored to his functions, which he performed
until his death. From 877 to 886, Photius again occupied
the see of Constantinople, thanks to the emperor Basil, whose
sympathies he knew how to gain. He was recognized as
legitimate patriarch by John viii. (879), and, during the
pontificate of this Pope, remained on good terms with Rome ;
but he was anathematized by Marinus I. (883), and by
Stephen v. (885). At length (886) he was deposed by the
emperor Leo the Wise, and spent the remainder of his life in
a monastery. In the first period of this troubled career,
Photius wrote a very severe accusation against the papacy
and against the Latin Church. Furthermore, he summoned
a council for the purpose of deposing Pope Nicholas (867).
The accusation was a personal act, however, and affected no
one but himself. The council, as representing the mind of
the East, probably had some importance ; but we have little
information as to the composition and decisions of that
assembly.1 We need, therefore, barely notice it. It is enough
to remark that Nicholas, with great emphasis, proclaimed the
primacy of the apostolic see. He did not fear to speak as
master to the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
In his letters to the emperor Michael, he decided that the
1 Hefele, iv. 353, 356.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 261
bishop of Rome had jurisdiction over the whole Church, a
jurisdiction which he held as a privilege from Christ, and
not from councils, and that councils derived their authority
from the Roman pontiff.1
The second period, from 867 to 877, from the point of
view which interests us, includes some events far more
important which were connected with the oecumenical council
of 869. The legates sent to this assembly by Adrian n.
were demonstratively welcomed by the emperor Basil. They
began by presenting a formula of faith (libellus satisfactionis)
almost identical with that of Hormisdas, and they insisted
that this should be signed by all those who had taken part in
the rebellion of Photius.2 The emperor obeyed them ; he
ordered all the supporters of Photius to sign the Roman
formula. But, as a matter of fact, he was annoyed by the
requirement of Rome. In his eyes the signatures were
trophies won from the Greek Church. He directed his
officials to hide them from the legates. The latter protested.
The emperor restored the signatures. The legates then took
their departure with the tokens of their triumph. But they
were obliged to make part of their journey without an escort,
and were half overwhelmed by brigands. No doubt the
emperor thought that the brigands were rather blundering
to let their prey escape.
Let us return to the council. Following the example of
the emperor, the bishops — that is to say, the good bishops
who were friendly to Ignatius — treated the legates most
obsequiously. But they exacted payment for these marks of
deference. The Eastern patriarchs, as Hefele admits, behaved
as if they were the peers of the Pope, put themselves into
rivalry with the Roman envoys, and with them took part in
presiding over the council,3 and thus were placed under control
of the emperor, who, during the sessions at which he was
present, directed the debates. The legates of the Pope had
brought from Rome a list of canons which they counted on
having accepted by the council. The men of the East, indeed,
1 Jaffe, 2690, 2796.
3 Mansi, xvi. 27 ; Hefele, iv. 390, 427, 433. « Hefele, i. 31.

262 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
agreed to that list, but inserted some new canons which, at
the expense of Rome, favoured the authority of the patriarchs
and metropolitans1 (canons 17, 21, 26). For the papacy
it was a grievous sacrifice, and it was not the only one.
Directly after the last sitting of the council, the Eastern
patriarchs decided that Bulgaria should be detached from the
Roman patriarchate and be joined to the patriarchate of
Constantinople.2 Rome protested and formulated its com
plaints. From complaints it proceeded to threats. But all
was useless. Ignatius kept the Bulgarians within his jurisdic
tion. Reluctantly John vin. resolved to depose the obstinate
patriarch; but when his legates reached Constantinople,
Ignatius was dead (878), and Photius had taken his place
on the patriarchal throne.
That which dominated the third period (877-886) was
the council of Constantinople (879), in which Photius broke
the oecumenical council of 869, condemned the conduct
of the popes Nicholas I. and Adrian IL, repudiated the
Filioque, and claimed pre-eminence in the whole Church.8
And what is particularly worthy of attention in this council
is not so much the attitude of Photius, as the number of his
supporters. Nearly four hundred bishops were present in this
assembly, and all the oriental patriarchs were represented
there. It was in truth the Eastern Church which, by the
mouth of Photius, corrected the Roman Church and assumed
the supremacy. And what did the papacy do ? In the
person of John vra. the papacy made a bargain with Photius
It consented to recognize him as patriarch, provided that he
would condemn his own past behaviour, and give up extending
his jurisdiction over the Bulgarians.4 Afterwards, perceiving
that it had been deceived by Photius, the papacy in the
person of Marinus I. pronounced a sentence, deposing its
powerful enemy, who, however, paid no attention to it.
1 Hergenrbther, Photius, ii. 68, Ratisbon, 1867 ; M. Jugie in Did. de thiol.
cath. iii. 1284, 1287.
2 Mansi. xvi. 11 ; Hefele, iv. 429 ; Jaffe, 2943, 2944, 2962, 2996, 2999 ;
Lap6tre, Le Pape Jean VIII., pp. 59, 61, Paris, 1895.
3 Hefele, iv. 464 ; see also p. 478.
* Id,, ib. 458 ; Lap6tre, pp. 62-69.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 263
Neither did the Eastern Church pay any attention to it (883).
The rupture with Rome did not move it, and nothing was done
to resume the relations which were interrupted by Marinus, and
subsequently by Stephen v. The schism, however, lasted only
three years. In 886 union was re-established. But the first
step towards achieving reconciliation was taken by the emperor
Louis the Wise ; and he was influenced by purely political
motives. He sacrificed Photius, because he saw in this in
triguing patriarch a dangerous conspirator; and he then
turned to Rome because he had need of it, in order to commit
unhindered his deeds of violence.1
Leo the Wise resorted to the good services of Rome.
Other emperors after him thought that they might do the
same. In 934, Romanus Lecapenius wished to give the
patriarchal see of Constantinople to his son Theophylactus,2
who was still a youth. To put an end to the protests to
which this plan gave rise, he asked of Pope John XL, legates,
who were granted to him, and who came to Constantinople
to bear witness to the adherence of the papacy to the
election of the young Theophylactus. A century later 3
(1024) the emperor Basil asked John xix., in exchange
for ready money, to recognize the bishop of Constantinople
as "universal" patriarch, and to deliver to him the entire
East. John xix. was inclined to make this bargain, but was
prevented by the monks, especially by William of Dijon,
who sounded a note of warning, and reminded the Pope
that the rights of St. Peter were inalienable. John xi. and
John xix. asked only to live at peace with their colleagues of
Constantinople. The latter were not always so inclined to
peace. In 995 the patriarch Sisinnius constituted himself
the defender of the memory of Photius. His successor,
Sergius (999), carried his attachment to Photius so far as to
efface the Pope's name from the diptychs.4 Rome did not
1 Hefele, iv. 486.
2 Luitprand (Pertz, p. 361) ; Brehier, Le Schisms oriental du xi"" siicle,
p. 4, Paris, 1899.
8 Raonl Glaber, Histor. iv. 1 ; Migne, cxlii. 670, cxli. 1155 ; Brehier, pp.
8, 10. 4 Brehier, p. 5.

264 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
reply to these warlike prelates. In 1053 there was a fresh
attack, in the form of a letter written by the patriarch
Michael Cerularius, in collaboration with Leo, archbishop of
Achrida in Bulgaria, and addressed to a bishop in Apulia.1
Pope Leo ix. replied at once. Soon after he secured relief ; for
in the beginning of the year 1054 the emperor Constantine
Monomachus, who relied on the influence of Rome to obtain
help from the German emperor against the Normans, wrote
bhe Pope a conciliatory letter. Leo IX. responded with an
affectionate epistle which was brought by three legates. This
embassy caused an incident.2 Humbert, the chief of the
legates, being displeased at the attitude of Michael Cerularius,
solemnly excommunicated him, and then left Constantinople.
The sentence pronounced by Humbert envenomed a situation
which already was far from being satisfactory. Yet no one,
sither at Rome or at Constantinople, was disquieted. So many
conflicts had come and gone. But as years went by it was
remarked that the rupture was prolonged. Without knowing
it, Humbert had separated the East from the West for ever.
II
Let us now pass to the West and examine one after the
other the churches of Africa, Italy, Great Britain, and Gaul,
which was about to become France, and from which Germany
and Spain were detached in the tenth century.
The Church of Africa, which in great part had been
destroyed by the Vandals, was re-established in 533, in conse
quence of the victories of Belisarius. It had hardly been
restored when it had a violent conflict with the papacy. This
brought on the affair of the Three Chapters. The publication
of the Judicatum was the signal for revolt.3 Assembled at
Carthage under the presidency of the primate Reparatus, the
bishop of Africa observed that Pope Vigilius had violated the
decisions of the council of Chalcedon : he was therefore ex-
1 Delarc, Saint Grigoire VII. et la riforme de VEglise au xi™ siecle, i.
886-361, Paris, 1889 ; Hefele, iv. 776 ; Brehier, p. 97.
2 Brehier, p. 113 ; Hefele, iv. 776. 3 Hefele, ii. 831, 835.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 265
communicated. But Justinian came to the Pope's assistance,
as in this affair the Pope was merely the executor of the
emperor's will. By the emperor's orders the African bishops
were imprisoned, mercilessly beaten, and exiled. These pro
ceedings, in addition to some rewards bestowed for good
intentions which had been duly remarked, wrought miracles of
conversion. Nearly all the bishops, some sooner than others,
capitulated. In 560, the Church of Africa condemned the
Three Chapters, gave adherence to the fifth council, and was
united to Rome.
It was united to Rome ; but the bonds which attached it
were loose. St. Gregory the pope drew them tighter (590—
604). Over those charged with the administration of Byzantine
Africa, of Southern Italy, and of the islands, Gregory gained
a considerable ascendancy, which was due partly to the immense
wealth in land of the apostolic see, partly to his noble origin
and to the important functions which were committed to him
before he rose to the chair of St. Peter.1 The imperial
officials with but few exceptions were his officials. He
directed their actions, and through them directed the actions
of the clergy. The bishops, under the eye of these officials,
who called them to order when it was necessary, obeyed the
Pope. It was a forced obedience which, however, gradually
reacted on their opinions. At the end of forty years the
Church of Africa had a Roman temper, and when the
Monothelite heresy arose, this Church took the part of Rome
against Constantinople 2 (African councils of 646). It then
disappeared, overwhelmed by the Arab invasion.
The storm raised against the papacy by the affair of the
Three Chapters was not confined to Africa. It spread to
Italy. There also it was thought that Vigilius was guilty of
treason to the council of Chalcedon ; it was judged that
Pelagius I., his successor, had committed the same offence, and
out of respect to Chalcedon, the people separated themselves
from the popes. There were three chief centres of opposition
— Rome, Milan, and Aquileia. When Pelagius arrived at
1 Diehl, L'Afrique byzantine, p. 609, Paris, 1896.
2 Mansi, x. 919 ; Hefele, iii. 205 ; Diehl, p. 549.

266 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Rome, he was received as a renegade. Everybody kept
aloof from him. Clergy, monks, laymen, all classes of
Christian society rejected him. Only Narses, the Byzantine
general, and the other imperial officers were devoted to him.
Poor Pelagius was reduced to pleading his own cause before
the people, to proclaiming his orthodoxy, and also his
innocence, for he was accused of having contributed to the
death of Vigilius. He made his plea in the church of St.
Peter before the assembled faithful, and swore upon the Cross
and upon the gospel that he had done his predecessor no
harm. He solemnly affirmed his respect for the faith of
Pope Leo, for the faith of Chalcedon : only he forgot to re
concile this respect with his adherence to the council of 553,
known as the fifth council. In a word, he flatly contra
dicted the accusation of homicide, and made an equivocal
profession of faith. Thanks to this pleading and also to the
protection of Narses, Pelagius maintained himself upon the
apostolic throne.1
The opposition was longer and more violent in the province
of Milan, and especially in the province of Aquileia, where
(555) a council, presided over by the metropolitan Paulinus,
condemned the fifth council.2 Pelagius attempted to convince
the rebels of his orthodoxy by sending them his profession of
faith, but he failed. He then changed his method. He
begged the Byzantine officials, especially Narses, to employ
their soldiers for the conversion of sinners. Narses was
anxious to please the Pope, but was even more anxious not
to make himself odious to those whom he governed. He did
not obey, or he obeyed only feebly. In any case, he
achieved no result, and, when Pelagius died (560), the
schismatics were stronger than ever. Thirty years later
they were still dominant in the province of Milan, where
they were supported by Queen Theodelinda. Pope Gregory
wrote adroit letters to them and to the queen.3 Renewing
1 Liber Pontificalis, Pelagius, i. 109 ; Mansi, ix. 717 ; Migne, Ixix. 399 ;
Jaffe, 938 ; Hefele, ii. 911; Duchesne, "Vigile et Pelage," in Rev. des quest.
hist., xxxvi. 428 (1884).
2 Hefele, ii. 914. ' Jaffe, 1273-1275, 1308, 1309.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 267
the tactics of Pelagius, he affirmed his respect for Chalcedon,
but avoided explaining how this respect was consistent with
adherence to the fifth council ; in other words, he employed
equivocation. His efforts were not in vain. He had the
consolation of seeing the province of Milan enter once more
into communion with the apostolic see. In the province
of Aquileia he was less fortunate.1 There the schism was
being tried by persecution. In fact, about 585, Pelagius II.
appealed to the secular arm, which, by the authority of
the exarch Smaragde, imprisoned the bishops who were
hostile to Rome. Gregory followed the way marked out by
his predecessor. He, too, asked the assistance of the secular
arm. Urged by the emperor to leave the schismatics in
peace, he returned to the charge, and finally made the
exarchs act according to his inclination and desires. But he
attained only partial success. The schism of Aquileia did
not disappear until the eighth century.
In the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical province of Rome,
the popes, as we have abundantly shown, with the ex
ception of Pelagius, for a long time enjoyed peace. They
consecrated the bishops in their jurisdiction as metropolitans
— " their " bishops, as was said at the time — and made them
take an oath of fidelity, convoked them to the Roman
councils, imposed rules, and, in a word, were masters of the
province of Rome. About 660, this peace was troubled by
Maurus, the archbishop of Ravenna, who, although a metro
politan, was a suffragan of the Pope. Maurus declared his
independence of the apostolic see, and excommunicated Pope
Vitalian, who had issued an order deposing him. The schism
lasted so long as it had the support of Constantinople ; but in
683 it lost this support. The bishops of Ravenna were then
constrained to place themselves once more under the Roman
yoke. In 708, however, Bishop Felix sought to recover his
independence, but by order of Justinian n. he was at once
sent into exile, and his eyes were put out. These arguments
enlightened him. Confessing his faults, he made an act of sub
mission to Pope Constantine, who restored him to his see (713).
1 Mansi, x. 463 ; Grisar, ii. 245 ; Hefele, ii. 923.

268 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
From the time of Charlemagne, the bishoprics of Italy
were incorporated in the Church of the Franks, and then in
the German Church. We shall revert to this hereafter.
Let us pass to Great Britain.
Great Britain presents two distinct churches to our
notice, the Anglo-Saxon Church, founded by St. Augustine of
Canterbury, and the Celtic Church, anterior to St. Augustine.
The Anglo-Saxon Church — we shall call it the Church of
England — had from its very origin a strongly accentuated
Roman imprint. The monk Augustine received his mission
from Pope Gregory, and was merely his lieutenant. Gregory
traced for him his line of conduct, gave him his orders, and
sent him the pallium, an honour which constituted Augustine
vicar of the apostolic see. For six centuries — that is
exactly to the time of Innocent in. — the Church of England
conserved faithfully the Roman spirit with which the monk
Augustine had inspired it. It even developed this spirit.
Its Roman sympathies expanded in a devotion to St. Peter,
and to his vicar the Pope. This devotion, the apostle of
which was Wilfrid, monk of Ripon and bishop of York (634-
705), created later the denarius of St. Peter. It inspired
pilgrimages to the tomb of St. Peter. Out of love to him
who has the keys of heaven, they went to pray before his
remains. Wilfrid, accompanied by his friend Benedict
Biscop, betook himself to Rome (about 653). Following him,
several Anglo-Saxon kings, Ceadwalla (689), Offa (709),
Coenred (709), Ina (726), went to pray at the tomb of St.
Peter. The example set by these royal pilgrims was con
tagious. Multitudes from England took the journey to
Rome. Even women did not shrink from the journey, in the
course of which — as we learn from a letter from St. Boniface
to Cuthbert — their virtue suffered lamentable shipwreck1
The bishops followed the general tendency. They went
to ask the vicar of St. Peter to relieve their doubts and to
defend their rights. In 610, Mellitus, bishop of London,
appeared before Boniface iv. and consulted him concerning
1 Letter to Cuthbert, M. G., Epist. iii. 354, 355.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 269
the ecclesiastical affairs of England.1 Mellitus, it is true, was
one of the companions of St. Augustine, and had b(een a
Roman monk. But the Anglo-Saxon bishops also had their
eyes turned towards the apostolic see. In 679, Wilfrid,
whose rights had been infringed upon by Theodore of Canter
bury, went to Rome and pleaded his cause before Pope
Agathon, who did him justice.2 At first Theodore refused to
acknowledge his faults ; but, tormented by remorse, he finally
asked forgiveness "of God and of St. Peter" (685).8 Wilfrid
obtained satisfaction. Once more despoiled by Britwald,
the successor of Theodore (council of Nesterfield, 702),
Wilfrid again went to Rome, and had justice done him by
John VI. (704). Britwald yielded to the Roman sentence.
In 787, Roman legates convoked and presided over two
English councils at which they had certain disciplinary rules
accepted which were inspired by Rome.4 In 1071 the
archbishop of York disputed the primacy of the archbishop
of Canterbury, and submitted the litigation to Pope
Alexander n., who left the decision of the matter to an
English council. This council was held at Winchester
(1072), and it decided in favour of the archbishop of Canter
bury, Lanfranc, who asked Hildebrand to have the judgment
ratified by Alexander n.5 A century later (1164), when the
quarrel about " ecclesiastical liberties " broke out between
Thomas of Canterbury and King Henry il, supported by the
English bishops, each of the two opposing parties made efforts
to win the Pope. Thomas went to Sens, where Alexander in.
was at that time staying ; he offered his resignation to the
sovereign pontiff who, so far from taking him at his word,
confirmed him in his charge (1164), and a little later even
appointed him legate of the Holy See for England, with
power to pronounce sentences of excommunication and of
interdict. On their side the bishops, who took the part of
the king, denounced Thomas of Canterbury to the Pope as a
traitor and perjurer. And when Thomas, making use of his
1 Bede, Hist. Ang. ii. 4 ; Mansi, x. 503 ; Hefele, iii. 64.
2 Mansi, xi. 184 ; Hefele, iii. 119. 8 Eddius, Vita Wilfridi, 41.
4 Mansi, xii. 937 ; Hefele, iii. 638. » Mansi, xx. 19 ; Hefele, iv. 890.

270 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
powers as legate, sought to employ excommunication, the
bishops appealed from his sentence to the Holy See (1166).
It need not be said that the king displayed the same eager
ness to gain the sympathy of Alexander in.1
Yet at times there was tension between Rome and Canter
bury. Gregory vn., finding that Lanfranc was not sufficiently
obsequious, wrote him severe letters, and even threatened to
suspend him.2 In the century following, Thomas of Canter
bury found himself temporarily abandoned by the Pope, who
had at first supported him. He then uttered bitter com
plaints against Rome 3 : " I do not know how it always
happens at the court of Rome that Barabbas is delivered and
Jesus Christ put to death. ... I do not wish further to
weary the court of Rome. Let those go thither who return
triumphant in justice. May it please God that the journey
to Rome may not cause so many unhappy innocents to perish."
But these conflicts were rare, and had no sequel. The
archbishops of Canterbury and of York considered themselves
vicars of the apostolic see. They acknowledged that it was
from the popes that they derived their powers, symbolized
by the pallium, which they asked, which they often went to
seek at Rome.
Until the end of the twelfth century the relations
between the English episcopate and the papacy were generally
friendly. After the time of Innocent in. the situation
changed. The popes then undertook to administer the
Church of England themselves, or by their legates ; then,
going still further, they claimed a right of proprietorship in
it ; they wished to appropriate its wealth. The bishops
protested. They defended their authority, they defended
their purse. Rome took severe measures, or threatened to
take them. Such is the spectacle which is offered in the
thirteenth century. At the Lateran council of 1215, Stephen
Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, who tried to resist the
arbitrary supremacy of Rome, was suspended by Innocent III.
Under Gregory IX (1232) certain bishops took part in an
1 Hefele, v. 634, 635, 638, 659, 662. 2 Jaffe, 5228.
3 Epist. 31 (to the priest Albert), Migne, cxc. 492.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 'All
Undertaking tending to cause an English uprising against the
Roman government.1 Under Innocent iv. (1246) the bishops
and monks associated themselves with parliament in ex
pressing to the Pope the indignation of the English people at
the abuses of the pontifical government.2 In 1253 the
famous Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln, rejected a ponti
fical ordinance as being injurious to the safety of souls. On
various occasions this prelate bitterly complained of the
papacy, and did not fear to compare it to Antichrist.8 In
1258, Sewall, archbishop of York, who wished to prevent
the Pope from disorganizing the Church, was solemnly
excommunicated by Alexander rv. When at the point
of death, the unhappy prelate made the following prayer:
"Lord Jesus, thou knowest how the Pope hath maltreated
me for being unwilling to commit the government of the
churches which thou hast confided to me, to persons who are
unworthy and who are ignorant of the English language.
Nevertheless, for fear that the sentence, all unjust as it is,
may become just through the contempt with which I would
treat it, I humbly ask absolution. But I refer the Pope to
thy incorruptible judgment, and I call heaven and earth to
witness that he has unjustly persecuted me."4
From the fourteenth century the struggle to protect the
Church of England against Rome was more ardent than ever :
but it was led by parliament, and the clergy seemed to take
no interest in it. Yet this indifference was only apparent.
Little by little the bishops — from 1365 — associated them
selves with the movement of the nation and followed the
king, who himself followed parliament. Thus the Church
of England became more like a national church, the head of
which was the king.6 This head indeed preserved good
1 Matth. Paris, Chronica majora, 1232 ; Luard, iii. 217, 218.
2 Matth. Piris, 1246 ; Luard, iv. 527, 529, and 440. See Haller, Papsttum
und Kirchenreform, Berlin, 1903, p. 392, note 5.
3 Matth. Paris, 1253, v. 389-392. See also Letters of R. Grosseteste (Luard),
Ep. 128, p. 432.
4 Matth. Paris, 1258, v. 692.
' Raynald, Annates Eccles., 1426, 19. In 1426, Pope Martin v. wrote to
the English: "Christus dixit Petro suisque successoribus : pasce oves meas.

272 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
relations with Rome, and through him the English clergy
remained united to the apostolic see. But one day the
Crown in the person of Henry viii. became embroiled with the
papacy in the person of Clement vn. Then that happened
which was bound to happen. All the English, save Fisher,
Thomas More, and certain monks, followed the king, and
signed the Act of Supremacy which ratified the revolt of
Henry vra. (1535). The Church of England was separated
from Rome.1
At the beginning of the seventh century the Celtic
Church — let us say rather the Celtic churches, for there were
more than one — were represented by St. Columban (died
615). It is this great Irish monk who is first to be con
sidered. Columban was content to apply the" most honorary titles
to the Pope.2 In his letter to St. Gregory he calls the
sovereign pontiff " the noblest ornament of the Church, the
very august flower of degenerate Europe, the eminent
guardian, the teacher of the divine doctrine of chastity."
According to the same writer, Boniface iv. is " the head of
all the churches of Europe, the very benign Pope, the supreme
pontiff, the pastor of pastors, the venerable sentinel, the
loftiest and the greatest."
Columban bore witness, therefore, to his submission to
the apostolic see, and to his respect for it. But this sub
mission and respect were limited. He believed that Rome
sometimes wandered from the way, that it was not always on
its guard against error, that Pope Victor formerly uttered
erroneous ideas on the subject of Easter, that still later Pope
Vigilius betrayed the faith on the question of the Three
Chapters. Finally, Columban declared that Rome was still
Statutum autem regni pascere ipsas non sinit sed vult ut rex ipse pascat."
Thomas More put the council above the Pope. See his letter to Cromwell in
Works, p. 1426, or, better still, E. Bridgett, Life and Writings of Sir Thomas
More, p. 343, London, 1891.
1 Pastor, v. 678, 679.
2 Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen, i. 430,
Paderborn, 1899.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 273
in error on the subject of Easter ; and the proof, or rather
one proof among several, was that it adhered to a calculation
condemned by St. Jerome. Moreover, it supported the heresy
introduced by Vigilius. Now, if Rome is deceived, what
should the faithful do ? They should seek to enlighten
Rome. If they cannot succeed, they should resist Rome, and
if need be break with it. Let us hear Columban himself.1
" At another time Bishop Victor said that (that we should
not celebrate Easter with the Jews), but no one in the East
has adopted this opinion . . , which was utterly frivolous
and foolish ... act in such a way [it is Pope Gregory who
is addressed] that there be no divergence between your decision
and that of Jerome. . . . Indeed I confess to you in all
simplicity that he who sets himself against the authority of
St. Jerome is regarded by the churches of the West as a
heretic from whom we should separate ourselves."
And here is what he wrote to Boniface iv.2 :
" If you wish to preserve your apostolic rank, keep the
apostolic faith ; defend it by word, by writing, by decisions of
councils. Then no one will have the right to resist you. . . .
It would be a lamentable spectacle to see the Catholic faith
abandoned by the apostolic see. . . . The nobility of your
throne is great, but take great heed to avoid the evil which
would cause you to perish. You will keep your power only
so long as you keep the truth. He is the true porter of the
kingdom of heaven who by true doctrine opens heaven to the
worthy, and closes it to the unworthy . . . you claim. I know
not what proud privilege of authority and of power in divine
things [because of the power received from Peter]. But if
you cherish this thought of domination, your power will be
diminished in the sight of God."
Columban recognized the right of Christians, under certain
conditions, to resist the injunctions of Rome. The Celtic
Church of Great Britain shared this opinion and gave plain
evidence of it.8 About 602, Augustine, taking advantage of
the high jurisdiction given him by Pope Gregory, called upon
1 Ep. i. 2 and 3 ; M. G., Epist. iii. 157, 158.
» Ep. v. 3, p. 171. s Bede, ii. 2.
18

274 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
the British clergy to discontinue their peculiar practices — ¦
relative to the date of Easter, the baptismal liturgy, the form
of the tonsure — and to adopt the Roman discipline. His
undertaking failed. The British clergy clung obstinately to
their practices, refused to recognize the authority of Augustine,
and broke with Rome. They suffered the treatment which
was then inflicted on schismatics. A canon of the Penitential
of Theodore x gave the order to regard as null ordinations
made by British bishops, and to perform them anew, and even
to repeat baptisms administered by the British clergy. A
Roman decision which has come down to us in the collection
Hibernensis, declares that the Britons have severed themselves
" from the unity of the Catholic Church." Consequently it
denies them any judicial authority, and places them midway
between Jews and heretics.2 The Britons, for their part, did
not conceal their antipathy to Rome. This is what was said
(about 705) by Aldhelm, bishop of Shereborn:
" The British have such a horror of being in communion
with the Romans that they refuse to pray with them in the
churches and to sit with them at the same table. That
which the Romans leave of their food is thrown to the dogs
and swine ; the dishes and bottles which they have used are
buried or are purified with fire. The Britons do not return
either their salutations or their kisses." 8
This state of things could not last indefinitely. In 664,
after the conference of Whitby, King Oswy, convinced by the
arguments of Wilfrid, established the Roman discipline in
the kingdom of Northumbria.4 This was a heavy blow to
the Celtic Church of Great Britain, which was thereafter
driven back among the Scots, the Welsh, and the inhabitants
of Cornwall. But even these regions afforded them only
1 Pcenitentiale Theodori, ii. 9 ; H. Sohmitz, Die Bussbiicher, p. 644, May-
ence, 1883 ; id., torn. ii. p. 574, Diisseldorf, 1898.
2 H. Wasserschleben, Die irische Kanonensammlung, p. 61 (xxi, 6)
"... sive ad Judaeos . . . aut ad Britones qui . . . ab unitate Ecelesiae se
abscidunt aut (ad) hereticos."
3 Migne, lxxxix. 90.
4 Eddius, Vita Wilfridi, 10 ; Mabillon, Acta, iv. 681 ; Mansi, xi. 67 j
Bede, iii. 25 ; G. Stokes, Ireland and the Celtic Church, p. 162, London, 1907.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 275
temporary shelter. The Church slowly but surely retreated.
At the end of the eighth century the whole of England was
open to the influence of Rome.1 At this time Ireland con
sented to be romanized. Yet some traces of the Celtic spirit
still remained. In Scotland they disappeared owing to the
care exercised by Margaret (second half of the eleventh
century) ; in Wales and Cornwall, following the Norman Con
quest (end of the eleventh century) ; 2 in Ireland, under the
influence of the Danish conquerors, particularly Gillebert of
Limerick, the Dane, the first legate to the Irish from the Holy
See (beginning of the twelfth century).
Another Celtic Church, that of Armorican Britain, a result
of the British and Irish emigration of the fifth century, from
the beginning assumed an attitude independent of the metro
politan of Tours, with whom it was connected. Moreover, for
a long time it kept in force the practices which were in vogue
in the churches of the insular Celts. This particularism was
destroyed by the Frankish Conquest. It was destroyed for ever.
Nominoe", it is true, established the metropolitan of Dol,3 and
this establishment continued until the time of Innocent in.4
But the archbishops of Dol sought the pallium at Rome, and
endeavoured to have their situation regularized by the papacy.
The ephemeral Church, founded by Nominoe, although it
1 Hefele, iii. 638, councils presided over by the Roman legates. See
above. 2 "Vita Margaritae," 8, in Hadden and Stubbs' Councils and Ecclesiastical
Documents, ii. 156, Oxford, 1869.
3 This was the work of council of Coetlou of 849. (On this council see the
note of Leclercq, Histoire des conciles, iv. 1371.) Pope Nicholas in his letter tc
Salomon (Migne, cxix. 808) says : " The archbishop of Tours is thy metropolitan,
and all the bishops of thy kingdom are his suffragans . . . my predecessors
have severely reproached their predecessors for what the latter took away
[the Briton bishops] from the care of the archbishop of Tours." After this
testimony the British episcopate was removed from the jurisdiction of the
archbishop of Tours, by the predecessors of Salomon (therefore by Nominoe
and Erispoe). Nevertheless, Festien, whose episcopate began eleven years after
the council of Coetlou, was the first to ask for the pallium, and therefore to
act as archbishop. (See F. Lot, "Festien archeveque de Dol," in the Annates
de Bretagne, xxii. 10-28, 1907.)
4 Dom Maurice, Memoires pour servir de preuves a Vhistoire ecclesiastique
et civile de Bretagne, i. 759, Paris, 1742.

276 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
was practically not very docile, was theoretically submissive
to the pontifical jurisdiction.
The Frankish Church — Gallic until the time of Clovis
(496) — went through several periods marked by Boniface,
Pope Nicholas i., the first crusade, the Great Schism, and the
concordat of Francis i.
Christian Gaul, although respectful to the Holy See was
not obedient to Rome until the middle of the fifth century.
From the time of Pope Leo it seemed that this situation
would change, thanks to the edict of Valentinian in. (445),
who commanded the Western bishops to obey the bishop of
Rome under the penalty of being compelled to do so by public
force. To facilitate the execution of this precious edict, the
pope Hilary (462) re-established the vicarship of Aries, and gave
the bishop of that city jurisdiction over the Gallic episcopate.
If these two measures had been enforced they would have
made the Gallic Church dependent upon Rome. But that
did not happen. In 475 the empire of the West collapsed,
and the edict of Valentinian in. did the same. At that time
Aries fell into the power of the Visigoths, then of the Goths,
and was isolated from the other regions of Gaul. Its primacy
had departed. Until the end of the fifth century the Gallic
Church remained independent of the papacy. At that time,
however, it changed its form, and became the Frankish Church.
Let us consider it as such until the arrival of Boniface in the
country of the Franks.
The council of Clermont (535 ; canon 12), the council of
Orleans (538; canons 3, 29), the council of Tours (567;
canon 21), regulated the ecclesiastical discipline respecting
the decretals which emanated from Rome. The council of
Orleans (541 ; canon 1) prescribed that in case there was
doubt as to the day of celebrating Easter, Rome should be
consulted. The council of Orleans (549 ; canon 1) declared
that its faith was conformed to that of the apostolic see.
King Childebert asked relics of Pelagius I. ; Gontran asked
them of Pelagius n. ; Brunehaut asked them of Gregory 1 ;
in 538 Theobert asked information of Vigilius concerning
1 Jaffe, 942, 1048, 1431.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 277
matrimonial legislation.1 Thus the Frankish Church of
Merovingian times had as much veneration for the papacy
as the Gallic Church had. It had even more ; for it believed
that it was bound to the papacy by the decretals of Innocent
and Leo, which, during the Gallic period, were simply
individual consultations. This progress was the work of
Cesarius of Aries who (514), for his own profit, caused the
vicarship of Aries to be established for a third time, and who
put his activity — a considerable activity — at the service of
Rome. He it was, that is this vicar of the Pope, who caused
the pontifical decretals to be entered in the Gallic law side
by side with the canons of the councils. He it was who
won for the pontifical authority a place in the Frankish
Church at the time of the Merovingian kings.2
It was a modest place. The council of Lyons (567,
canon 1), the council of Tours (in the same year, canon 2),
made laws relating to conflicts which arose between bishops,
without considering the rights claimed by the papacy since
the council of Sardica, rights which they ignored or perhaps
silently opposed. Pope Gregory I. urged the Frankish bishops
to labour in council for the re-establishment of discipline, but
the bishops gave no heed to these solicitations, and the
council was not held.3 The Frankish Church, which after the
time of Cesarius was obedient to the decretals formerly
emanating from the apostolic see, did not wish to be subject
to him who occupied that see. The vicarship had not yielded
what Rome expected of it. The only vicar who did honour
to the popes was Cesarius, and Cesarius himself, who had
great influence in the kingdom of the Goths, exercised only an
indirect influence on the French provinces. The popes, more
over, soon recognized the uselessness of the vicarship, and
permitted it to lapse. Without as yet giving up this means
of action, Gregory i. had great hopes of the Frankish princes.
He wrote frequently to them and pointed out to them various
abuses, which he asked them to remedy. For example, he
1 Jaffe, 905.
2 A. Malnory, Saint Cisaires, ev&que $ Aries, pp. 51, 107, Paris, 1894.
3 Jaffe, 1747, 1748, 1751.

278 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
begged Brunehaut, Thierry, Theodebert, and Clotaire II. to
reassemble the council which he had vainly asked of the
bishops.1 He implored them to work to reform the clergy.
Not being able to act in the Frankish Church through the
channel of authority, he took the part of a suitor. But he
obtained neither the council nor the reform which he de
manded. After his time the relations between Rome and
the country of the Franks were almost severed. They were
indeed entirely severed after the year 649, when Martin I.
sent to Clovis n. the acts of the Lateran council.2 Like the
Gallic Church, the Merovingian Church remained independent
of the papacy until the last. Its head was the king, who
called councils, and sometimes even presided at them, who
appointed bishops and founded new bishoprics (in 575,
Gontran founded the bishopric of Maurienne at the expense of
Turin).3 It was a national Church, an autonomous Church.
The Anglo-Saxon Boniface, who in 742 undertook to put
an end to this state of things, was called first by Carloman,
then by Pepin, to reform the Frankish Church. Let us
observe what he desired ; we shall subsequently see what he
obtained. The object of Boniface, from the time when at the
instance of Carloman he left the forests of Germany to come
to France, was to make the Pope the head of the Frankish
Church, and subject the Frankish bishops to him. For this
Anglo-Saxon was wholly devoted to the interests of the
papacy. He had the Roman spirit, which he owed to his
education, and which he derived through Wilfrid and Benedict
Biscop from Augustine of- Canterbury. For him as for his
fellow-countrymen, the Christian life consisted above all
things in obedience to the apostolic see, in adopting its
1 Jaffe, 1743, 1744, 1838, 1840, 1841, 1842.
3 Hefele, iii. 213, 229. This author says (iii. 252, 253) that the bishop of
Aries who attended the Roman council of 679 was delegated by the Frankish
clergy, but he contradicts this assertion by the observation which he subse
quently makes concerning Wilifrid.
3 Duchesne, Fastes episcopaux de Vamciennc Gaule, i. 240, Paris, 1907 ;
Hauck, i. 157 ; Sigebert founded Chateaudun at the expense of Chartres (Gregory
of Tours, vii. 17 ; and Council of Paris, 573).

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 279
maxims, in observing its laws. Therefore, in 718 he did not
undertake the evangelization of Thuringia until he had ob
tained the authorization of Gregory n. ; and in 722, when
he received episcopal consecration from this pontiff, he pro
nounced the following oath : " I Boniface, bishop by the grace
of God, promise to you blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles,
and to your vicar the blessed Pope Gregory as well as to his
successors, . . . that I will always preserve an entire fidelity
and a sincere attachment to you, and to the interests of your
Church, to which the Lord has granted the power of binding
and loosing, that I will have the same fidelity to your vicar
and to his successors." x
From the year 742 Boniface laboured to place the
Frankish Church under Roman domination. To realize this
project he found no better means than to take as his model
the Anglo-Saxon Church, in which all the bishops were de
pendents of the archbishops of Canterbury and York, who
received from the apostolic see an investiture symbolized by
the pallium. He proposed, therefore, to attach the Frankish
episcopate to the Pope, by means of archbishops invested
with a spiritual jurisdiction over the bishops, and holding
from Rome their mandate under the symbol of the pallium.
That is what Boniface wished : what results did he achieve ?
The execution of his programme began in the council of
747, where the bishops engaged themselves to be "always
submissive to the Roman Church," and to "obey St. Peter
and his vicar " ; where it was also decided that the bishops
should submit to the metropolitans, and that the latter should
ask the pallium from the apostolic see.2 But the metro
politans did not keep to their engagement. They refused to
seek the pallium at Rome : and Boniface, who in 747 had
announced his triumph to Pope Zacharias, informed him 3 four
years later of his disappointment. His dream, it is true, was
1 M. G., Epist., iii. 265.
2M. G., Concilia, ii. 47 (letter of Boniface to Cuthbert) : "Decrevimns . . .
subjectionem Romanae ecolesiae fine tenus vita nostras velle servare, Sancto Petro
et Vicario ejus velle subjeci ..." See also M. G., Epist., iii. 351.
3 M. G., Epist., iii. 368 (Ep. 86).

280 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
finally realized. Charlemagne obliged his metropolitans to
ask the pallium from the Pope : he sometimes made the
request himself; and the usage introduced by the powerful
emperor remained,1 but for a long time was without import
ance. The archbishops of Charlemagne regarded the pallium
merely as a decoration, and not as the symbol of investiture.
They ruled their provinces as potentates, and did not permit
Rome to interfere with their affairs except to the degree parsi
moniously fixed by the council of Sardica. In 825 the assembly
of Paris carried its independence so far as to declare that Pope
Adrian in the question of images had supported the cause
of superstition, and that for thirty years his successors had
fulfilled their mission no better.2 In 833, at the time when
the sons of Louis the Debonnair made war upon their father,
the bishops belonging to the emperor talked of deposing
Gregory iv., who was attached to the party of the sons.3 In
844, Pope Sergius n., who at Lothair 's request had appointed
Drogon of Metz as his apostolic vicar in Gaul and in Germany,
witnessed the repulse of his plan by the council of Ver.4
Boniface did not succeed in bringing the Frankish Church
under the papal yoke.
From this check we are not to conclude that his action
was without results. Boniface, who obtained nothing from
the Frankish bishops, was more fortunate in dealing with
their prince. He asked Pepin to suppress the Gallic liturgy
in all the Frankish countries and to substitute for it the
Roman liturgy; and his wishes were complied with.6 He
implanted in Pepin's soul feelings of devotion to the Roman
Church ; and these feelings were expressed a first time, in
751, by the celebrated consultation from which proceeded
the deposition of Chileric ill., the Merovingian king ; a
1 E. Lesne, La HUrarchie episcopate, pp. 67-72, 75, Paris, 1905.
2 Mansi, xiv. 421 ; M. G., Concilia, ii. 481 ; Migne, xcviii. 1299 ; Hefele,
iv. 42.
3 Paschase Radbert, Vita Wales, ii. 16 ; Migne, cxx. 1635 ; Letter of Gregory
to Frankish Bishops, M. G., Epist., v. 228.
4 Canon xi ; Mansi, xiv. 810 ; Hefele, iv. 111.
6 F. Cabrol, "Charlemagne et la liturgie," in Diet, d'archeol. chrit. et de
liturg., iii. 808.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 281
second time in 754, by the establishment of the temporal
power ; and a third time by military expedition against the
Lombards (756). Boniface, who could not make the Frankish
Church submit to the Roman Church, at least succeeded in
establishing friendly relations between the two. He inaugur
ated a new era, in which the Frankish episcopate, forsaking
its isolated position, accepted an alliance with the apostolic
see, and borrowed the usages of the latter, not, however,
without reserving the right to control its own acts.
Boniface left his imprint on the Frankish Church.
Nicholas I. did the same, although he did not realize his ideal.
He did not escape the law of miscalculation any more than
the Anglo-Saxon apostle did. But he achieved important
results. Let us first speak of the progress which he made.
Nicholas I. (858-867) wished to. be the master of the
Frankish Church ; he wished to exercise not only a limited
authority over it, such as the canons of Sardica con
ferred on the papacy, but a complete and absolute authority.
He wished to hold the Frankish bishops in his hand. He
set this forth, or rather he practised it : on the one hand,
in his disputes with Gunther of Cologne and Theutgaud of
Treves ; on the other hand, in the conflicts which he waged
with Hincmar of Reims.
Gunther and Theutgaud had favoured the caprices of
Lothair II. Nicholas deposed them at the Lateran council of
863.1 According to the canon law at that time in force in
the Frankish Church, a Frankish council alone could depose
Frankish bishops. Furthermore, Gunther and Theutgaud did
not heed the pontifical decision, which in their eyes was
illegal. They went further, and undertook to depose the
Pope ; and the emperor Louis n. supported them, and was
disposed to give them satisfaction. Nicholas found himself
on the point of being sent into exile or even of losing his
life. Thanks to a combination of circumstances, he succeeded
in winning the sympathy of Louis n. (864). After this,
Gunther and Theutgaud, being deprived of any support, were
obliged to leave their sees, to which they never returned.
1 R. Parisot, Le Royaume de Lorraine, etc., pp. 235, 241, 257.

282 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
In the council of Soissons (853) Hincmar deposed the
clergy ordained by his predecessor Ebbon.1 Nine years
later, at the council of Soissons, he deposed Rothad, the
bishop of that city, who, without waiting for that condemna
tion, had appealed to Rome.2 Nicholas severely reproached
that powerful archbishop for having condemned Rothad, in
spite of the latter's appeal to the apostolic see, and he
called upon him either to restore the bishop to his functions
or to go to Rome with the opposing party8 (863). Three
years later he was occupied with the clergy of Ebbon, who
also had appealed to the apostolic see. He insisted that
they should be reinstated, or at any rate that their cause
should be reopened for examination in the council.4
Hincmar was obliged to allow Rothad, to whom Nicholas had
restored his episcopal rights,6 to leave for Rome (24th
December 864, 21st January 865). In regard to the clergy
of Ebbon, he at first sought to conceal his defeat by the
following expedient. In the council of Soissons (866) the
clergy of Ebbon were reinstated "by indulgence," which
implied that their deposition was legitimate.6 But a year
afterwards, in the council of Troyes (867), he was forced to
abandon his pretensions.7 To sum up the matter, Nicholas,
in the person of Hincmar, crushed the metropolitans of the
Church of France. We may remark that he was favoured
by circumstances. The bishops had difficulty in enduring the
domination of the metropolitans. Too weak to free them
selves, they had no resource other than to ask protection and
support from the apostolic see. And the False Becretals
which appeared about 851 were inspired, according to a
prevailing opinion, by this state of mind. Here was a
power valuable to a Pope who wished to crush the metro-
1 Mansi, xiv. 978 ; Hefele, iv. 181.
2 Mansi, xv. 638 ; Hefele, iv. 258. This council followed the council of
Pistes or Pitres ; see Hefele, iv. 256.
3 Ep., 33-35, Migne, cxix. 825.
4 Ep., 89, Migne, cxix. 964; Mansi, xv. 705; H. Quentin, Letlre de Nicolas
Ier pour le eoncile de Soissons dans le Moyen Age, 2° serie, ix. 97 (1904).
1 Ep., 72-75, Migne, cxix. 892 et seq.
8 Mansi, xv. 703 ; Hefele, iv. 316. 7 Mansi, xv. 790 ; Hefele, iv. 331.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 283
politans. Nicholas understood this power, and made use
of it. Let us now notice the consequences of the efforts made
by the Pope to domesticate the Frankish Church. These
efforts were two in number. One of them was manifested
at Rome, the other in the Frankish country — we may say
in France, for we are at the period when France, properly so
called, appeared. Nicholas bequeathed his spirit to Rome,
a spirit of domination which sought to reduce the French
Church, as well as the Churches of other countries, to
servitude. Before him, the papacy had never succeeded in
displaying its jurisdiction in the real sense. After him, with
the exception of the sorry personages who during the tenth
century dishonoured the apostolic see, the popes assumed
an arbitrary attitude towards the clergy. They commanded,
they threatened, they raged; and with Gregory vn. they
reached the point of treating France as a conquered country.
In France, Nicholas created what may be called militant
Gallicanism, that is to say, a spirit of resistance to the
encroachments of Rome. It was observed that the papacy
was making innovations, and that it was arrogating to itself
rights unknown in antiquity. An effort was made to prevent
this, and to raise against it the barrier of tradition. Hincmar
was the first witness of this state of mind. Conquered by
Nicholas, Hincmar, with the aid of Charles the Bald, shortly
afterwards took his revenge. In 871, at the council of
Douzy, he deposed his nephew Hincmar of Laon, in spite of
the appeal to Rome made by the latter two years before.1
He inserted indeed in the sentence of deposition this formula
of submission to Rome : " Save in all things the rightful
privilege of our lord and father Adrian, Pope of the apostolic
see " ; but he added this significant restriction : " as the
canons of Sardica have ordered it." In the report on this
subject which he sent to Rome, he lectured to Pope Adrian
n. on the canon law. He explained to him the rules of
procedure as determined by the council of Sardica, and
imperiously bade him not to depart from them. Adrian n.
1 Mansi, xvi. 570 ; Hefele, iv. 494 ; Migne, cxxvi. 635.

284 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
protested indignantly at the injury done to his pretended
rights ; but it was labour lost. Hincmar gave him to under
stand that the council of Douzy was in harmony with the
orders of Sardica, and was not subject to reproach.1
A century later there was a new and much more
imposing manifestation of Gallicanism on the part of the
French episcopate. The opportunity for this was afforded by
Arnoul, archbishop of Reims, who betrayed Hugh Capet the
king. The bishops of the province of Reims assembled at
Senlis (990) asked Pope John xv. to help them depose the
traitor. But the Pope, being bought by the enemies of Hugh,
did not reply. The councils of St. Basle or Verzy (991) and
of Chelles2 (993) were then convoked. The first of these
deposed Arnoul ; and when the defenders of this prelate cited
the authority of the False Decretals, which reserved to the
Pope the right to depose a bishop, the answer was made that
this pretended right was repudiated by the councils of Nicaea
and Africa, which were superior to the pontifical decretals, the
authenticity of which was not suspected. The council added
that the papacy, which had fallen into the mire, had lost its
title to the respect of Christians. At Chelles, the bishops
decided that if the Pope of Rome advances an opinion
contrary to the canons of the Fathers, this opinion will be
held to be null and void. And this decision is a reply in
advance to John xv., who was preparing to annul the sentence
of St. Basle. To the declarations of these councils it is
appropriate to add that of Gerbert — who later became Pope
Sylvester n. — who, at the time when Pope Gregory v. in the
council of Pavia (997) condemned the bishops present at St.
Basle, wrote : " If the bishop of Rome himself offends his
brother, if he refuses to listen to the repeated warnings of the
Church, the bishop of Rome himself, according to God's
commandment, should be treated as a heathen and a
publican." 3
1 Migne, cxxii. 1312 ; Mansi, xvi. 569.
2 Mansi, xix. 107 ; Hefele, iv. 637 ; see especially F. Lot, Etudes sur le regne
de Hugues Capet, pp. 58-67, Paris, 1 903.
3 Lot, p. 112.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 285
We cannot stop to consider the council of Anse (1025),
which annulled as contrary to the canons, a privilege granted
by Rome to the monastery of Cluny ; x nor the council of
Reims (1049), which the French bishops, with one or two
exceptions, notwithstanding the invitation of the Pope, re
fused to attend ; 2 nor the letter of Brunon, bishop of Angiers,
to the archbishop of Tours, from which one learns that there is
in the Church outside of Rome " another authority to which
appeal can be made." 3 We now come to the councils which
Gregory vn. caused to be held in France. In the council of
Paris, which met about 1074, "almost all the bishops, abbots,
and clergy composing the assembly declared the orders of the
Pope to be absurd," which related to ecclesiastical celibacy.
Of the council of Poitiers (1078), the pontifical legate who
presided over it said : " No one took pains to recognize us.
. . . The archbishop of Tours and the bishop of Rennes
disturbed almost all the council." Such was the mental
attitude of the French clergy under Gregory VII.4 It did
not change under Urban II., as may be seen by the council of
Etampes (1091), where the bishops set themselves to depose
Ives of Chartres for having received episcopal consecration
from the Pope, which his metropolitan alone was qualified
to give him.
It should be noted that the French prelates, so jealous of
their independence, did not fear to resort to the papacy
whenever they had need of it. And this need was often felt.
When an episcopal election was disputed, the two rivals
went to Rome and submitted to its judgment. When a
greedy noble took possession of the Church's property, the
bishop went to Rome and had delivered to him a bull which
consecrated his right of property. The protection of Rome
was so valuable that it was asked to confirm elections in
1 Mansi, xix. 723 ; Hefele, iv. 680.
2 Mansi, xix. 724 ; Hefele, iv. 723 ; Delarc, Saint Grigovre VIL, i. 139,
140. • Sudendorf, Berengarius Turonensis, p. 202, Hamburg, 1850 ; see Delarc,
i. 371. 4 Mansi, xx. 437, 495 ; Hefele, v. 34, 115 ; Delarc, iii. 87, 357. See
chapter on "Celibacy."

286 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
which there was no contest: it was an assurance against
dangers which might arise in the future. To sum up, the
apostolic see was recognized as a superior authority ; but it
was remarked that this authority was turning into despotism,
and there was a struggle to prevent its excesses.
In this struggle the French clergy were defeated. That
was bound to happen. The plain people being witnesses of
the respect with which Rome was treated, and of the services
demanded by it, concluded that Rome always had the right
to be venerated and obeyed. Armed with suspension,
interdict, and excommunication, of which the people had
always to take account, the papacy won most of the battles
in which it was engaged. Having profited by their successive
defeats, the clergy finally understood that resistance was
impossible ; and they submitted. It need not be said that
their real opinion did not change, and that their submission
was only outward. But then two new factors intervened :
the monks, and the crusades. The monks conducted an
active propaganda in favour of the papacy. It was a self-
interested propaganda ; for it was Rome which protected
their property against the avidity of the nobles and of the
bishops. They put their influence, which at the end of the
eleventh century was enormous, at the service of the papacy.
They began the conquest of convictions. The crusades com
pleted the work of the monks. From the time when the
papacy threw Europe into transports of enthusiasm for an
attack upon the infidels, there was no longer any doubt about
its sovereign authority. There was a conviction that it had
received all power from heaven, and there was action in con
sequence of that conviction. From the twelfth century all
the difficulties which arose among the clergy were taken to
Rome. Appeals to the apostolic see were multiplied to
such an extent that they evoked complaints from Hildebert,
archbishop of Tours,1 and from St. Bernard.2 The Church
of France did not consider itself capable of doing its own
police work. It believed itself to be incapable of distin-
1 Ep. ii. 41, Migne, clxxi. 265 (see also ii. 47, 273).
2 De cmisideratione, ii. 2.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 287
guishing truth and error. The council of Sens (1140), after
condemning Abelard, submitted the sentence to Rome for
approval. Gilbert de la Porr^e, bishop of Poitiers, was
denounced at Rome for teaching erroneous doctrines ; and it
was Pope Eugenius in. who condemned him in the councils
of Paris and Reims (1141). In return for the protectorate
which was asked, Rome formulated requirements to which
submission was given. It demanded money of France —
especially after Innocent iv. — and France gave money. It
demanded benefices for its proteges — from the time of
Innocent in. — and France permitted its canonries to pass
into the hands of clergy sent by Rome. It demanded even
its bishoprics — especially after Boniface vni. — and France
delivered over its bishoprics. The Gallican Church allowed
the papacy to administer it.
Under this regime certain abuses soon made their
appearance which drew forth complaints from most honest
men. In 1247, St. Louis, king of France, presented to
Innocent IV. a memorial of which this was the substance.
The Church of France is exhausted because of the sums of
money extorted by the apostolic see ; and it is disorganized
by the disposition made of its benefices which Rome grants
to foreigners, which Rome promises while they are not yet
vacant.1 In 1311, William Le Maire, bishop of Angers,
presented to the council of Vienna a memorial similar to
that of St. Louis.2 Doubtless these two documents were
limited to demanding reforms, and the demands were re
spectful. But the dissatisfaction sometimes assumed other
forms. The council of Bourges (1225) resolutely set aside a
project of Pope Honorius in., by the terms of which in each
episcopal church, and in each abbey, one prebend (in England,
two) should be placed at the disposition of the apostolic see.8
1 Matth. Paris, Additamenta, vi. 99-112 (Luard). See chapter on "Epis
copal Elections."
1 Published by C. Porte in Documents inidits (Melanges historiques, ii.
471-480, especially 481) ; Raynald had already published it, 1311, 59, but
without the name of the author.
* Mansi, xxii. 1214 ; Hefele, v. 938 ; Bouquet, xviii. 810 (Chronicon
Twonense).

288 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
The council of Paris (1263) refused to grant a subsidy de
manded by the Pope, as being unreasonable.1 The church of
Reims met with a refusal the pontifical legate who (1267)
demanded money of it; it declared itself ready to brave
excommunication, and to cause a schism rather than permit
itself to be oppressed by Rome.2 Here we no longer have to
do with respectful requests ; these are acts of independence
which we have before us. About 1305, Pierre Dubois
wrote the Be recuperatione terre sancte,3 in which he urged
the king of France to take possession of the pontifical state,
to grant the Pope an annual pension, to suppress his
temporal power, to limit him to the exercise of his spiritual
power, and above all to take the papacy away from the
Romans, who were using it as an instrument of exaction and
despotism. In 1311, Durand, bishop of Mende, made a
violent criticism of the rapacity and ambition of the Roman
court ; he proposed to submit the papacy to the supervision
of a general council which should meet every ten years.4 In
1315, the Franciscan Occam taught at Paris the doctrine,
which he afterwards put into his Dialogues,6 of which these
are some of the articles. " The Church, that is to say the
society of Christians, has the right, when its interests require
it, to change the form of its government ; therefore if it has
to complain of the monarchical papacy, it can confide the
supreme power to a collective authority. In any case, the
papal monarch, so long as he exists, has no right to impose
his opinions upon the Church'; on the contrary, it belongs to
the Church to supervise the faith of the Pope, and to depose
him when he is heretical." The anonymous author of a
defence of Boniface vn. (written about 1308) tells us that at
the death of that Pope the French did not wish to have an
1 Mansi, xxiii. 1112 ; Hefele, vi. 85.
2 Raynald, 1267, 55, Letter of Clement iv., which says (57 fin.) that the
delegates of the Church of Reims poured forth insults upon him, " impudenter
evomere prsesumpserunt."
• Edited by Langlois, pp. 98-100, Paris, 1891.
4 It is the book De modo celebrandi concilii. See extracts in Haller,
Papsttum und Kirchenreform, pp. 60-64.
1 See extracts from the Dialogues, in Haller, pp. 78-80.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 289
Italian Pope any longer, and threatened, unless they received
satisfaction, to establish a national Church for themselves.1
And the Dominican John of Paris (Jean Quidort) declared
(1304) that he had heard the following proposition: "The
Pope is an archbishop, or, if one prefer it, a patriarch, who
in primitive times governed only his own diocese, but who
has been led by circumstances to extend his jurisdiction." 2
It may be seen that the Gallican spirit was not dead.
The tradition represented by Irenaeus, Hilary of Aries,
Hincmar, Gerbert, was not extinct. At the beginning of
the fourteenth century, among the French clergy there were
men who, like their predecessors, resisted the encroachments
of Rome, and did not recoil even at the thought of a rupture
with the apostolic see.
Nevertheless, these men were not numerous ; and the
anonymous defence which has just been mentioned, exaggerated
when it said that all the French were ready to organize a
national Church. Certain bishops and certain doctors may
be counted as opposed to Rome ; but the great majority of
the clergy remained submissive. A proof of this was furnished
at the council of Vienne (1311), where, according to an
English chronicler, Clement v. conducted himself as absolute
master.3 The authority of the papacy over the French clergy
was again emphasized during the fourteenth century. Yet
some of the popes of this period employed odious methods
of government. Clement v., as was admitted by Cardinal
Orsini, sold the bishoprics when he did not reserve them
for his favourites. John xxn. extorted money from the
Churches per fas et nefas. But these were French popes,
they supported French policy, — it was the period of the
sojourn of the popes at Avignon. Therefore, everything that
they did was overlooked ; and they could permit themselves
to do everything. There is a temptation to believe that the
theories of Pierre Dubois, of Durand, of Mende, of Occam,
were forgotten. But such was not the case. In the middle
1 H. Finke, Aus den Sagen Bonifaz VIII., p. lxxxix, Miinster, 1902.
2 Finke, p. 149, note.
3 Heminkburgh, ii. 292 (in Haller, p. 53).
19

290 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
of the fourteenth century they still had representatives like
Jean de Guignecourt and Pierre de Bray ; only they made
little noise, or their opinions were discreetly transmitted.
The shock of the Great Schism was necessary to make them
emerge from their unpopularity.
In 1378 two popes disputed the Apostolic See. The
papacy fell into an abyss, where it was about to perish had
not assistance reached it. A saviour appeared, and this
saviour was Gallicanism. But this saviour knew how to
exact, payment for its services. It wished first to deprive
the popes of the hegemony of the Church ; and second to
oblige them to disgorge, that is to say, it proposed to con
fiscate the rights which they had usurped during preceding
centuries. In other words, its programme consisted of two
parts, the history of which we are about to set forth. Let
us begin with the superiority of the Church to the Papacy.
At the opening of this crisis, Gallicanism wrested from the
papacy the sceptre of supreme authority, and committed it to
the Church universal represented by the general council. It
is this spectacle that Conrad de Gelnhausen portrays in the
Epistola concordice, written in 1379 at the request of Charles v.,
king of France.1 Conrad explained that the Church repre
sented by the general council was superior to the Pope, and
in the council he found the remedy for the evil from which
Christianity was suffering. For a time there was hesitation
in following him. It was hoped that the Pope of Avignon —
the only legitimate Pope, according to France — would gradually
see all nations range themselves in obedience to him. But
soon it was perceived that this hope was an illusion, and
must be given up. And then to save the Church the papacy
was sacrificed. In the council of Paris (1406) the French
episcopate, renewing an experiment which had already been
tried in 1398, declared the "withdrawal of obedience" to the
Pope of Avignon.2 It refused all obedience to this pontiff,
who was, as has already been said, the only legitimate Pope in
i Haller, p. 337.
2 N. Valois, La France et le Grand Schisms d'Occident, iii. 148, 607, 614,
iv. 21 ; Haller, p. 278.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 291
the eyes of France. From the day when this decision was
confirmed by Charles VI. (February 1407, May 1408), the
Gallican Church had no further connection with the papacy.
It was autonomous. Thus it took the initiative at the Council
of Pisa, where, after causing the deposition of the two rival
pontiffs, it procured the election of Alexander v. (June 1409).
Its work, it is true, was annulled by the emperor Sigismund,
who, without regard to the council of Pisa, convoked a new
assembly at Constance. But the council of Constance had
as leaders two French doctors, Pierre d'Ailly and Jean
Gerson, who were very hostile to the pontifical monarchy.
It sanctioned the Gallican principles in the following declara
tion : 1 " The synod of Constance . . . has received directly
from Jesus Christ a power which every person, of whatever
condition or dignity, even papal, he may be, is bound to obey
in whatsoever pertains to the faith" (1415).
From Constance this declaration passed to the council of
Bale (1432); then it was inserted in the Pragmatic Sanction
of Bourges (1438), which under Charles vn. was made a law
of the State. From that time the supremacy of the council
over the Pope was an integral part of French legislation ;
and pontifical measures which were thought to afford a cause
of complaint could be set aside by an appeal to a future
council. In 1457 the Church of France made use of this
right. There was great wrath at Rome. Calixtus III. com
plained bitterly to King Charles vn. of this practice, which,
according to him, was " schismatical and heretical."2 His
successor, Pius II., issued the bull Execrabilis, which inflicted
excommunication on all those who in the future should
permit themselves to appeal from the Pope to the council
(1460).3 The only response of the French Government was
to refer this bull to a future council ; and in the second half
of the fifteenth century this practice, hateful to Rome, was
more than ever in force. In 1463, Louis XI. commanded
parliament to agree with the university, and appeal to the
1 Mansi, xxvii. 584.
2 N. Valois, Hist, de la Prag. Sanction, pp. 233 and clxxxv, Paris, 1906.
• Id., ib.

292 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
future council with respect to censures which had issued
from Rome. In 1491 the university, which was in conflict
with Innocent VIII., resorted to the same means of defence.
To these appeals other measures were added. In 1479,
Louis XL, with the previous adhesion of French prelates who
were assembled at Orleans, threatened Sixtus iv. with the con
voking on his own account a general council. In 1498, king
Charles vni. made the Sorbonne authorize the convocation of
a general council in case the Pope, who had been called on to
do this, should refuse to obey. In 1510 the French clergy
in the assembly of Tours authorized king Louis xn., who had
asked their advice, to withdraw France from obedience to
Julius ii., and to treat the censures of the Pope with contempt.
Furthermore, they believed that the Pope should be called on
to convoke a general council, and that if necessary this council
should be convoked without the Pope. As a matter of fact, a
council was convoked, in spite of Julius n. ; it was held at
Pisa in 1511. It failed ; but this was no fault of the French
prelates, who on the contrary did their utmost to assure its
success. To sum up the matter, from the beginning of the
Great Schism until the concordat of Francis I., the superiority
of the council to the papacy did not cease to be admitted in
France.1 This, it will be remembered, was one of the two
articles of the Gallican programme. Let us now see what
became of the other.
The councils of Paris of 1398 and 1406, which had
declared themselves to be in favour of the " withdrawal of
obedience," did not intend to separate France from the papacy
for ever. The measure which they adopted was, in their
opinion, only temporary ; it was to cease after order had been
established. Nevertheless they wished the pontifical admini
stration, at least so far as France was concerned, to be
reformed ; and they themselves laboured for this reform.
They decided to take away from the court of Rome the right
of disposing at its pleasure of bishoprics, abbeys, and other
French benefices. In like manner they decided to prohibit
the drain on French gold. That was what was now called in
1 P. Pithou, Preuvesdes libertes de VEglise gallicane, ch. xiii. 10, 19, xx. 28.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 293
the councils " the liberties and franchises of the Gallican
Church." x Yet in 1411, after long hesitation, subsidies were
granted to John xxm. ; but this concession was regretted as
soon as it had been made.2 The assembly of the clergy of
1412 was unreserved in its recriminations against Roman
rapacity.3 France was no longer willing to be exploited by
the papacy ; and it agreed to recognize Martin v., who was
elected at Constance, only while reserving its " liberties "
(ordinance of March 1418).4 Unhappily at this time France
was not the mistress of her own destinies. The English, who
dominated a part of French territory, wherever their power
extended, imposed the regime which was dear to Rome. At
home they resisted the Roman influence ; in France they
favoured it in order to gain the support of the apostolic see
in their conquest. The feeble Charles VII. was obliged to
save his crown, which was threatened, by imitating the conduct
of his enemies, and by making concessions to the papacy. In
1421 he abolished the ordinances of 1418, and subjected
his kingdom to the papal exactions. Moreover, he soon after
wards (1422) re-established the " liberties," which he again
suppressed (1425), to re-establish and to suppress them once
more. For several years he thus oscillated between the
"liberties" and obedience, without being able to attain to
stability.6 At length (1438), believing that his throne was
confirmed, he made the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges the
law of the state, which withdrew the Church of France almost
wholly from the jurisdiction of Rome, and assured the triumph
of the " liberties." 6
The Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges was really introduced
into French legislation by order of Charles vn., but was
elaborated by the French bishops. It was the work of the
clergy of France. It need not be said that it was odious to
Rome. The popes, it has been seen, found fault with it
1 N. Valois, La France et le Grand Schisme d'Oecident, iv. 176.
2 Id., ib., iv. 188. 3 Id., ib., iv. 200.
* Ordonnances, x. 445, 447 ; Valois, iv. 420, 424, 429.
• Valois, Hist, de la Prog. Sanct., pp. xiii-1.
• Id., ib. pp. lxxvii-xcii.

294 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
because it gave supremacy to the council ; they found fault
with it also, and even more, because it established the regime
of the " liberties " : and with unwearied perseverance they de
manded its suppression. So long as the reign of Charles vn.
lasted they obtained nothing, or rather their negotiations
gave them certain hopes ; but the forgery known as " the
Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis " was a fabrication which
saved Gallicanism, which was threatened1 (1450). Under
Louis xi. the situation changed (1461-1483). Louis, who
wished to rule, and to exert pressure upon his clergy as
he pleased, detested the Pragmatic Sanction — it made the
clergy a body independent of royalty — and, practically, he
trampled it under foot. But he made use of it to frighten or
to cajole the Pope as occasion required. His reign was
passed in abolishing this act (1461), in re-establishing it
(1464), in abolishing it again (1467), in re-establishing it
(1478), especially in diverting the Pope by his deceitful
promises (concordat of 1472), and frightening him by
threats which were not always sincere. Yet during the
last years of his life, hypnotized by the thought of death,
he left the Pope a liberty of action which the latter utilized
to the greatest advantage of the Roman Curia.2
Having become once more the prey of the pontifical fiscal
system, the Church of France raised a cry of alarm to the
States-General of Tours (1484).3 Charles vra. and Louis xn.
endeavoured to defend it. But the Pope protested against
what he called the violation of his rights. Julius ii. went
farther. Emboldened by the success of his army, — for
several years he had been making war on the French, — he
prepared to hurl against France, in the Lateran council of
December 1512, the most formidable thunderbolts. Death
put an end to his murderous plans (February 1513). His
successor, Leo X, took them up again, and in the tenth session
1 Valois, Hist, de la Prag. Sanct., p. clix ; L. Madelin, "Un Essai d'Eglise
separee en France au xvm6 siecle," in Rev. des deux mondes, 1906, March 15.
2 J. Combet, Louis XI. et le Saint SUge, pp. 8, 9, 69, 113, 159, Paris, 1903.
3 Journal des Etats giniraux de France tenus d Tours en 1484, arranged by
Masselin ; Journal de Masselin, edited by Bernier in Documents inidits, p. 661 :
" Cy sensuit le cayer presente au roy et son conseil."

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 295
of the Lateran council (May 1515) he decreed severe
measures against the Pragmatic Sanction. But the day of
Marignan saved the fortunes of the French (September 1515).
Until the victory of Marignan, Francis I. posed as the
defender of the Pragmatic Sanction : he pretended that he
wished to protect the independence of the Gallican Church
against Roman rapacity. From the day when he perceived
that he was master of the situation, he unveiled his inmost
thought, which had also been that of his predecessors, and
treated the Gallican Church as a prey which had for a long
time been coveted. Of course, such a project could not be
realized without some concessions to the Pope, who also
coveted the prey. This was the object of the concordat which
Francis I. made with Leo x. at Bologna (1516). By this
treaty the king of France and the Pope shared amicably the
spoils of the Gallican Church. The king reserved to himself
the choice of bishops and abbots ; to the Pope he left the
right of confirming his selections, and he abandoned to him
also the annates. By his right of appointment he held the
Church of France in his power ; the Pope, for his part, although
his pretensions were not all realized, recovered at least some
of the advantages of which the Pragmatic Sanction had de
prived him. Both were glad, and rightly so, for they had
gained a great victory.1
Victory over whom ? Over the Gallican Church whose
liberties were destroyed by the concordat. Francis I., fore
seeing the wrath which his conduct would evoke, endeavoured
to deceive the Church, and make it believe that he had
yielded reluctantly to the requirements of Rome. This false
hood was not believed. Parliament and the university
uttered violent protests. The inferior clergy were no less
hostile, and during the sixteenth century the chapters on
different occasions, particularly in the States-General of Blois
(1576), rebelled against the new order of things. But all
1 Advised by the artful Duprat, Francis I. deceived the Pope. He demanded
the maintenance of the Pragmatic Sanction, which he did not desire, in order to
lead the Pope to propose a concordat. His plan succeeded. See Madelin,
" Duprat et Francois I™ " in Rev. du Foyer, September 1, 1912, pp. 388-424.

296 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
this opposition gave way before the royal power. The con
cordat was enforced. Of the two articles of the Gallican
programme, elaborated in the councils of 1398 and 1406, one
• — that which concerned the ecclesiastical " liberties " — was
definitely sacrificed. Nothing remained except the superiority
of the council to the Pope. The clergy carefully guarded
this treasure. At the council of Trent the French bishops
energetically defended the Gallican tradition ; and they
caused it to be respected by that assembly, which, thanks to
them, refused to convert the theory of the pontifical monarchy
into a dogma.1
The German Church, which was detached from the
Frankish Church at the diet of Tribur (887), — it may even
be said that the division was made by the treaty of Verdun
(843), — did not begin to play a part and to have a history
until Otto I. (936). After that date it passed through three
stages separated from each other by the death of Henry in.
(1056) and the deposition of Frederick II. (1245).
From the reign of Otto I. to the death of Henry in., the
Emperor — the empire was re-established in 962 — ruled the
German Church in concert with the Pope, who often owed his
nomination to him. At times he took into account maxims
formulated by Nicholas I. Thus in 962, Otto I. wished to
found an archbishopric at Magdeburg and a bishopric at
Merseburg, and resorted to John xn., requesting a bull of
institution.2 In 1007, Henry n. received authority from
John xvin. to found the bishopric of Bamberg.3 But this
formality was not always observed. In the year 1000, Otto
ii. on his own authority established an ecclesiastical metro
polis at Gnesen,4 and in 1014, Henry n. set up the bishopric
of Bobbio in the same manner.5 The bishops, for their part,
utilized the right inaugurated by the False Decretals, at least
when they found it to their advantage. Herlwin, who was
1 Pallavicini, Histoire du concile de Trente, xxi. 4, 8, xxii. 3, 4.
2 Jaffe, 3690. 3 Id., 3954.
4 Thietmar, iv. 28 ; Migne, cxxxix. 1265 ; Mansi, xix. 269.
8 Thietmar, viii. 3 ; Migne, cxxxix. 1363.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 297
appointed bishop Cambrai (996), when Gerbert and Arnoul
disputed the see of Reims, of which he was the suffragan,
went to Rome to be consecrated by Gregory v.1 Some years
later Bernward of Hildesheim, thinking that his rights had
been encroached upon by the archbishop of Mayence,
Willigris,2 went to Rome and laid his case before Pope
Sylvester, who took up his defence. It may be added, that
was a reverse side of this deference to Rome. In the affair
of Bernward, Wolligris, archbishop of Mayence, for six years
refused to obey the Pope's orders, and treated contemptuously
a sentence of suspension pronounced against him by the
pontifical legate. At Worms, in 1052, Pope Leo ' rx.
degraded a deacon of Mayence, whereupon the archbishop
called upon the Roman pontiff to revoke the sentence, and he
won his case.8 The following year the same Pope Leo IX.
wished to assemble a reform council at Mantua, but was
obliged to take flight before a revolt organized by the bishops.4
Notwithstanding the high protection of the emperor, the popes
were only partially masters of the German Church.
From 1056 the papacy into which Hildebrand infused
his spirit waged a mortal war against the empire, which
ended in the deposition of Frederick n. While this long duel
was in progress the popes sent numerous legates to Germany,
armed with very extensive legislative and coercive powers.
They even pretended to lead the German Church as they
pleased. What results did they achieve ?
In 1059, Pope Nicholas n., who had just subjected the
pontifical election to new rules, was for this reason ex
communicated by a German council.6 In 1074, Gregory
sent legates into Germany to hold a council there. The
German bishops refused to assemble, and the legates re
turned to Rome without having been able to accomplish
1 Jaffe, 3866.
2 Tangmar, Vita S. Bernwardi, 18 et seq. ; Migne, cxl. 407 ; Jaffe, 3915,
3917 ; Hefele, iv. 656 ; Hauck, iii. 271.
3 Ekkehard, Chronicon universale, M. G., Scriptores, vi. 166 ; Delarc, Vie
de Saint Grtgoire VII., i. 289 ; Hefele, iv. 762.
4 Mansi, xix. 799 ; Hefele, iv. 763 ; Delarc, i. 294.
¦ Hefele, iv. 846 ; Delarc, ii. 144.

298 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
their mission.1 A short time afterwards the same Pope
promulgated in Germany the law of celibacy. His project
raised a storm of protest ; the German clergy exclaimed that
Gregory was a heretic and a madman.2 In 1080 there
was another storm. Gregory had just deposed Henry iv. ;
nineteen German bishops assembled at Mayence, and twenty-
seven bishops, Lombard and German, assembled at Brixen,
retaliated and deposed Gregory.8 This deposition was con
firmed five years later in a council of Mayence.4 Yet
Gregory had partizans in Germany as well as in Lombardy.
There was a Gregorian school, zealous in the pursuit of the
theocratic ideal ; but it was recruited almost exclusively
among the monks. The episcopate with some unimportant
exceptions was hostile to maxims emanating from Rome. It
should not be forgotten that the Saxon clergy who made
common cause with the Pope were, like all the Saxons,
obedient for political reasons; it would be a mistake to
connect them with the Gregorian school.
The profound influence exercised by Cluny and the
crusade from the eleventh century has been noticed else
where. Germany did not escape this double influence.
Moreover, it gradually submitted to the prestige, and accepted
the yoke of Rome. The evolution was slow. It had made
but little advance when, in 1111, Pascal n. was overwhelmed
with insults by the German episcopate.5 But time had its
effect. Besides, Lothair of Saxony, the successor of Henry v.,
was too weak to resist the German nobles, and had no
alternative but to place his crown under the protection of the
Holy See (1125). After this the popes flooded Germany with
legates, who deposed unworthy bishops, confirmed elections,
legislated as they pleased — the opposition which Alexander
in. encountered was connected with doubts surrounding his
election — the Church of Germany was administered by
1 Lambert de Hersfeld, Annates, 1074, in M. G., Scriptores, v. 215 ; Hefele,
v. 28 ; Delarc, iii. 79.
2 Delarc, iii. 81-84.
• Mansi, xx. 547 ; Hefele, v. 147 ; Delarc, iii, 512.
* Mansi, xx. 603, 614 ; Hefele, v. 182.
6 See chapter on " The Papacy and the Empire."

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 299
Rome. It remained under this regime until the sixteenth
century : yet on various occasions there was an outbreak of
rebellious feeling. In 1201 two archbishops and nine
bishops solemnly protested against the interference of
Innocent ni. in the nomination of the king of the Romans.1
In the middle of the thirteenth century, when war broke out
between Frederick n. and Innocent iv., several German
bishops, especially those of Magdeburg, Passau, Frising, Metz,
Worms, Spire, took the part of the emperor against the Pope.2
In other regions where the clergy arrayed itself on the side of
Innocent, the people were furious at the priests, and treated
the pontifical censures with contempt. Ratisbon afforded
this spectacle, as did Swabia and Bohemia. A century later
the archbishop of Mayence supported Louis of Bavaria in his
opposition to Rome, and in spite of the censures with which
he was assailed, he kept his see until his death (1354). At
the council of Constance the German episcopate joined the
bishops of other nations in resisting the encroachments of the
papacy. New attempts at emancipation were made in the
diet of Mayence (1439), in the diet of Niirnberg (1461), and
elsewhere.3 Parallel to the propaganda of action was dis
played the propaganda of the pen. Henry of Langenstein
(1381), Zabarella (1408), John of Falkenberg (1408),
Thierry of Nieheim (1410), Dbring (1443), published in
German countries the theories preached in France by
contemporaries of Philip le Bel, and re-edited by Conrad of
Gelnhausen in 1380.4 The Church of Germany accused the
Roman Curia of placing foreigners in its benefices, of ruining
it by their exactions, of treating it as a conquered country.
It published certain " complaints " against Rome ; it prepared
the famous Gravamina which appeared at the diet of Frank
fort (1456) and which afterwards recurred periodically.6
1 Migne, ccxvi. 1063 (Reg. de negot. imperii, 61) ; Hefele, v. 787.
2 On the means employed by the Pope to weaken this opposition, see Hauck,
iv. 838-848.
3 Pastor, i. 708 ; ii. 128.
4 Id., i. 85, 182, 386 ; ii. 128.
e Janssen-Pastor, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, i. 741, ii. 170, Freiburg,
1897.

300 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
For a long time complaints and revolts were in vain. In
times of difficulty Rome skilfully sowed the seeds of discord
among princes, won over some, weakened others, and at length
had the last word. Yet at the diet of Niirnberg (1522-
1523) a new spectacle was presented. Luther had just
aroused a part of Germany against the papacy; and the
pontifical legate Chieregati called upon the princes to drown
the revolt in blood. The princes manifested the " One
Hundred Complaints" (Gravamina) of the German nation,
declared that by its abuses the papacy had itself provoked the
evil from which it was suffering, and refused to arrest the
Lutheran movement by armed force.1 Twenty years later
(diet of Augsburg, 1555) a part of Germany was for ever
separated from the Roman obedience.
The Church of Spain was partially destroyed by the Arab
invasion (713), and did not begin to recover until the second
half of the eleventh century. Thus its history includes two
periods : one ends in the year 713; the other begins about
1070. From the conversion of Reccarede to the Arab invasion
the Church of Spain had a very pronounced national character.
The bishops nominated by the king held numerous councils —
there were eighteen councils of Toledo — but had very in
frequent and unimportant relations with Rome. In 590,
Leander, bishop of Seville, announced to Pope Gregory the
conversion of Reccarede, whom he had already known at
Constantinople, whose friend he was. Some years later
Reccarede charged the same Pope with a mission to Constanti
nople, and in relation to this wrote him a very obsequious
letter. Gregory gratified his friend Leander with the pallium.
To the king he sent warm congratulations accompanied with
good advice ; but at the same time he declared that he was
not in a position to render the political service demanded.2
After this short correspondence the relations between Spain
and the papacy were broken off. They were renewed (683)
1 Pastor, iv. Abtheilung, ii. pp. 89-96 ; Janssen-Pastor, ii. 296.
2 Jaffe, 1111, 1756, 1757.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 301
by Leo n., who communicated to the bishops of Spain the
condemnation pronounced against Monothelism by the sixth
oecumenical council, and who asked them to subscribe to it.
The bishops of the province of Toledo examined the said
condemnation, recognized it as conforming to the rule of faith,
approved it, and sent their adherence to Rome accompanied
by a profession of faith, the author of which was Julian,
bishop of Toledo. But then an incident occurred. Pope
Benedict n. — Leo II. had just died — discovered certain
inaccuracies in this profession of faith and told the Spaniards
of them. Julian being displeased, composed a dissertation in
defence, in which the Pope was treated as both ignorant and
impudent.1 This slight altercation had no sequel, and silence
was resumed between Rome and Toledo. During all the
first period of its history the Church of Spain remained
beyond the sphere of pontifical influence.
Under the pontificate of Alexander n. (about 1065),
Ebles, count of Rouci, in Champagne manifested the intention
of waging war in Spain against the Mussulmans ; and
Hildebrand made him agree in writing to recognize St. Peter
as his suzerain.2 Some years later (1073) Gregory vn., who
had barely ascended the pontifical throne, wrote a letter to
Ebles and his companions of which this is the substance :
" You are not ignorant that for a long time the kingdom
of Spain has belonged to St. Peter [an allusion to the gift of
Constantine]. The count of Rouci has agreed to take pos
session of this country for the benefit of the blessed Apostle.
If you are decided to keep this engagement, you can advance.
But if you do not intend to respect the rights of St. Peter,
we forbid you to enter Spain. Better is it to leave this
country in the power of the infidels than in the hands of bad
Christians." This formidable letter, which claimed for St. Peter,
that is for the papacy, the right of eminent domain in Spain,3
1 Liber Apologeticus, especially 4 and 16 ; Migne, xcvi. 528, 535.
2 Engagement attested by Gregory vn. in his letter, i. 6 (Jaffe, 4777) ;
Delarc, ii. 392.
3 Letters, i. 7 ; JafK, 4778 ; Delarc, iii. 20 ; Gams, Die Kirchengeschichte von
Spanien, iii. 457, Ratisbon, 1874.

302 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
was ignored by the Moors. But the Spanish princes
who fought against the Arab element were doubtless in
formed by the monks of Cluny who were settled among them,
concerning the fate which threatened them. One of them,
Sancho of Aragon, perceived that his sole resource was to
become a vassal of St. Peter. He therefore surrendered
himself and his kingdom to Gregory. He even carried his
submission so far as to introduce the Roman liturgy into
Aragon.1 Another, Alfonso of Castile, without pushing his
obsequiousness to such a point, heaped benefits upon the
monks of Cluny, who were labouring to propagate the ponti
fical theocracy.2 Thus at the end of the eleventh century
the Church of Spain was brought into the orbit of the papacy
by kings who were alarmed at the claims and threats of
Gregory vii.
It remained there, and thereafter did not cease to gravi
tate around Rome. In some respects, indeed, it continued to
be a national Church : its bishops were appointed by the
king, even its liturgy did not give place, except partially, to
that of Rome ; but nothing important was done in the Church
without the assent of Rome. In 1088 the metropolis of
Toledo was re-established by order of Urban n.3 The same
Pope laid the foundations of the metropolis of Tarragon, which
was definitely instituted by Gelasius n.4 (1118). Calixtus n.
constituted the metropolis of St. James of Compostella (1124),
and set limits to that of Braga, which had been restored by
Pascal n.6 After the victory of Xeres, which drove the
Moors from several cities of Andalusia (1234), Gregory ix.
charged the archbishop of Toledo to re-establish the hierarchy
in the newly conquered country.6 In 1249 the bishopric of
Jaen was founded by a pontifical bull. And when Ferdinand
the Catholic had finished the conquest of the kingdom of
Granada, it was due to the initiative of Alexander VI. that
this country recovered its former archbishoprics (1493). The
kings of Spain, whenever they wished to make war on the
1 Jaffe", 4841 (Ep. i. 63). 2 Id., 4840 (Ep. i. 64).
8 Gams, iv. 2-39. • Id., ib. 189.
iId.,ib.9,\1. * Id., ib. 145.

THE RELIGIOUS ADVANCE OF THE PAPACY 303
Moors, asked Rome for the indulgence of the Crusade. They
needed the assistance of the papacy. They repaid this with
a deference and submission with which their bishops could
not fail to sympathize. At Trent, the Spanish bishops gener
ally attributed to the Pope, authority over the Church
universal, and therefore superiority to the councils.

CHAPTER IX
The Pontifical Exchequer
J. B. Kirsch, Die Finanzverwattung des Ka/rdinalkollegiums im xiii. und
xiv. Jahrhundert, Miinster, 1895. P. Baumgarten, Untersuchungen
und Urkunden iiber die Camera Collegii Gardinalium fiir die Zeit von
1295, Leipzig, 1898. J. Haller, Papsttum und Kirchenreform, Berlin,
1903. Ch. Samaran et Q. Mollat, La Fiscalite" pontificate en France au
xiv™ siecle, Paris, 1905. E. Goller, Der Liber taxarum der papstlichen
Rammer, Rom, 1905. E. Goller, Die pdpstliche Ponitentiarie von
ihrem Ursprung bis zu ihrer Umstaltung unter Pius V., 2 vols. Rom,
1907-1911. A. Clergeac, La Curie et les beneficiers consistoriaux,
Paris, 1911. P. Fabre, Etude sur le Liber Censuum de I'EgUse romaine,
Paris, 1892. F. Durham, " The Denarius sancti Petri in England,"
in Transactions of the Royal Histor. Society, xv. 1901. Daux, "La
Protection apostolique au moyen Sge,'' in Revue des questions
historiques, lxvii. 1902. Daux, " Le Cens pontifical dans l'ISglise de
France," in Revue des questions historiques, lxxv. 1904.
Through the piety of the faithful, the Roman Church soon
acquired domains which were called "the patrimony of St.
Peter." This fortune was already vast in the time of Pope
Gelasius, who made an inventory of it in a register called the
" Polyptichus " ; and it was enormous when Gregory the
Great ascended the ponifical throne (a.d. 590). Partially
confiscated by the barbarians, and especially by Leo the
Isaurian (733), it almost disappeared under the attacks of
the Lombards when Pepin the Short saved it, increased it,
and transformed it into a political power which was called
" the pontifical state." This has been noticed in a previous
chapter. It is enough to recall the fact that the first source
of the papal revenues was " the patrimony of St. Peter,"
which in consequence of the gift of Pepin became " the
pontifical state." Nevertheless, in the course of time
304

THE PONTIFICAL EXCHEQUER 305
numerous streams successively swelled the river of the
pontifical fortune, which without them would have run dry.
These are the affluents which are to engage our attention.
They are called the denarius of St. Peter (St. Peter's pence),
the apostolic tax, the annates, the tithes, the pallium, the
perquisites, the procurations, the vacancies, the subsidies, the
indulgences, the absolutions, the dispensations.
I. The Denarius of St. Peter 1 was, in the first instance, an
alms sent by the kings of England to the English colony at
Rome, called Schola Saxonum. In this form it was instituted
by Ina, king of Wessex (689-726), and was extended to
Mercia by Offa il, king of that country (794). In 853 the
Anglo-Saxon king Ethelwulf, whose son a short time before
had received the royal unction from Leo iv. at Rome, went
to thank the Pope for his kindness, and as a token of his
gratitude promised to pay the apostolic see an annual revenue
of three hundred mangons. This gift received the same
name as the preceding one, and was called the denarius of
St. Peter. Thus the denarius of St. Peter from the middle
of the ninth century was designed to aid the English colony
at Rome and at the same time the apostolic see. For a time
it was devoted to this two-fold object. After a while the
Schola Saxonum disappeared, and the denarius of St. Peter
was devoted exclusively to the needs of the papacy.
When the Danish king Canute took possession of England
(1017), he thought that the payment of the denarius of St.
Peter would make his conquest lawful, and would make him
the authentic heir of the Anglo-Saxon kings. He therefore
held it an honour to send the traditional alms to Rome. In
1027 he wrote from Rome, whither he had gone on a
pilgrimage, to the chief men in his kingdom, a letter in which
he said : " I came to Rome, knowing that the Apostle St.
Peter possesses great power to loose and to unloose, and that
he has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. I judged it
useful to solicit specially his favour and patronage. ... I
ask all my bishops and all my officers so to act before my
return to England, as that all the ordinary debts may be
1 Fabre, pp. 129-134.

306 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
paid, that is . . . the denarii which should be sent to Rome
for St. Peter." x And among the laws of Canute we find one
expressed as follows : " The denarius of Peter should be paid
on the feast of Peter. Whosoever shall not have paid it at
that date must deliver it to the bishop, and in addition he
must pay a fine." 2
Instead of imitating the conduct of Canute, the last
Anglo-Saxon kings permitted the payment of the denarius to
lapse. Their negligence cost them dear.3 Hildebrand, being
displeased with them, caused Alexander II. to take the part of
their adversary William the Conqueror, and to deliver to him
the banner of St. Peter. He doubtless hoped that his
protege" would be more generous to St. Peter. He was not
mistaken. For several years William paid the denarius
regularly; but when, in 1080, Gregory, who had for three
years received nothing, called him to account, the Norman
king made this reassuring reply : " As I have just passed three
years in Gaul, the money has been raised only negligently ;
but now that I, by the grace of God, have returned to my
kingdom, I send thee by thy legate the sums already collected.
That which remains to be paid will be sent to thee at an
opportune time by the envoys of our faithful archbishop
Lanfranc." *
Until the time of St. Gregory vn. the denarius of St. Peter
was an alms. This pontiff undertook to transform it into
a feudal tribute.6 He reasoned as follows : the English kings
would not bring their money to the popes unless they were
their debtors. And they would not be debtors unless the
popes held the kingdom of England as their property. From
these premises Gregory concluded that William was a vassal
of the Holy See, and that as such he should swear fidelity
to the Roman pontiff. William, as we know, contemptuously
repudiated this pretension; but the papacy was not dis-
1 Migne, cli. 1181. s Mansi, xix. 555 ; Fabre, p. 134.
* Fabre, p. 136 ; Jaffe, 4757 ; Delare, Saint Gregoire et la reforme de VEglise
au xi siecle, ii. 446, Paris, 1889.
* Jaffe, 4850 ; Migne, cxlviii. 748.
6 See above, "The Political Advance of the Papacy."

THE PONTIFICAL EXCHEQUER 307
couraged.1 In a letter to Anselm of Canterbury, Pascal n.
(1101) took up once more the thesis of Gregory vn., which
still later (1156) Adrian iv. restated. In 1173, King Henry
IL, in order to preserve his crown, which was threatened,
acknowledged his vassalage ; but this capitulation, wrung
from him under critical conditions, had no sequel. To sum
up : throughout the twelfth century the denarius of St. Peter,
received at Rome as a tribute and as a sign of vassalage, was
paid by England as an alms. The popes remained faithful
to the conception of Gregory vn. ; the successors of William
retained his point of view. On both sides they continued to
hold the positions which they had taken. At length, in 1213,
under circumstances which we have already noticed, John
Lackland solemnly recognized the suzerainty of Rome. By
force of perseverance the popes gained the victory.
As an alms or as tribute, the denarius of St. Peter soon
seemed to the English a burden from which they hoped to
be freed. On different occasions Pope Pascal n. ( 1 0 9 9—1 1 1 8)
complained that he received nothing. He appealed to Anselm
of Canterbury,2 who did his best. He recommended to the
bishops the denarius, or, as it was called, the " Romascot " (or
" Romescot "). The bishops collected the money, but
delivered only a part to the representative of the Pope, and
kept the rest for themselves. Pascal n. again complained,
and this time denounced the indelicacy of the English bishops
to the king. It was in vain. The transactions which pro
voked the indignation of Pascal continued, and Rome was
resigned. The bishops took up vigorously the collection of
the denarius of St. Peter. Each of them imposed upon all
the families of his diocese the payment of the traditional
denarius, paid to the pontifical collector a fixed sum which
amounted to 300 marks sterling, and kept the surplus in his
own treasury. Indeed, this surplus usually far exceeded the
amount collected by the apostolic see — a case is cited in
which it was ten times as large. The denarius of St. Peter,
« Fabre, p. 138.
2 Anselm, Ep. iii. 85, iv. 29 ; Migne, clix. 120, 217 ; Jaffe, 6450 ; Fabre,
p. 142.

308 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
which was profitable for Rome, was the same for the English
episcopate. It was paid until the day when Henry vm.
(1535) and Elizabeth (1562) freed them from this burden.1
Canute, king of Denmark, and at the same time king of
England, imposed the denarius of St. Peter upon the Danes,
and fixed it at a half mark in silver per person.2 There is
reason to believe — the proof is wanting — that he imposed
the same tribute upon Norway.
II. The Apostolic Tax, the census, was an annual charge
which the monasteries and kingdoms "recommended" to
St. Peter, that is to say, granted as property to the great
apostle, placed under his guardianship, paid to the apos
tolic see. When any pious person founded a monastery,
he " recommended " it to St. Peter, and asked him to protect
it against the rapacity of brigands, nobles, bishops, and kings.
To be assured of this protection, he gave the monastery
wholly to the prince of the apostles, and promised to pay,
or cause to be paid, an annual tribute to his vicar the Pope.
The monasteries for which this precaution had not been
taken at the time of their origin, " recommended " themselves
to St. Peter, and promised to pay an annual revenue. Kings
who thought themselves menaced by powerful neighbours
took the same precaution, and "recommended" their king
doms to St. Peter, with a promise to pay a revenue. This
revenue was called the census. The monasteries and king
doms which were recommended were census-payers of the
Holy See. Such was the origin of the apostolic census.
The census had its origin in the recommendation, but
came much later in time than its cause. In other words,
for a long period monasteries were gratuitously recommended
to St. Peter. The census made its appearance when it was
decided to reward St. Peter for the services which had been
demanded of him.8 This took place at the end of the
eighth century, when the monastery of Lucques was founded
(790). In the charter of this foundation we read: "In
recognition of the protection exercised by the Apostle, of
this monastery and of themselves, the abbesses who succeed
1 Fabre, p. 140. 2 Id., pp. 135, 145. 3 Id., p. 38.

THE PONTIFICAL EXCHEQUER 309
one another at the head of the convent should every year
furnish a quantity of oil for ten golden sous, to the Church
of St. Peter at Rome, for the lighting."
After this date, charters analogous to that of Lucques
were frequent. We may confine ourselves to a reference
to the charter of Cluny1 (910). The following are extracts
from that important act : " I William, by the grace of God,
count and duke, . . . give and deliver to the apostles Peter
and Paul the village of Cluny, situated on the river Grosne.
... I grant it on the condition that a monastery shall be
built at Cluny in honour of the apostles Peter and Paul. . . .
Every five years the monks shall pay to Rome the habitation
of the apostles a census of ten sous to provide for the
lighting. They will have as protectors the apostles them
selves, and the Roman pontiff as their defender. . . . The
monks assembled in congregation at Cluny shall be entirely
set free from our power, from the power of our relations,
and from the bonds of royal greatness, and shall not be
subject to any earthly power."
In the twelfth century, thanks to the social progress
that had taken place, the monasteries no longer feared that
they would be given over to pillage, and ruined by brigands
either lay or ecclesiastical. Logically, the apostolic census
should have disappeared, since there was no further reason
for its existence. It was preserved because a new use for
it was discovered. In fact it was employed to pay for
exemption from episcopal control. The " exemption " was
an ancient favour. At the end of the tenth century (997)
Gregory v., at the request of Otto m., removed Cluny from
the spiritual control of the bishops. In 751, Boniface had
obtained from Pope Zacharias the same favour for Fulda.
In 679, Wilfrid had obtained it for the English monastery
of Peterhausen; and in 628, Honorius had granted it to
Bobbio.2 But up to the end of the eleventh century it
was given gratuitously, and moreover given seldom. Urban II.
was the first to attach to the census the power of purchasing
" liberty," that is to say, independence of the jurisdiction of
1 Fabre, p. 53 ; Delarc, I. xiv. 2 Fabre, pp. 86-97.

310 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
the bishops. This was a stroke of genius. A multitude of
monasteries which were not yet census-payers hastened to become
so, when for a pecuniary consideration they could free them
selves of episcopal control. And for the Roman Curia the
census was more than ever a fruitful source of revenue. The
popes were glad to behold this river of gold which flowed
into their treasury. The bishops, it need hardly be said,
looked upon this spectacle in a different way. Each exemp
tion, or, as was said at Rome, each " liberty " granted, was
a blow at their influence and prestige. They struggled
against the current which was carrying them to their ruin.
In 1028 the council of Anse condemned the exemption as
being contrary to the canons. The council of Reims of 1119,
re-edited the complaints formulated at Anse.1 In 1177
the Archbishop of Canterbury endeavoured to bring back
under his episcopal control the monks of Malmesbury,
who, as census-payers of the Holy See, had become emanci
pated from it. In 1205 the bishop of Coimbra defended
the rights of the bishops against the monks of his diocese,
rights which in 1206 the bishop of Worcester defended
once more against the monks of Evesham.2 St. Bernard
himself admitted that the exemptions were becoming an
abuse.8 But the complaints of the bishops and the
criticisms of St. Bernard were made in vain. The monks,
more and more eager for "liberty," continued to ask it of
Rome, which, on the payment of the apostolic census, hastened
to grant it.
Following the example of the monasteries, the kingdoms
too become census-payers of the apostolic see.4 The princes,
who to assure their independence made themselves vassals of
St. Peter, agreed to repay this service. Boleslas of Poland —
we learn this from his letter to Benedict vin. (1013) —
promised to pay the census to Rome. Robert Guiscard
swore that he would pay every year to St. Peter "twelve
denarii for every yoke of oxen": this oath he swore for
himself and for his successors. Sancho of Aragon promised
1 Fabre, p. 91. s Id., pp. 102-108.
3 De consideratione, iii. 4. * Fabre, pp. 120-123.

THE PONTIFICAL EXCHEQUER 311
an annual tribute of five hundred mangons (1089). Alfonso
of Portugal, for a census of four ounces of gold (1143),
bought from the apostolic see the right to wear the crown,
a price which was afterwards (1179) raised to two marks
in gold. And while several kingdoms spontaneously bound
themselves to pay the census, others were constrained by
Rome. In 1081, Gregory vn. wrote to his legates in France : *
"We shall inform the Gauls that they ought every year
to pay the blessed Peter one denarius for each house, since
the Emperor Charlemagne — whose authentic authorization is
preserved in the archives of the basilica of St. Peter — collected
every year for the apostolic see twelve hundred pounds in three
places, namely, Aix-la-Chapelle, Le Puy.Saint Gilles-sur-Rh6ne."
Later on (1156) Adrian rv. granted Ireland to Henry n. of
England, so that each Irish house might pay the denarius of
St. Peter.2 In spite of his pretended " authentic authoriza
tion," Gregory vn. was unable to obtain anything from
France. Adrian iv., on the contrary, succeeded. While
cardinal and legate of the Holy See, this pope had ten years
before subjected Norway and Sweden to the census. Never
theless his undertaking was then doubtless limited to re
establishing the denarius of St. Peter in these countries which
had been introduced by Canute, and neglected after the death
of that prince. The most brilliant success was achieved by
Innocent ni., when through his legate he forced John
Lackland to subject England to the suzerainty of Rome.
John then engaged to pay an annual tribute of one thousand
marks to the apostolic see ; and he made this engagement
for all his successors. This revenue had nothing to do with
the denarius of St. Peter which England was paying already.
Kings were obliged to pay it out of their personal resources
so long as the denarius was charged to the English people.
At the council of Lyons (1245) the English protested against
the tribute to which their kings after John Lackland were
subjected.3 The Pope let them manifest their ill will, but
1 Jaffe, 5203. 2 Fabre, p. 123.
3 Matth. Paris, Chronica majora, 1245 ; Luard, iv. 440 ; see "The Political
Advance of the Papacy."

312 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
he took good care not to abolish an institution so profitable
for the pontifical treasury.1
The census, it need hardly be said, gave rise to extensive
accounts, which were first organized by Gregory vn. and were
perfected by Cencius, the Pope's chamberlain, who afterwards
became Pope Honorius in. In 1192, Cencius prepared the
Liber Censuum, the book of census-payers of the Roman Church ;
that is, the register wherein were inscribed, province by pro
vince, the names of the debtors of the Roman Church, and
the amount of their revenues.
III. " Annates " is the name given to the revenue which
the new incumbent of a benefice paid to the Roman court.
The amount of this tax was equal to the revenues of the first
year; hence2 the name "annates." They were called also
annalia, annualia, fructus primi anni, the first fruits. In
other words, the popes ordered the beneficiaries to abandon
the revenues of the first year. This was the right of the
annates, or the right to the annates.
Clement V. was the first to make use of the annates to
enrich the papacy. It should be remarked that he did not
invent them. They were in existence before his time ; but
before, they enriched only the monks, the bishops, and even
the kings, and the popes only gave these persons permission
to collect the tax. Thus in 1216, Honorius in. authorized
the bishop of Toulon to profit for two years by the benefices
of his diocese. In 1246, the Archbishop of Canterbury
obtained the annates of all the benefices of his province.
Later (1256) the king of England, Henry in., received for a
period of five years all the annates of his kingdom. These
examples were contagious, especially in England. In 1306,
Clement v., who observed the eagerness with which the
English prelates claimed from him the annates of their
dioceses, according to an old chronicler, reasoned as follows :
1 The payment was stopped in 1366 ; see W. Stubbs, The Constitutional
History of England, ii. 433, iii. 346, Oxford, 1884.
2 Berthier, Histaire de FEglise gallicane, xv. p. vi ; T. Kirsch, Die papstliche
Kollektorien in Deutschland wahrend des xiv. Jahrhunderts, p. xxiv, Pader
born, 1894 ; Samaran-Mollat, pp. 23-34 ; Haller, pp. 49-52, 102, 128, 129.

THE PONTIFICAL EXCHEQUER 313
"The superior, if he wishes, can very well appropriate to
himself the privilege which the inferior demands." On this
principle he for three years awarded to himself the annates
of England and Scotland. He thus created the " pontifical "
annates by diverting, for the profit of the papacy, a source
of revenue which up to that time had found its way into the
coffers of the monasteries or of the bishops.
Clement V. did not tax the new incumbents of benefices
except for a period of three years, and then only in England
and Scotland. The tax which he instituted was therefore at
once temporary and local. But it soon increased. John
xxii. the successor of Clement V. by the bull Si gratanter
advertitis of 1316, which another bull of 1326 completed,
extended the annates to the whole Church. He indeed
presented this as a temporary measure, but he took care to
renew it periodically, so that during his pontificate the new
incumbents of the benefices were obliged to pay the revenues
of the first year to the Apostolic Church. In the seventeenth
century, and even in the council of Constance, John xxn. was
regarded as the " inventor, the author, and the father of the
annates." This opinion, while not strictly true, was not
altogether false. Considered as pontifical taxes, the annates
existed, but they were local and temporary. John xxn. made
them general. He it was also who, while pretending to give
them only a temporary character, actually made them per
petual. In this respect he was the father of the annates.
He developed the institution begun by Clement V.
He developed it, but did not bring it to perfection. In
fact he taxed only an insignificant part of the benefices, and
let the majority escape. That was a lacuna, but it was filled.
Clement vl (1342-1352), Innocent vi. (1352-1362), by
skilful measures gradually closed the meshes of the pontifical
net, through which only the lesser fry could pass. Therefore
from the time of Clement VI. the annates were a considerable
source of income ; yet some beneficiaries escaped the obliga
tion of delivering the revenues of the first year to the Pope.
Gregory xi. remedied this oversight, and subjected all the new
incumbents of benefices to the law (1375). Nevertheless,

314 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
about this time was established the custom of paying the
Apostolic Chamber, not all, but only half, the revenue of the
first year.
At the very beginning the pontifical annates gave rise to
complaints and protests in England, which were formulated
for the first time in 1307, and were renewed in 1343, 1376,
and 1390. Yet the popes by skilful manoeuvres won the
kings to their side, and were able to exact payment. But
the Great Schism put the institution of Clement v. to a
terrible test. Let us first notice what took place in France.
After twenty years of effort uselessly directed to repairing
this division, the Church of France resorted to a radical
measure. It cut off supplies from its Pope Benedict xm.
by suppressing his annates (1398). Political intrigues, it is
true, caused the annulment of this decision. In 1403 the
annates were re-established in France. But in 1405 they
were again suppressed by an Act of Parliament, and the royal
ordinance of February 1407, which were published throughout
France in May 140 8.1 In 1414 they were re-established in
favour of John xxm., who earnestly demanded them. Never
theless, this concession was merely provisional. Therefore at
the council of Constance the " French nation " — as we know,
this council was divided into nations — endeavoured to procure
the suppression of the annates (1415). Gerson severely
condemned the means employed by Rome to collect this tax.
In the meeting of 24th November 1415, a memoir was read
in which the annates were attacked.2 The following are
some points in this important document : " What is more
evident than the excesses committed in the collection of
annates in the pontificate of John xxm. ? Sometimes in a
single year there are three changes of incumbents in the
same benefice, and therefore the annates are paid three times a
year. It happens that the Pope receives the entire revenue for
the year, while the cardinals require besides half the same sum.
. . . What harm is not done by this withdrawal of money from
' Noel- Valois, La France et le Grand Schisme a" Occident, iii. 313, 607, Paris,
1896. 2 Noel-Valois, iv. 417.

THE PONTIFICAL EXCHEQUER 315
the kingdom of France ? John xxm. has declared that he
had in reserve one million seventy thousand florins. It can
be believed that the cardinals themselves possess a sum equal
to half of this. Whence has come the greater part of this
sum, if not from the Church of France ? Indeed, according
to the taxation of the Apostolic Chamber, the great benefices
of France, that is the bishoprics and the abbeys, return to the
Holy See the sum of 697,750 English pounds per annum;
for they are all renewed approximately every six years. If
the other churches were established on like foundations, the
annates would return nearly seven millions to the Holy See.
Yet the Pope and the cardinals have revenues enough with
out this tax. And the Church of France in particular has
granted them twenty thousand pounds of revenue."
In spite of the considerable influence which they exercised
at Constance, the French did not succeed in making their
opinion prevail with respect to the annates. They had at
least the consolation of bringing over the king of France to
their point of view. The suppression of the annates — or, to
speak more generally, the restoration of the " liberties " — was
decided by the royal ordinance of March 1418 (published in
April), an ordinance abolished by the Burgundian government
in September 1418, but maintained by Charles vn. There
would have been no change in this situation had France been
the mistress of her destinies. But France was under the
domination of the English, who, in order to enlist the Pope
in their interest, flattered his pretensions, and among other
concessions granted the annates, asking him, in view of the
distress of the times, to surrender half of his rights (1425).
Charles vn., to whom the support of the papacy was indis
pensable, imitated the policy of his enemies, and made con
cessions to Rome. It was thus that the annates were
re-established in France (embassy of 1425, and concordat of
Genazzano of 1426).1
The Church of France had difficulty in bearing this
burden, and Charles vn. looked for an opportunity of giving
1 Noel- Valois, Hist, de la Pragmatique Sanction de Bourges, pp. xxvi,
xxxvi-xlvii.

316 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
relief. The opportunity soon came. In 1435 the council
of Bale suppressed the annates (Session xxi.) ; and then made
an advance in the way of reform. It decreed more and more
radical measures against Pope Eugenius iv., and finally deposed
him. This was in 1439. In 1438 he had not yet been
suspended from his functions. At this serious juncture
Charles VII. consulted his clergy as to the attitude which he
should assume. The French bishops met at Bourges and
adopted a policy of compromise (1438). They accepted
most of the disciplinary decisions of the council, but out of
respect to the Pope they weakened them.1 By means of
these moderate measures the annates were suppressed in
principle, nevertheless Eugenius IV. was authorized to collect
during life a fifth part of the tax imposed by the council of
Constance, with the obligation to surrender every other subsidy.
Eugenius iv. thought that this was making too great a
sacrifice. He was indeed willing to grant the beneficiaries
certain delays in payment ; he was willing besides to
renounce his right when a benefice was changed twice in
the same year. But he carried his generosity no farther,
and demanded the maintenance of the annates. The Church
of France, for its part, continued to demand the suppression
of a tax which was regarded as odious. The unknown
Gallican who about 1445 fabricated the "Pragmatic Sanction
of St. Louis," took pains to insert in it an article against the
" pecuniary exactions of the court of Rome," 2 Directly after
the death of Louis xi., at a time when the Pragmatic Sanction
of Bourges was temporarily suspended, the States-General of
Tours (1484) were preoccupied, says Masselin, with " prevent
ing the money of the kingdom from being brought to Rome."
They asked the king, Charles vni., to put an end to the injury
inflicted on France by Rome, "by the exaction of vaccans
annates." They denounced the " blood lettings " and " mar
vellous clearances " made by the popes since Martin v. in
the " poor kingdom." 3
1 Noel- Valois, pp. lxxxiii, lxxxvii. 2 Noel- Valois, pp. clxi, clxxiv.
8 "Journal de Masselin," in Documents imedits sur I'histoire de France,
Pp. 83, 602, 669, 671.

THE PONTIFICAL EXCHEQUER 317
When Francis i. and Leo x. made the concordat of 1516,
they knew that their action would cause an explosion of
wrath throughout the Church of France. Therefore, with
a feeling of modesty, they did not venture to inscribe the
annates in their contract.1 But this was merely a device.
In exchange for the advantages secured to him by the con
tract, the king secretly granted the Pope pecuniary compensa
tions. The annates, of which the treaty made no mention,
were maintained ; yet with this reservation, that the benefices
with a revenue not exceeding twenty-four ducats should be
exempted from the tax. Practically all the non-consistorial
benefices were regarded as yielding a revenue not exceeding
twenty-four ducats. Thanks to this fiction, the consistorial
benefices alone were subjected to the annates. That was far
too much for the Church of France, which was unwilling to
pay anything. The States-General of Orleans (1560) pro
tested against the annates, in consequence of which a royal
ordinance was published from which the following is an extract :
"We order that all transportation of gold and of silver
beyond our kingdom, and payment of the denarius under the
pretence of annates, of non-occupation or otherwise, shall be
subject to seizure, and shall cease." But this ordinance
remained a dead letter, and the annates were paid.
Germany cared no more than France for the annates.
At Constance the Germans made an effort to suppress this
tax. Yet through the influence of Martin v. they yielded
and surrendered the power to him, but for only five years
(the Germanic concordat of 1418). In 1447, profiting by
the embarrassments which the council of Bale had caused
the papacy, they obliged Eugenius IV. to relinquish the
annates (concordat of the princes). But the following year,
Pope Nicholas v. had his revenge in the concordat of Vienne,
in which the annates were re-established. After this the
German incumbents of the ecclesiastical benefices gave the
papacy the revenues of the first year, with certain restrictions
which were afterwards adopted in the French concordat of
1516, and which Martin v. had already accepted. Payment
1 Berthier, xv. p. xxviii.

318 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
was made reluctantly. In 1457, Martin Meyer, the Chan
cellor of Mayence, found fault with the annates and other
Roman exactions which were impoverishing Germany. Two
years later Diether, archbishop of Mayence, refused to pay
the annates, which were fixed by the Apostolic Chamber at
ten thousand crowns. And in 1522 the diet of Niirnberg
asked the Pope to correct the abuses of the Roman court,
especially the abuse of the annates. Of course Rome did
not give up its revenues. In reply to the complaints of
Meyer, Cardinal iEneas Sylvius, who became Pope Pius n.,
declared that the impoverished state of Germany was owing
to the luxury of the prelates and not to the Roman court.
Archbishop Diether was excommunicated and finally deposed.
As for the diet of Niirnberg, it encountered the haughty
refusal of the nuncio Chieregato.1
In England, the "Statute of Carlisle" (1307) and the
"Statute of Provisions" (1351), which were especially in
tended to take from the popes the nomination to bishoprics
and other inferior benefices, affected the annates.2 When
these rules, which for a long time had been a dead letter,
were enforced (from 1390, and especially from 1407), the
annates disappeared. They had no place in the concordat of
Constance (1418).
IV. The Tithes were a tax levied on the revenues of
ecclesiastical benefices. This tax was for the purpose of
paying the expenses of the crusades and of supplying the
wants of the Holy See. It was supposed to amount to the
tenth part of the net revenues ; hence the name tithe or
tenth part.
The tithes were of royal origin. They were devised by
kings, and for some time they existed under this form, before
they were adopted by the papacy. It was Louis vn., king
of France, who for the first time (1146) imposed upon his
subjects a contribution for the second crusade. He repeated
this measure about 1163, perhaps more frequently. His
1 Koch, Sanctio pragmatica Germanorum illustrata, pp. 181, 210 ; Argen-
torati, 1789 ; Hefele, vii. 480 ; Pastor, i. 297, iv. 2, 89.
2 Stubbs, iii. 338.

THE PONTIFICAL EXCHEQUER 319
son, Philip Augustus, followed his father's example. In
1188 he established the " Saladine tithe" (for the crusade
against Saladin). Later, he again demanded money of the
churches and monasteries. His contemporary, Richard Cceur
de Lion, also instituted the " Saladine tithe " in his dominions,
but imposed it only on the laity. Louis vn. and Philip
Augustus are thus the authors of the ecclesiastical tax
known by the name of " tithes." The way was prepared
for them by the English king William Rufus, who (1096)
extorted money from the ecclesiastics of England. Never
theless William resorted to this fiscal measure in order to
make war on his brother Robert, and not to pay the expenses
of the crusade.
The clergy looked with disfavour at kings taking money
from their purse, and adopted measures in consequence. The
council of Tours (1163) forbade the bishops, under penalty
of deposition, to pay tithes. The third Lateran council
(1179), which was somewhat less radical, tolerated tithes,
but made them subordinate to the will of the clergy ; so
that kings before taxing ecclesiastical property were obliged
to have the consent of the bishops, abbots, and other
beneficiaries. The fourth Lateran council (1215) ordered
the bishops never to pay taxes to kings without having
previously applied to Rome. By virtue of this > rule the
Pope became the arbiter of tithes, and kings could not tax
the clergy without his authorization. It was a great victory
for the papacy. Innocent in., who at that time occupied
the apostolic see, desired a still more decisive triumph,
and he obtained it. During the meeting of the same council
he exacted a half tithe from the clergy to pay the expenses
of the crusade.1
In 1188, Clement m. had levied a tax on the property
of the clergy; and in 1199, Innocent m. had renewed this
measure.2 But at that time Rome had not yet placed this
property under its control. The edict of 1215, aside from
the question of tithes, is therefore remarkable. It marks
1 Matth. P^ris, Chron. maj., 1215 ; Luard, ii. 632.
' Gottlob, Kreuzablass, p. 188 ; Kreuzzugsteuern, p. 21 ; Potthast, 915, 922.

320 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
the time when this tax, hitherto collected by kings, was
claimed by the papacy, and took its place among the items of
the pontifical fiscal system. There was no delay in enforcing
it. In 1225 the legate of Honorius in. made the clergy
of France pay the expenses of the crusade against the
Albigenses. When Gregory IX. undertook to depose
Frederick il, he needed a great deal of money to carry out
his plan, in order to reduce the German Csesar to a helpless
condition. This money he demanded of the clergy, and
his legates sought it throughout Christendom. At the
council of Lyons (1245), Innocent IV. decided that the
pontifical commissaries should for a period of three years
take not only a tithe, but a half of the revenues of the
benefices which were not protected by the residence of the
incumbents.1 The sums collected were destined for the
crusade. Alexander iv., who had formed a plan to bestow
the crown of Sicily on Edmund, an English prince, collected
from the English clergy the sums necessary for this chimerical
undertaking.2 His successor, Urban rv., made fresh demands
for money on the clergy of England and of France3 (1263).
He wished to free the Holy Land ; more than this, he
wished to re-establish the Latin empire of Constantinople.
In 1265, Clement rv. ordered the clergy of France to pay
a tithe for three years, in order to aid the crusade of
St. Louis and the expedition of Charles of Anjou. The
same Pope through his legate exacted a tithe from the
English benefices, for what purpose, we do not know (1265).
On another occasion he granted the king of England a tithe
on all the benefices of his kingdom (1266). At the second
Council of Lyons (1274), Gregory X. required all the
beneficiaries of the Church to pay a tithe during a period
of six years, for a crusade which did not take place.4
Philip in., king of France, on the eve of his expedition against
the king of Aragon (1283), was authorized by Martin iv.
1 Mansi, xxiii. 613 ; Hefele, v. 1118.
2 Gottlob, Papstliche Darlehnschulden, p. 677 ; Kreuzzugsteuern, pp. 85,
209 ; E. Jordan, De mercatoribus camerae apostolicae, p. 73, Paris, 1909.
3 Raynald, 1263, 20. 4 Jordan, De mercatoribus, p. 77.

THE PONTIFICAL EXCHEQUER 321
to levy a tithe on the benefices of the kingdom of France.
At the end of the thirteenth century the contribution of
tithes was in the hands of the papacy, and Boniface viii.
merely formulated in theory a state of things accepted by
all when, speaking of ecclesiastical property, he said : 1
" The apostolic see has the absolute power of administering
it. . . . It can dispose of it without the consent of anyone.
It can exact, as it sees fit, the hundreth, the tenth, or any
other part of this property."
Complaints and recriminations were not wanting. They
were frequent, and at times went so far as open resistance.
In 1225 the clergy of France granted the legate of
Honorius III. a half tithe ; but in granting it he observed
that he understood that it was to give help, not to satisfy
an obligation. Therefore, in the following year, when the
pontifical legate returned to the charge and exacted the
payment of a new tithe, protests arose. The chapters of
the four provinces of Reims, Sens, Tours, and Rouen wrote
to the Pope, who at that time was Gregory ix. (1227).
They said in substance : " We have made a free-will offering
to the apostolic see : the legate transforms this act of
charity into a debt which he pretends to have the power
of exacting periodically."2 In 1229, Gregory ix. obtained
money without much difficulty; but in 1240 he met, at
least in England, with violent opposition. To the claims
of the pontifical legate the parish priests replied : 3 "It
is not permitted to exact money in order to make war
on the emperor [Frederick], as if he were a heretic, con
sidering that he has not been condemned nor convicted
by the judgment of the Church ; he is only excommunicated.
Just as the Roman Church has its patrimony, the administra
tion of which belongs to the Pope, so the other churches
have theirs, which is in no manner tributary to the Roman
Church. . . . The power to bind and loose, granted to
1 P. Viollet, Histoire des institutions politiques de la France, ii. 404, Paris,
1898. 2 Raynald, 1227, 56 ; Viollet, ii. 403.
3 Matth. P&ris, Chrom. maj., 1240 ; Luard, iv. 39.
21

322 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
St. Peter, does not authorize him to make these exactions."
It was also said : 1 " Contributions of this sort have already
been imposed, and when the money was extorted the Pope
and the emperor have become reconciled. Yet not a penny
has been returned ; on the contrary, if anything remained
to be paid, it was rigorously exacted." At the council
of Lyons (1245) there were fresh complaints made by
the English, complaints directed especially against the
census and the benefice provisions, but also against the
pontifical tithes. " The Italians," it was said, " acquire
every year from England more than sixty thousand silver
marks ; the king himself does not receive so much." 2
In 1247 it was that model of kings, St. Louis himself, who
sent Pope Innocent IV. a memorial in which the exactions
of the Roman court were denounced. At the head of these
exactions figure "the levies of subsidies on the Church of
France, the suppression of which was demanded by St. Louis."
The respectful but firm document begins as follows : 8 " The
King, my master, has for a long time hardly endured the
wrong which has been done to the Church of France, and
therefore to himself and to his kingdom. . . . Up to this
time he has been able to believe or to hope that you would
desist from these troublesome proceedings, either of your
own accord or because of his repeated petitions. But
seeing to-day that his patience has had no effect, that each
day leads to greater injuries, after duly deliberating, he has
sent us to set forth his rights and to inform you of his
opinions." In the second half of the thirteenth century resistance
became more energetic. In 1257 the council of London
decided not to pay the subsidies which Pope Alexander iv.
1 Matth. Paris, p. 40.
2 Id., iv. 443 (see also p. 419) ; farther on, pp. 518-522, new complaints
formulated in 1246, that is a year after the council of Lyons.
* Id., vi. 99-112. The French embassy charged to present this memorial
is mentioned by Peter of Savoy, archbishop of Canterbury, who places it in the
month of May 1247. Matth. P&ris, vi. 131, says that the memorial was
presented to the Pope during the council of Lyons, but on this point he is
mistaken. See Haller, p. 27.

THE PONTIFICAL EXCHEQUER 323
imposed on the English clergy.1 In 1263, Urban IV. en
countered a like opposition in England, Castile, and even in
certain provinces of France. The council of Paris alone was
more conciliatory. But even it refused to co-operate by
means of subsidies in re-establishing the Latin empire of
Constantinople. It did not grant aid except for an expedition
to the Holy Land. It refused to grant this aid as an
obligatory debt ; it granted it only as a voluntary offering.2
Clement iv. was not more fortunate.3 Upon his demanding
subsidies, several French chapters replied with a refusal
accompanied by threats. They declared that they regarded
the excommunication of Rome with contempt, and were
ready to cause a schism rather than submit to the oppression
of the papacy. In his reply Clement IV. confesses that
"insults have been vomited" upon him. Afterwards it was
the princes who acquired their freedom. In 1294, Philip le
Bel, king of France, and Edward I., king of England, imposed a
tribute on their clergy, without previously taking the opinion
of the Pope. This was contrary to the decree of the Lateran
council, which subjected the levying of tithes to the
authorization of Rome.
But what came of this movement of opposition ? Noth
ing, or almost nothing ; in most cases bishops, chapters,
parish priests, and monks were forced to submit by kings
whom popes had previously won to their interests. They
paid, therefore, after having sworn that they would not pay.
The attitude of Philip le Bel provoked a more serious
conflict, in which the Pope was momentarily defeated.4
Boniface VIII. indeed, after having, in his bull Clericis laicos,
strictly forbidden kings to touch ecclesiastical property
without his authorization, retreated before the threats of
Philip, and left to that prince full liberty to levy tributes on
his clergy, without the previous consent of the apostolic see.
But in 1301 he again took up the thesis of the bull Clericis
1 Mansi, xxiii. 948 ; Hefele, vi. 59.
2 Raynald, 1264, 19-21 ; Mansi, xxiii. 1112 ; Hefele, vi. 85.
3 Raynald, 1267, 55.
4 See chapter on "The Political Advance of the Papacy."

324 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
laicos, complicating it with pretensions to suzerainty (bulls
Salvator mundi and Ausculta fili). And this time he had
the last word — not on the political field, where, on the
contrary, he suffered complete defeat, but on the adminis
trative field. His claims relating to tithes, which were those
of the fourth Lateran council, were admitted throughout the
fourteenth century. As a rule the kings did not exact tribute
of the clergy without the authorization of the Pope. When
they neglected this formality — the States-General of 1356
wished to get rid of it — they were called to order. For their
own part the popes levied tithes, not only to meet the
expenses of the crusades, but for their personal use. Things
did not always take place according to their wishes. In
1357, Innocent vi., having claimed a tithe from the German
clergy, met with a refusal which was emphasized at the diet
of Mayence (1359), where the chancellor of the court
Palatine delivered a violent discourse against the papal
rapacity. In 1392 the French Pope Clement vn., under
analogous circumstances, provoked the indignation of the
clergy of France. But in spite of difficulties Innocent VI.
found a means of extorting money from the Germans.
Clement vn. also caused the French to pay.
The council of Constance made a fresh attempt to defend
ecclesiastical property against the covetousness of kings and
popes. In its forty-third session (21st March 1418) it
subjected the levying of tithes to the previous consent of the
bishops ; but this regulation resulted only in provoking
conflicts between Rome and the episcopate. The Turks were
threatening Christendom. In order to arrest them, soldiers
were needed, and to provide soldiers, money was needed,
Popes Nicholas v., Calixtus ni., Pius il, Sixtus iv., and
Innocent vni. summoned the princes to the crusade and
exacted tithes. This second task was especially thankless.
At the assembly of Frankfort (October 1454), the Germans
refused to pay the tithe, pretending that Pope Nicholas v.
would apply it to his personal use, and not to the war against
the Turks. At the synod of Aschaffenburg the archbishop
of Mayence reproached the Roman Curia with exploiting the

THE PONTIFICAL EXCHEQUER 325
German nation by means of tithes and indulgences. The
same grievance was formulated the following year in the
synod of Frankfort1 (1456). In France, the university of
Paris, the clergy of Normandy, and the clergy of Autun
opposed the levy of the tithe and appealed from the Pope
Calixtus in. to the general council (1456). In spite of all
protests, the money was forthcoming ; but no one ever knew
what became of it. Certainly it was not used against the
Turks. A like thing happened under Innocent vni. (1490).
This Pope announced that he was about to wage war against
the Turks, and send emissaries all over Christendom, charged
with draining the purses of the clergy. Two hundred
thousand crowns in gold went into the pontifical treasury.
There was no longer any question of a war. These repeated
embezzlements did not add to the prestige of the Roman Curia.
The legate Cajetanus had experience of this in the diet of
Augsburg (1518). He came in the name of Leo X. to ask the
Germans to contribute to the expenses of an expedition against
the Turks. He received the answer that the German nation,
already drained by the exactions of Rome, was without
resources ; but it was also made plain that no confidence was
put in the probity of the apostolic see.2
V. The Servitia 3 were a revenue which was paid to the
Pope and his court by the bishops and the abbots of monas
teries for their nomination, consecration, the confirmation of
their election, and the reception of their bulls. The term
" servitia " dates only from the thirteenth century, but the
revenue itself was far older. It existed in the time of Pope
St. Gregory, who, in order to put an end to the abuses of
which he was a witness, authorized the offerings which were
made voluntarily as a token of gratitude, but he forbade the
requisitions, under pain of anathema4 (Roman Council of
595). 1 Pastor, i. 680, 684 ; Noel-Valois, Hist, de la Prag. Sane., pp. clxxxv, 233.
2 Christophe, Hist, de la papauti pendant le xv™ siecle, i. 428, ii. 15-17 ;
Pastor, iv. i. 169 ; Fleury, Hist, cedes, liv. 117, 1.
3 A. Gottlob, Die Servitientaxen im 13 Jahrhundert, Stuttgart, 1903.
• Migne, lxxvii. 1337 ; Mansi, x. 475 ; Jaffe, 1365 ; Hefele, iii. 58.

326 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
According to the ordinance of St. Gregory, the Pope and
his officers could accept voluntary offerings from the bishops,
but were not allowed to exact nor even to request anything.
We do not know whether, nor for how long a time, this law
was observed. It is certain that at the end of the eleventh
century it was forgotten. This is proved by the following
citation from Yves of Chartres : " The chamberlains and
ministers of the sacred palace require of the bishops and
consecrated abbots many things which they adorn with the
names of offerings and benedictions."1 The third Lateran
council (1179) condemned as a horrible thing the traffic in
holy things (canon 7).2 Yet in spite of its anathemas the
Roman Curia continued to exploit the bishops and abbots.
Certain too flagrant abuses were indeed corrected. Innocent in.,
for example, forbade his officials to resort to insults or
violence in order to procure money. Previously the abbot
St. Anastasius — who was afterwards Pope Eugenius in. — had
insured an equality of salary among the cardinals (1143) by
instituting a common treasury into which all receipts were
paid.3 But these reforms were not advanced to suppress the
remuneration of the pontifical offices : they tended only to
regulate them. In the thirteenth century bishops and
abbots paid for their promotion, as in the past. They paid
even more than in the past. For the Roman Curia, thinking
that the revenues were insufficient, increased them by drawing
more and more on the purse of the newly appointed bishops
and abbots. In 1225, Honorius in., being vexed at the
complaints provoked by this regime, endeavoured to obtain
from each cathedral church one or two prebends, according
to the country, and from each abbey, revenues equal to a
prebend.4 If it had succeeded, this plan would have per
mitted him to nourish all his ministers, great and small,
without requiring payment for his administrative services.
He failed ; for the cathedrals refused to part with any of
their prebends, and the abbeys were unwilling to surrender
1 Ives, Ep., 133 ; Migne, clxii. p. 142 ; A. Gottlob, p. 13.
2 Mansi, xxii. 234 ; Hefele, v. 713.
3 Gottlob, pp. 53, 55. * Id., p. 58.

THE PONTIFICAL EXCHEQUER 327
any of their revenues. The papacy then continued to extend
its financial operations. At a period which is not well
defined, but which was prior to 1250, the "tax of servitia"
made its appearance.1 Most of the cathedrals and abbeys
were subject to a tariff, and were obliged to pay for each
promotion of a bishop or abbot a sum fixed in advance.
This sum was designated by the term " servitia " : and it was
inscribed in a register which was called " The Book of the
Taxes of the Chamber." It need hardly be said that the
"servitia" increased and improved progressively. On the
one hand an increasing number of bishoprics and abbeys
were subject to the tax of the servitia; on the other hand,
the tax was raised. Towards the end of the thirteenth
century the servitia were divided into common servitia
(servitia communia), small servitia (servitia minuta), and
secret servitia (servitia secreta). The common servitia were
destined for the Pope and cardinals : they usually amounted
to one-third of the revenues of the bishopric or of the abbey,
but they were often larger. The small servitia were divided
between the household of the Pope, which received four-fifths,
and the households of the cardinals, which took the remainder.
These two servitia had a juridical character, and were in
scribed in the book of taxes. The secret servitia, which were
of no juridical value, were fees designed to purchase privately
the favour of the Pope, or of a cardinal.2
The servitia, even when they were subject to a tariff,
were considered by the Roman Curia as offerings freely made
by the prelates. But this pretended freedom was a fiction.
Actually, whoever refused to pay the servitia, after having
acquired an honour, was excommunicated. In 1279 the
archbishop of Canterbury, John Peekham, was obliged to
pay four thousand marks to the Curia. Not having this
sum, he borrowed it from bankers, who advanced it to him,
but they wished to be repaid at the end of five months, under
pain of excommunication. When he found that he was in
1 Haller, p. 39 (in opposition to Gottlob, who (p. 92) attributes the servitia
to Alexander iv. ).
3 Gottlob, pp. 75, 102, 144.

328 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
danger of being excommunicated, the wretched Peekham
exclaimed in his distress : " I would never have accepted
episcopal consecration had I foreseen the terrible curse which
was awaiting me."1 In 1326 the monk Richard, being
appointed abbot of St. Albans, received an order to pay the
tax. " What tax ? " said he ; " we pay every year an ounce
of gold for the census." " Be silent," replied the pontifical
officers ; " we are speaking to you of the tax fixed for the
servitia. It is inscribed on the register as seven hundred
and twenty marks, and at the rate of five florins per mark,
that makes thirty-six hundred florins." They showed him
the register in which the monastery of St. Albans was
subjected to a tariff of seven hundred and twenty marks.
Then he was made to swear an oath upon the gospels that
he would pay this amount after a definite interval, and in
case of non-payment, excommunication would follow.2
VI. The right of the Pallium was, as the name indicates,
a revenue paid by archbishops when they received the
pallium. Pope St. Gregory found this revenue in force, and
in the council of 595, already mentioned, he undertook to
suppress it. Nevertheless, a century, and a half later (744)
two Frankish archbishops, Abel and Ardobert, who at the
instigation of Boniface went to Rome to seek the pallium,
returned very much dissatisfied, and accused the Roman
Curia of treating the grant of the pallium as a commercial
transaction. Boniface made these complaints known to
Pope Zacharias. The latter declared that he had been
calumniated. According to him, everything at Rome was
done gratuitously, and the pallium offered no opportunity for
an attempt to gain money.3 In the eleventh century new
recriminations were uttered ; this time by the English arch
bishops. Moved by these reproaches, which seemed to him
too well justified, King Canute gave disinterested advice to
1 Ch. Martin, Begislrum epistolarum fratris J. Peekham, i. 22, 23.
(Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland.)
2 Th. Walsingham, Gesta abbatum monasterii S. Albani, ii. 190. (Chronicles
and Memorials.)
* Among the letters of Boniface, M. G., Epist. iii. 315 ; Hauck, i. 528.

THE PONTIFICAL EXCHEQUER 329
the Roman Curia. He made fair promises to it, as is proved
by his letter written at Rome (1027): "I have complained
to our lord the Pope, and have expressed to him my lively
dissatisfaction at the enormous sums which have been exacted
from my archbishops when the pallium was in question.
He decided that this should not occur again." 1
But the success achieved by Canute did not last long:
for at the beginning of the twelfth century — we learn this
from St. Anselm — when an English archbishop wished to
obtain the pallium, he " sent money to Rome." The same
thing happened subsequently. The right of the pallium took
its place among the sources of the papal revenues. Attacked
by the council of Bale, and by the Pragmatic Sanction, it
triumphantly survived these two assaults, and at the opening
of the sixteenth century it flourished more than ever. At
Mayence it amounted to twenty thousand florins.
VII. The right of Visitation was a revenue which certain
bishops and abbots of monasteries were obliged to pay to
the Roman Curia,2 when the visit ad limina occurred. The
amount of revenue varied in different episcopates and in
different monasteries. The following facts demonstrate this.
The archbishop of York was obliged to pay three hundred
marks sterling every three years, which was the equivalent of
twelve hundred florins. The archbishop of Tours, every two
years was taxed six hundred pounds; the archbishop of
Rouen, one thousand pounds every two years ; the archbishop
of Canterbury, three hundred pounds every two years ; the
abbot of Marmoutiers paid four hundred pounds every two
years ; the abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, ten marks
every three years.
VIII. The Procuration meant at first the right which the
bishops or their representatives had. to be lodged by the parish
priests to whom they made a canonical visit, with the pomp of
princes. To give some idea of this extravagance it is sufficient
1 Migne, oli. 1182 ; Anselm, Ep. iv. 88 ; Migne, clix. 245. See Ep. iii. 37,
p. 72 ; Fabre, p. 134.
2 F. Baumgarten, Untersuchungen und Urkunden Uber die Camera Collegii
Cardinalium, cxxi.-cxxv. ; Haller, p. 133.

330 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
to say that the third Lateran council1 (1179), which wished
to remedy the evil, forbade the archbishops to have in their
train more than fifty horses, and forbade the bishops to have
more than thirty. Another abuse consisted in making parish
priests pay the expenses of a canonical visit which never
took place. This is as much as needs be said.2
The councils forbade the bishops to exact procurations
when they had not made the canonical visit ; but in spite
of this prohibition, which the council of Valencia (855)
promulgated, and which the fourth Lateran council repeated,
the abuse continued. It should be remarked that every one
profited by this. The parish priests preferred to send money
to the bishops rather than be supervised and ruined by them ;
the bishops were not sorry to receive the revenues without
being inconvenienced. Thus it became the custom to pay
the bishops the procurations, in order to indemnify them for
canonical visits which were not made. Yet this usage was
condemned by the councils. Therefore, from the time of
Boniface vni. we find certain bishops asking a dispensation
of Rome. This dispensation was granted. The bishops
thanked the Pope for having legitimized an order of things
which had previously been illegal; and they showed their
gratitude by giving the papacy a part of the money which
had been collected. Thus the procurations took a place
among the pontifical revenues. That took place under
John xxn. (1316-1334). They were gifts made by the
bishops to the Pope, to thank him for having freed them
from fulfilling an obligation.
Indeed, there is reason to believe that the gifts of the
bishops were not spontaneous, and that John xxn. demanded
a- share of these benefices. But the compulsion was concealed,
and the first procurations were officially regarded as gifts.
They did not long preserve this false appearance; Innocent
vi. (1352—1362) in several provinces (of France) openly
claimed two-thirds of the procurations. Urban V. made the
law of Innocent vi. general (1369) ; and Gregory xi. completed
1 Mansi, xxii. 234 ; Hefele, v. 712.
2 Haller, p. 131 ; Sam aran- Mollat, pp. 34-47.

THE PONTIFICAL EXCHEQUER 331
the work of Urban v. Apostolic collectors went through the
dioceses and deducted sums of money corresponding to the
expenses which the canonical visit would have caused, had
it taken place. Of course the bishops no longer made the
canonical visit. Condemned as an abuse by the council of
Constance (sess. 39, deer, v.), the pontifical procuration dis
appeared in the fifteenth century.
IX. The right of Spolia is the right which the popes
claimed to the property of bishops on the death of the
latter.1 For a long time this right had been claimed by the
people, by the clergy, by the princes. Upon the death of
a bishop the people, whenever they were able, pillaged his
house. The nobles and kings put an end to this disorder by
adjudging the episcopal property to themselves. The councils
on their own part intervened, endeavoured to make the
churches heirs to the episcopal property, and with this in
view enacted rules which the bishops themselves disobeyed.
The popes then came forward, and placed the right of spolia
among the sources of papal revenue.
The first steps in this direction were taken by Innocent rv.,
who in 1246 promulgated a constitution, according to the
terms of which the property of clergy dying intestate reverted
to the apostolic see. This constitution was addressed to the
Church of England, but in that country it encountered so much
opposition that it could not be enforced. The undertaking
of Innocent rv. remained merely a plan. In 1311, Clement v.,
who was in search of money, was urged by Raymond Lullius
to lay hands on the spolia of deceased bishops, but he
refused. It was John xxn. (1316-1334) who carried out
the idea of Innocent rv. and of Raymond Lullius. During
the reign of this pontiff the spolia of the archbishopric of
Auch, of the bishoprics of Toulouse, of St. Papoul, of Mirepoix,
of Carcassone, of Alet, of Couserans, of Agele, of Lodeve ;
of the abbots of Loreze, of Aniane, of St. Paul of Narbonne,
were seized for the Holy See. The fiscal proceeding, so
brilliantly begun by John xxn., was developed by his suc
cessors, particularly by Gregory xi. (1370-1378). In the
1 Samaran-Mollat, pp. 47-52, 114 ; Viollet, ii. 349-352.

332 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
fourteenth century the spolia formed one of the most con
siderable sources of revenue for the papacy, — and also one
of the most odious. The popes had frequently to resort to
excommunication in order to take possession of the prey
which the heirs of the bishops disputed with them. At the
time of the Great Schism, the French popes Clement vn. and
Benedict xin. carried their exactions so far that the king of
France put a stop to them. Abolished in France (1406)
by royal command, the right of spolia was condemned at
Constance (sess. 39, can. 5). Yet a half century later the
pontifical collectors passed through France in search of spolia,
but Louis xi., by an ordinance of 1464, stopped the exercise
of this industry.
X. The right of Vacancies is the right which the popes
claimed to the revenues of vacant benefices, that is to say,
those deprived of their titulars.1 This fiscal measure was
established by John xxn., who seems to have made it advance
pari passu with the right of the spolia and the annates.
Every time that the Roman Curia took possession of the
patrimony of a deceased prelate, it adjudged to itself besides,
the revenues of the benefice during the vacancy, and then
claimed from his successor the revenues of the first year.
Spolia, vacancies, annates succeeded one another as links in
a chain. Nevertheless Benedict xn., the successor of
John xxn., disregarded the annates, and preferred to utilize
the vacancies. His procedure was simple. When a beneficiary
died, Benedict unduly prolonged the vacancy of the See, and
during the whole interval he collected its revenues. He
was afraid, he said, of appointing unworthy titulars ; and
this convenient pretext permitted to justify his conduct.
The dissatisfaction that he provoked, alarmed his successor,
Clement vi., who gave up the vacancies and returned to the
annates. But Urban v. and Gregory xi. thought that if the
annates were useful, so too were the vacancies ; and they
reserved the profits of the benefices which had been deprived
of tbeir titulars. To be exact, we should remark that only
1 Samaran Mollat, p. 62 ; Baluze, Vitas paparum avenionensium, i. 240 ;
Haller, pp. 122, 130.

THE PONTIFICAL EXCHEQUER 333
the benefices whose titulars were appointed by the Pope
were subjected to the right of vacancies. But from the time
of John xxn. the papacy was so well able to extend its
right of collation, that under Gregory xi. it bestowed all
the benefices. As a consequence, it deducted in advance
the right of vacancies from them all. The council of
Constance (sess. 43), presided over by Martin v., abolished
this right.
XI. The Caritative Subsidies were originally free gifts
made under certain circumstances by the priests to the
bishops to aid the latter when they were embarrassed
financially.1 John xxn. utilized this practice, and asked the
bishops to come to the help of the Holy See with generous
alms. His successors followed his example. Thus the
caritative subsidies, thanks to the initiative of John xxn.,
served to feed the pontifical treasury. The collectors charged
with taking them were empowered to excommunicate the
beneficiaries who refused to open their purses. These sub
sidies were therefore veritable revenues ; but they kept their
original name, and were called " caritative," as if they were
evoked by the compassion of bishops and beneficiaries for
the embarrassment of the papacy.
XII. In the first half of the tenth century Pope Leo vn.
granted Indulgences to the benefactors of the monasteries of
Cluny and Gorze. His successor, Stephen vm., conferred
the same privileges on a monastery of nuns.2 By Urban n.
indulgences were subsequently granted to the benefactors
of the monastery of Pavilly (1091), and by Gelasius n., to
the Christians of Spain, who by their alms contributed to the
restoration of the Church of Saragossa, or who came to the aid of
the clergy of that city. Nevertheless up to the middle of the
twelfth century the popes showed reserve in advancing upon
this path. Gregory vn. refused even to enter upon it at all.3
1 Samaran-Mollat, pp. 56-60.
2 Jaffe, 3607, 3617 ; N. Paulus, Mittelalterliche Absolutionen : Zeitschrift
filrkath. Theol., xxxii. 443 (1908) ; Migne, cxxxi. 1075 (JafK, 3605, 3609, 3617,
is insufficient). 3 Gottlob, Kreuzablass und Almosenablass, pp. 241, 244, 95, Stuttgart, 1906.

334 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
But the bishops had fewer scruples. They distributed in
dulgences profusely to those who furnished money for the
building of churches.1 This was the origin of the trade in
indulgences. It was developed under the auspices of Rome,
but at first not to its profit. On the contrary, it served
exclusively to enrich the monasteries, the churches, and the
bishops. From the middle of the twelfth century the
situation changed. Then the papacy diverted the stream of
wealth which flowed from the indulgences, and it employed
it in fertilizing its own works.
The first pontifical undertaking which profited by this
pious traffic was the Crusade, and the first Pope who
thought of aiding the Crusade by the commercial value of
indulgences was Eugenius in. To procure money on the
eve of the second crusade, Eugenius in. remitted one-seventh
of penance to all those who contributed by their alms to the
success of the holy expedition (1145 or 1146). Clement in.
(1188) and Innocent in. (1199) imitated Eugenius III. They,
too, promised indulgences to those who by their alms should
aid in sending armies to the Holy Land.2 Henceforth the
tradition was established : every call to the Crusade was
accompanied by a sale of indulgences, which, together with
the tithes, served to furnish the funds necessary for the
expedition. From the first years of the thirteenth century, parallel to
the crusades, the papacy organized various military expedi
tions : 3 at first against the Albigenses ; then against political
enemies,4 against Frederick, Conrad, Ezzelin, Manfred, Conradus,
Peter in. of Aragon. With great skill the papacy likened these
wars to the crusades to the Holy Land. Its preachers declared
to the people that the Albigenses were heretics worse than
the infidels, that Frederick and the other adversaries of the
pontifical policy were dangerous heretics : in a word, that the
expeditions against the enemies of Rome were real crusades.
Thereafter it was logical to extend to these " internal
crusades " the financial system of which the crusades to the
1 Gottlob, p. 247. 2 Id., pp. 183-185.
3 See below, Crusades. 4 Gottlob, p. 258 ; Lea, iii. 158.

THE PONTIFICAL EXCHEQUER 335
Holy Land were the beneficiaries. Of course the popes
adopted this view ; and after beginning by selling indulgences
for the war against the Mussulmans, they sold them to enlist
soldiers to oppose their political enemies. They soon sold
them to contribute to their daily needs. It is this spectacle
which was witnessed in the case of the indulgence at the
jubilee instituted in 1300 by Boniface vni. This indulgence
required only visits to the basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul
at Rome. No money was exacted. But this was destined
to draw to those basilicas crowds who would unavoidably give
alms. Under the appearance of a gratuity, the indulgence of
the jubilee was necessarily productive. Indeed its productive
ness exceeded all expectations. Millions of the faithful
assembled, and enriched the basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul,
as well as the Romans themselves. Originally the indulgence
of the jubilee was granted only once every century. But for
so fruitful an industry, such an interval was far too long.1
At the instance of the Romans, Clement VI. (1343) reduced
the period between the jubilees to half a century. In 1389,
Urban VI., at the limit of his resources, took advantage of
the precious indulgence. He decided that the period of
jubilee should thereafter be reduced to thirty-three years, and
to make this principle directly applicable he proclaimed a
jubilee for the following year (1390). Pope Paul n. did even
better (1470) ; he reduced the period of jubilee to a quarter
of a century. In conformity to this legislation, the jubilee
took place in 1475, and from that time on it recurred every
twenty-five years. Sixtus rv. (1475) decided that during
the period of the jubilee every indulgence other than that
of the jubilee was to be suppressed. This prudent measure,
which had the advantage of preventing dangerous rivalries,
was maintained. Alexander vi. (1500) authorized strangers
to acquire the indulgence of the jubilee without coming to
Rome, provided they paid a fifth part of the amount which
their pilgrimage to the capital of the Christian world would
1 Bull Unigenitus in Exlravag. communes, v. 9 ; E. Amort, De origme,
progressu, valore, et fructu indulgentiarum, i. 84 ; Raynald, 1470, 55 ; 1500,
25 ; Pastor, ii. 385, 509 ; iii. 512 ; Lea, Auricular Confession, iii. 214.

336 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
have cost them. Furthermore, he permitted pilgrims, on
condition that they paid an indemnity, to shorten the time of
their stay at Rome, which had hitherto been fixed at fifteen
days. But these expedients, which manifested too plainly
certain industrial preoccupations, were not renewed. Never
theless it should be said for Alexander VI. that (in 1390)
Boniface IX. authorized foreigners to acquire the indulgence
of the jubilee without leaving home, on condition that they
paid the sum which the journey to Rome would have cost
them. We now meet with another very famous indulgence, —
that of St. Peter.1 In 1506, Julius n. caused the ancient
basilica of St. Peter to be torn down, and he undertook to
rebuild it on a very great scale. He needed money for this
gigantic work. Julius caused a sale of indulgences. His
successor, Leo X., followed up these operations (1513), and did
his utmost to extend them. Julius n. had sold indulgences
only to the Italians ; Leo sought new markets. Spain,
England, and France did not indeed desire the pontifical
merchandise. But Germany still remained. Leo X. gave
orders to export the indulgence of St. Peter to the Germans
(1513—1514). In the meantime Albert of Brandenburg,
a young man twenty-four years old, of princely origin, who
was already archbishop of Magdeburg, and administrator of
the bishopric of Halbertstadt, secured his own appointment
as archbishop of Mayence. This plurality of bishoprics was
a grave breach of canon law. The Roman Curia authorized
it only after the payment of ten thousand ducats, which had
to be paid at once. Albert paid, after borrowing this sum
from Fugger, the powerful banker. Then the Roman Curia,
careful to defend the interests of Fugger, who wished to be
repaid, made the following bargain with the young archbishop.
Albert was appointed commissary of the indulgence of St.
Peter for the Provinces of Mayence and Magdeburg, for the
bishopric of Halbertstadt, and for the domains of the house of
Brandenburg. As such, he was obliged to make known to
1 Pastor, iii. 775 ; iv. i. 225 j A. Sohulte, Die Fugger in Bom, i. 115,
Leipzig, 1904.

THE PONTIFICAL EXCHEQUER 337
all these regions the precious merchandise, and to do his best
to dispose of it. As a reward he was authorized to appro
priate one- half the products of the sale ; the other half
was for St. Peter. The indulgence was valid for eight years ;
during this time all the indulgences could be suspended at
the pleasure of the dealer. Albert accepted the bargain —
although, without enthusiasm — and took as his under com
missary the Dominican Tetzel, whom he charged with preaching
the indulgence of the jubilee to the people (1517). Tetzel
yras a man of affairs, who on several occasions had given
proof of it. He passed through the country, advertized the
matter, and explained that every piece of money dropped into
the chest provided for the indulgence saved a soul from the
flames of purgatory. Unfortunately, on 31st October 1517,
Martin Luther, a young monk of Wittenberg, nailed to the
door of the castle church ninety-five theses which were
injurious to the doctrine of indulgences. The same day he
denounced to the archbishop of Mayence the commercialism
of the latter's preacher. Tetzel endeavoured to defend him
self ; but he soon found that he was obliged to interrupt his
oratorical tour and to disappear. Protestanism had just
been born, and at its birth it had slain the indulgence of
St. Peter. XIII. Innocent in. gave a dispensation on several oc
casions to certain excommunicated persons, from going to
Rome to secure absolution ; but he exacted a sum of money
from them. Learning, for example, that a husband whose
wife had been seduced by a priest had cut off the priest's nose,
and so had become subject to excommunication, Innocent
authorized the man to obtain absolution from his bishop ; but
he obliged him to give for the crusade the money which
the journey to Rome would have cost him.1 The same Pope
issued a bull by the terms of which all those who had made
a vow to go on the crusade, and were unable to do so, —
the preachers were ordered to exhort all the faithful,
including old men, women, and children, to make this vow,
— were to obtain absolution from their vow by paying a
1 Ep., vii. 156 ; Migne, ccxv. 46.
22

338, THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
sum of money. Such is the origin of the sale of
absolutions. It was Innocent iil who began this com
merce.1 His successors advanced resolutely in the path which
this great pope opened to them. In 1240, the legate of
Gregory ix. in England published the following circular :
" We have learned that certain crusaders who are unfit for
war, are going to Rome to obtain absolution from their vow.
We inform them that to spare them the trouble and expense
of the journey, the Pope has charged us not only to absolve
them, but to oblige them to redeem their vow. They will
therefore appear before us to receive this favour. Given at
London, 15th February." And Matthieu Paris,2 who pre
served this document for us, adds that the monks granted
the crusaders absolution from their vowSj exacting from each
one the sum which would have been paid for the journey.
Gradually the sale of absolution was improved, and gave rise
to a new industry, known in history as the " letter of con
fession." The letter of confession was a diploma which
conferred on him who acquired it, the right to choose a con
fessor at his pleasure, and grant the latter the power to confer
absolution upon him. Armed with this document, which the
Roman chancellory sold to whoever would pay the price, the
sinner sought a priest and gave him all the powers necessary
for granting him absolution, after confession, from his censures
and his faults. The letter of confession had to be renewed
as often as the faults committed had been punished with
censures. As a rule it cost ten gros tournois (pounds of
Tours) — the gros tournois represented about two shillings —
but this tariff was often greater. In the sixteenth century,
under the pressure of Protestantism, when the Roman Curia
had serious thoughts of reform, the letter of confession was
submitted to a pontifical commission which declared it to be
1 Gottlob, Kreuzablass, pp. 178-180.
'* Chronica majora, 1240 ; Luard, iv. 6, 9 ; "Eisdem temporibus inceperunt
ipsi Praedicatores fratres et Minores et alii viri literati prsecipue theologi
crucesignatos absolvere a suo voto, accepta tamen pecunue quantum sufflcere
videbatur unicuique ad viaticum ultramarinum, et factum est in populo
scandalum."

THE PONTIFICAL EXCHEQUER 339
legitimate, and maintained it (1536). It was suppressed by
the council of Trent.1
XIV. Indulgences were sold, absolutions were sold.
Dispensations also were sold. The most important of the
dispensations dealt with commercially was that relating to
abstinence. The initiator of this seems to have been Bene
dict xn. In 1338 this Pope offered for sale permits to take
meat and milk on fast days. His successor, Clement vi.,
granted analogous privileges (1344). Thereafter authoriza
tions to take meat, eggs, and milk at prohibited periods were
counted among the sources of revenue of the Holy See, which
nevertheless admitted bishops, and sometimes princes, to share
its benefices. The famous Cruzada brought in enormous
sums, upon which Rome levied an amount varying from
twenty thousand to one hundred thousand ducats, — and left
the remainder to Spain.2
The pontifical receipts were fed from numerous sources.
To manage such a fortune, a ministry of finance was
needful. This ministry, known as the " Apostolic Chamber "
(Camera apostolica), was not fully constituted until the four
teenth century. But in the thirteenth century its principal
officers were at work, some passing their time in travelling
to levy taxes on the spot, and bring them to their des
tination ; while others, installed in the bureaus of the Curia,
supervised the return of the receipts. In the first group
were collectors attended by their subordinate officers. With
authority over a financial circumscription, called " collec-
toreria," the collector notified all the tax-payers in his
jurisdiction concerning the amounts which they had to pay,
collected the taxes, transmitted to the Curia, or to a place
indicated by the Curia, the sums collected, after previously
submitting them to the operation of exchange. When a bene
ficiary died, the collector went immediately to the dwelling of
the dead man to take possession of his remains. When a
1 Lea, Auricular Confession, i. 293 ; Tangl, Das Taxwesen des papstlichen
Kanzlei, p. 91.
2 Lea, ii. 64, iii. 427.

340 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
tax-payer refused to pay, the punishment of excommunication
was inflicted upon him, as was the case with that bishop
whose body remained unburied until his relatives had agreed
to pay his debts. In the course of his journeys, the collector
was at times plundered by robbers or imprisoned by nobles.
This profession was therefore not without peril, but it was
lucrative. Often, indeed, the collector deceived the Curia
with false accounts, and kept a part of the sums extorted
from the tax-payers. It sometimes even happened that he
was a thorough brigand, like John Bernier and John des
Palmes, who terrorized the people in their jurisdiction.1
At the Curia was stationed the chamberlain who was
minister of the pontifical finances — at least after the fourteenth
century. Under his orders he had the treasurer, the members
of the office of disputed claims, and an army of scribes who
kept the registers. These registers were of two kinds, the
" ordinary " and the " special." The ordinary registers were
called " Receipts and Payments." They served to indicate the
movements of the funds. The special registers, seven in num
ber, were appropriated to the different branches of the receipts.
In addition to the collectors, the scribes, and the Apos
tolic Chamber, there were the bankers (mercatores camerce).
These officials changed money, charged themselves with the
transmission of securities, and especially advanced funds.
When a tax-payer, bishop, parish priest, or abbot of a monas
tery could not pay the Roman Curia, he sought a banker.
Often, however, he found one without seeking him. The
banker, in fact, accompanied the collector on his rounds, and
offered his services to any one who needed them. He lent
money when necessary, and was repaid at a high rate of
interest. The debtors, indeed, often forgot to pay their
debts ; but the banker, like the collector, was invested with
the power to excommunicate. Armed with the formidable
weapon which the Roman Curia put into his hands, he gener
ally ended by recovering both principal and interest. We
have seen that John Peekham, archbishop of Canterbury, was
threatened by the bankers with excommunication. Rome
1 Samaran-Mollat, pp. 76, 112, 116.

THE PONTIFICAL EXCHEQUER 341
protected the bankers, and with good reason, for it often
resorted to their services. Of course, when the need of money
was felt, the Holy See had as a resourse the imposition of
the tithe or the issuance of an indulgence. But tithe and
indulgence required months, and even years, to have their
effect. Not having time to await the harvest, the Pope
mortgaged it. He applied to the banker, who paid him the
sums required, and reimbursed himself with interest from
the tithes and indulgences. The Templars, up to the time of
their disappearance, were the most powerful and respected
bankers. The banking passed into the hands of the Italians
of Florence, and especially of Lombardy, who moreover in the
thirteenth century traded in money.1
Finally, we must here mention the commissaries charged
with issuing indulgences. They were established by Boni
face IX., who utilized them for his jubilee in 1390.2 From
the beginning they behaved as traders, or rather as char
latans.3 Without regarding the instructions of the theologians,
they granted indulgences to the people, who took them at
their word, as a magic recipe designed to blot out all offences,
to restore baptismal innocence to the Christian, to open to him
directly after death the gates of heaven, and to save at once
the souls in purgatory. Furthermore, they appropriated a part
of the sums which they collected ; in short, they acquired a
bad reputation. They continued to deserve it. Arcimbaldi,
one of the commissaries of indulgences under Leo x., by his
unscrupulous commercialism, scandalized the peoples of Den
mark and Sweden.4 And the conduct of Tetzel, without
being so reprehensible, was not altogether upright.6
Money came to the Apostolic Chamber, brought by the
collectors, the bankers, the beneficiaries, the censors, the
pilgrims, by prelates who were obliged to make visitations
1 Jordan, De mercatoribus, pp. 49-74 ; Samaran-Mollat, pp. 142-158.
3 M. Jansen, Papst Bonifatius IX. und seine Beziehungen zur deutschen
Kirche, p. 143, Freiburg, 1903.
3 Pastor, iv. 233. * A. Schulte, Die Fugger in Bom, i. 151.
3 Pastor, iv. 239. "Auch Tetzel ist in dieser Hinsicht von Schuld nicht
freizusprechen."

342 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
ad limina, by the faithful in quest of an absolution or a
dispensation, by the commissaries of indulgences. The money
arrived. When once it had been received, what became of
it ? Clement v. amassed a million florins, that is, about
sixty million shillings. This treasure was supposed to be
intended for the Crusade. As a matter of fact, Clement V.
disposed of it in the interests of his family, in such a way
that his successor, John xxn., found the pontifical treasury
empty. He laboured to refill it, and in this work displayed
extraordinary financial genius. Having witnessed his devices,
his contemporaries unanimously accused him of rapacity, and
they estimated the amount of his reserve at a milliard and a
half. This estimate, it seems, was exaggerated, and John xxn.
probably did not have more than Clement V. At his death
he probably left no more than sixty millions. But the
prodigality of Clement vi. quickly absorbed everything. His
successors expended considerable sums in re-establishing their
authority in the pontifical state by armed force. Then came
the Great Schism ; the taxes, with the exception of four or
five which perished in the storm, were resumed. But the
papacy had then to gratify two costly passions : the love of
luxury, and the cult of literature and of the arts. Luxury
entered the Roman Curia with Clement VI., and in spite of
the reaction effected by certain popes (notably by Innocent
VI.), it increased. In the fifteenth century the popes and
the cardinals led the life of princes, or rather they surpassed
princes in their splendour and magnificence. For example,
six of the pearls of the tiara of Eugenius iv. were alone
worth thirty-eight thousand gold crowns ; the tiara of Paul n.
was even richer.1 From the time of Eugenius iv. the popes
associated with their luxury the cult of letters and of the
arts. They favoured the humanists. They reared palaces,
and these palaces they enriched with paintings and sculpture.
They directed the Renaissance.2 These showy tastes required
1 Pastor, i. 268, ii. 377 ; E. Miintz, Les Arts a la cour des papes pendant
le xv™ et le xvi™ siicle, i. 36, Paris, 1878.
2 Pastor, passim, especially i. 385-419, ii. 349-354, 655-710, iii. 530-543,
745-871, iv. 425-558.

THE PONTIFICAL EXCHEQUER 343
money, a great deal of money. Moreover, there was a
periodical recurrence of wars, the wars of Calixtus in. against
the Turks, the war of Sixtus iv. against the Florentines, and
against other Italian principalities, the war of Innocent VHI.
against Naples, the war of Alexander vi. to secure the pre
ponderance of his family in the pontifical state, the wars of
Julius n. against Venice and against France. Although the
receipts were great, they did not always outweigh the expenses ;
and to balance their budget certain popes of the fifteenth
century resorted to expedients of which John xxn. had no
idea. Sixtus rv. sold the places of the Curia, and even
created new ones, in order to increase his revenues. As this
was not sufficient, he engaged in the industry of making a
" corner " in the market. He bought large quantities of
wheat, which he sold again at an opportune time, five times
as dear. His successor, Innocent vn., put up hundreds of
new employments for sale. He did more ; he mortgaged his
tiara and his diamonds for one hundred thousand ducats.1
The historian who to-day passes all these financial com
binations in review, will conclude with Michelet that in the
fourteenth century the papacy had become a "commercial
house," and continues on its way. The pontifical financial
system of the middle ages awakens the curiosity of the
historian, but inspires no other emotion. The contemporaries
of Innocent iv., of John xxn., and of Sixtus rv. were not so
impassive. They suffered from the spectacle which they had
before their eyes. And because they suffered, they complained.
The complaints of the most moderate of them were lamenta
tions. Alvarez Pelayo, for example, the confessor of John
xxii., and an ardent partizan of pontifical omnipotence, ex
claimed : " I have frequently entered into the office of my
lord the Pope, where I have always seen bankers, tables loaded
with gold, ecclesiastics occupied in counting piles of crowns !
May Christ, who was poor, deign to cast out now and for ever
this business from His Church ! " 2 But the complaints did
1 Christophe, Hist, de la papauti pendant le xv™ siecle, ii. 243, 348, 350 ;
Pastor, ii. 644, justifies the corner, while admitting the abuses.
2 Deplanctu Ecelesice, ii. 7.

344 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
not always preserve this tone of resignation. More often
they broke out into protests and insults. Recriminations
came from England, from France, from Germany, from every
quarter. Germany, less protected by its princes from the
exactions of Rome, cried out the oftenest and the longest.
Nothing did so much as the pontifical financial system to
create about the papacy an atmosphere of disaffection, and to
detach the nations from the apostolic see.

CHAPTER X
The Episcopal Elections
F. Hinschius, Kirchenrecht, Tom. n. and in., Berlin, 1878-1883. P.
Imbart de la Tour, Les elections episcopates dans VEgUse de France du
ix™ au xii™ siecle, Paris, 1891. A. Hauck, Kvrchengeschichte
Deutschlands, 4 vols., Leipzig, 1896-1904.
The dispute concerning investitures separates the history of
episcopal elections into two parts, and thus furnishes a
natural division of our inquiry. We are about to explain
the election of bishops before, during, and after the pontificate
of Gregory vii.
We have two letters of Pope Hilary 1 written on the day
following the death of St. Leo, which in the name of the
council of Nicsea forbid proceeding to the consecration of a
bishop' without the consent of the metropolitan of the
province, which order the bishops assembled for an election,
not to obey blindly the desires of the people, and which
command the metropolitans energetically to exercise their
rights. In these texts we discover the tendency to place
the episcopal elections under the exclusive direction of the
bishops, and especially of the metropolitans. But in a.d. 476
the Roman empire had disappeared. In its place were Italy,
which a half century later was subjected to Byzantine rule ;
Gaul, of which the Franks took possession, and from which at
the end of the ninth century Germany was to be detached ;
Great Britain, where the Anglo-Saxons settled ; and Spain,
where the Visigoths were strong. We are to consider the
character of the episcopal elections in these different countries.
From the time of the Byzantine conquest, Italy, so far
1 Ep. ii. 1, 4 ; iii. 3 ; Migne, lviii. 18-20.
845

346 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
as the episcopal elections were concerned, was governed by
the rules laid down by Justinian.2 The following is the
substance of what the imperial legislation prescribed. When
a bishop died, the clergy and chief men of the city, after an
interval of six months, were obliged to prepare a list of three
candidates, and to present a report of the selection to the
consecrator — this consecrator was a patriarch — who was to
choose the most worthy of the three candidates. If the
electors were six months without presenting their candidates,
the consecrator, that is the patriarch, appointed a bishop,
and conferred on him the episcopate. Italy did not recognize
the institution of the patriarchate, but possessed the four
metropolitans of Rome, Milan, Aquileia, and Ravenna. Let
us notice how the rules of Justinian were applied.
The vast correspondence of Pope Gregory informs us ex
actly of the manner in which things occurred in the jurisdic
tion of the Roman metropolitan 3 (central and southern Italy,
and the adjacent islands). When a bishop died, Gregory com
manded a " visitor " — sometimes a bishop, sometimes a priest
— to administer the vacant church, and to preside at the
elections of a successor. At the same time by letter he
ordered the church in question to proceed to the election as
soon as possible. He addressed his letter to the whole
electoral body, which included the clergy, the nobility, and
the people. He then explained to them that the bishop-elect
should cause a report of his election to be made, and signed
by all the electors. Furnished with this document, he was
to proceed to Rome to receive consecration. At times the
electoral corps of the vacant church neglected to hold the
election ; in such a case, Gregory himself appointed the
bishop. It was in this way that he placed Martin at the
head of a Corsican church which had been for a long time
without a bishop ; and while waiting for Martin to occupy
his see, he appointed the bishop Leo as visitor of the church.8
At other times the electoral body did not succeed in agreeing
on a candidate. Gregory then authorized what was subse
quently called the compromise. He summoned to Rome
1 Hinschius, ii. 514. 3 Id., ib. ii. 615. • Jaffe, 1145, 1146, 1147.

THE EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS 347
three delegates, who chose a member of the Roman Church.
It was thus that he proceeded in the case of Naples.1 Of
course he reserved to himself the supervision of the election,
and annulled it when he detected any circumstance contrary
to the canons. The electors of Rimini gave their suffrages
to Ocleatinus ; Gregory made them understand that he could
not accept this candidate, and ordered them to hold another
election, failing which, he would himself give them a bishop.2
Gregory, who consecrated the bishops of the suburban
churches, also consecrated the metropolitan of Ravenna.
Learning that the see of that city was vacant, he ordered the
notary Castorius to convoke the electoral corps and to send
two candidates to Rome, reserving to himself the choice of
him who should judge to be the most worthy.3 This recalls
the fact that the metropolitan see of Ravenna, created by the
papacy to weaken Milan, did not enjoy all the rights inherent
in the ancient metropolitan sees. At Milan things happened
otherwise. In 592 an episcopal election took place in that
city, and Gregory was confronted by an accomplished fact.
He congratulated the electors on their choice, but he did not
even think of reproaching them for acting without his know
ledge. Nor did he think of making the bishop-elect come
to Rome to be consecrated. He was content to send a
delegate to Milan to be present at the consecration, which
was performed by the provincial bishops.4 As for the metro
politan see of Aquileia, it was at that time in revolt against
Rome on the subject of the Three Chapters. It need not be
said that it asked nothing of the Pope. To sum up, the
metropolitans of Milan and of Aquileia were consecrated by
the suffragans in their episcopal city. It should be added
that these metropolitans — including the metropolitans of
Ravenna — consecrated their suffragans, after having previously
presided at the election. This we learn from Gregory.
Observing that his colleagues at Milan and Ravenna per
mitted the inoccupancy of certain episcopal sees situated in
their circumscription to be prolonged indefinitely, he re-
1 Jaffe, 1240. 2 Id., 1125, 1126.
> Id., 1335. * Id,,, 1233, 123.5.

348 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
minded them of the canon of Chalcedon, which forbids
permitting the vacancy in churches to be prolonged more
than three months. He made reference to the legislation of
Chalcedon, and not to that of Justinian. He ordered them
to observe the law ; but he went no further ; he did not
substitute himself for them.1
Let us pass to the Church of the Franks. Towards the
end of the fifth century Caesarius of Aries reminded the
bishops of Gaul of the canonical prescriptions in the Statuta
ecclesim antiqua, in which we read that the bishop should be
elected by the clergy, the laity, and the bishops of the
province.2 But the canon law met with a formidable ad
versary in the person of the Frankish king.3 Clovis himself
bestowed the bishoprics. This we learn in a passage from
St. Rdmi, which declares that the bishops of Paris, Sens, and
Auxerre, " received their dignity " from the founder of the
Merovingian dynasty.4 His sons, especially Clotaire, Thierry,
and Clodomir, imitated the example of their father. Gregory
of Tours, speaking of one of Thierry's bishops, says : " Already
in this period, the episcopate was sold by kings and pur
chased by the clergy.5 Three councils of Orleans (533, 538,
and 549), the council of Clermont (535), the council of
Paris (557), protested more or less boldly against this
condition of things ; but in vain. It was also in vain that
one of these councils, that of Orleans (549), sought to
compromise, and submitted the elections to the approval of
the king (cum voluntate regis).6 The evil persisted. It even
increased, or in any case was not diminished, under the sons
of Clotaire. When they were not acquired by intrigue, the
bishoprics were sold to the highest bidder.
From 590, Pope Gregory also endeavoured to reintro
duce into the Frankish Church the observance of canonical
laws. Knowing that the evil was due to the royal power,
1 Begesta, vii. 14, 39 (Jaff6, 1460 and 1485, is unsatisfactory).
2 Statuta, i. s Loening, ii. 174-186 ; Hauck, i. 148-163.
4 Ep. iii., in M. G., Epistulse, iii. 114.
• Vitas Patrum, vi. 3 ; Hauck, i. 153.
6 M. G., Concilia cevi meroving., p. 103.

THE EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS 349
he called upon the royal power to correct it. He wrote to
Brunehaut, to Thierry n., to Clotaire n., and to Theodebert,
complaining respectfully. He even begged Brunehaut to
assemble the Frankish bishops in council. Brunehaut, who
had need of the Pope to bring to a successful conclusion a
negotiation with the emperor of Constantinople, promised the
pontiff all that the latter desired (602).1 But this promise
was not kept. The council dreamed of by Gregory did not
take place.
A council did take place, but at a time when that pope
had been dead for a long time. In 614 the Frankish
episcopate was assembled at Paris, by order of Clotaire n.,
and once more made laws as to the recruiting of bishops
(canon 2).2 On pain of annulment it was forbidden to
purchase episcopal consecration, or to obtain it through the
influence of princes ; in a word, to enter the episcopate ex
cept by the way of canonical election. Thereafter there was
to be no more traffic in bishoprics, there were to be no more
royal appointments; only election should intervene. But
election was conceived of according to the notion of the
hierarchy. It was explained that the future bishop should
be appointed and presented to the electoral body by the
metropolitan. According to this regulation, the recruiting of
the episcopate was not at all subject to royal influence ; for
the most part it was not even subject to the influence of the
electoral body, which had only the r61e of acceptance. It
was confided to the metropolitans.
Such was what the council of 614 intended; but it
failed. As a matter of fact, Clotaire il, who ratified the
decision of the council, modified it in two important respects.3
In the first place it granted the king the right recognized by
the council of Orleans (549), but passed over in silence by
the council of Paris of 614, to confirm the election, con-
i Jaff<5, 1837-1842, 1871.
2 M. G., Concilia cevi meroving., p. 186 ; Hinschius, ii. 518.
3 M. G. , Capitula reg. franc, p. 21 : "Si persona condigna fuerit per ordina-
tionem principis ordinetur ; certe si de palatio eligitur per meritum personae et
doctrinse ordinetur."

350 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
sequently the right to supervise it, and if need be to annul
it ; and it forbade the metropolitan to consecrate the bishop-
elect before he had been authorized by the king to do so.
To this first modification the king added a second. It
reserved to itself the power of choosing any of the officers
of the palace as candidates for episcopal consecration ; and
it decided that in this case the merit of the subject honoured
by the royal suffrage should take the place of election. To
sum up : election under the supervision of the king ; appoint
ment of the officials of the palace by the king. Such were
the two ways, according to the decree of Clotaire H., which
were to give access to episcopal consecration conferred by the
metropolitan. This legislation was accepted by the Frankish Church.
The councils of Boneuil (about 616, canon 1) and Clichy
(about 625, canon 4) bear witness to this, as they gave
orders that the constitutions adopted at Paris by the bishops
as well as by the king should be executed. The Frankish
Church consented, therefore, to submit its episcopal elections
to royal supervision, and to permit officers of the palace who
were under the patronage of the king, to enter the corps of
bishops, without previous election. Obliged to abandon its
dream of emancipation, it voluntarily made the sacrifice that
the royal will imposed upon it.
The royal will was soon to impose another sacrifice,
which was even more considerable. There is reason to
believe that Clotaire n. (f628) and his son Dagobert (|639)
respected, at least ordinarily, the wishes of the churches, and
appointed to the bishoprics the candidates which were pre
sented to them. But after their time the royal will became
rapidly omnipotent. The king appointed as bishops those
who knew how to acquire his favour, or who were recom
mended to him by his courtiers, and the election being
despised by him was only an empty formality. This state of
things had already been remarked in the collection of docu
ments of the monk Marculf, composed about 660. This
book, which puts before us models of all the acts made use
of in the seventh century, contains three formulas concern-

THE EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS 351
ing the episcopate.1 One of these is the request addressed
to the king by the electors of a church which had become
vacant ; two others are letters addressed by the king to
the metropolitan consecrator. In the request, the electors
present to the king the report of their election, — that
which they called consensus, — and they humbly beg him to
grant them their candidate as bishop. In his letter the
king, without mentioning electors, declares that he wishes to
raise to the episcopate the one whom his courtiers have re
commended, and gives orders to the metropolitan to go into
the episcopal city where the church was vacant to perform
the consecration. He appointed as bishop the one who
pleased him ; the provincial bishops had no other r61e to fill
than that of executing his will. As to the request of the
electors, it was cast aside.
For some time the Frankish Church did not complain of
this regime. The prelates granted to them by the king
usually had the virtues which their position required ; they
did not dishonour the episcopate. But from the time that
Charles Martel came into power, the situation changed.
This prince distributed the bishoprics among those of his
companions in arms whom he wished to reward for their
services. Coarse and dissipated soldiers thus were put at
the head of churches. It was a sad period. " Most of the
bishoprics," complained Boniface, " have been given to greedy
laymen or to adulterous clergymen, fornicators and usurers,
who think only of taking advantage of their position." 2
Happily for the Frankish Church, a physician was at
hand ready to heal its wounds. This physician was Boniface.
This zealous monk secured better recruits for the episcopate.
How did he achieve this result ? Was it by restoring the
former electoral discipline ? No : he respected the ancient
practice of nomination by the king. He left Carloman and
Pepin in possession of the right which the Frankish princes
arrogated to themselves ; only he asked them to exercise it
for the good of the Church. Under the guiding influence of
1 Formula;, i. 7, 6, 6 ; Migne, lxxxvii. 704, 705.
2 Ep. 60 ; M. G., Epistolcs, iii. 299.

352 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Boniface, Carloman and Pepin appointed good bishops, but
they appointed them themselves. Of this a primary proof
is afforded in the following declaration of Carloman in the
council of Germany (742) i1 "In conformity to the wish of
the prelates and nobles of our states, we have established
bishops in the cities, and at their head we have put the
archbishop Boniface, who is the envoy of St. Peter." And
there is another proof in the declaration of Pepin at the
council of Soissons (744) : " In conformity to the wishes of
the bishops and nobles, we have appointed legitimate bishops
in the cities, and have set over them the archbishops Abel
and Ardobert." 2
Charlemagne — whom some serious authors deceived by
apocryphal texts have represented as the restorer of elections
— followed the paternal tradition.8 Doubtless he granted
" charters of election " to certain churches, which authorized
them to choose their bishops themselves ; but these charters,
besides reserving the supreme right of royal authority, were
privileges which reposed solely on the favour of the prince.
Moreover, they were rare ; only four are known, which were
granted to the churches of Coire, Reggio, Aquileia, and
Ravenna. Charlemagne almost always chose the bishops of
his empire himself. He appointed Guerbald at Liege,
Amalaire at Treves, Liudger at Miinster, Willehad at
Wigmodie, Leidrade at Lyons, Gervold at Evreux, Frothair
at Toul, Pierre at Verdun. His selections, however, were
generally good. The Monk of St. Gall shows him to us
once calling one of his clergy to grant him a bishopric ; then,
when he perceived his incapacity, withdrawing the appoint
ment. Whether true or false, this story corresponds to the
programme of Charlemagne, who wished to have capable men
as bishops. During the whole reign of the great emperor the
Frankish Church appeared to have forgotten the decrees of
former councils relative to episcopal elections, and did not
1 M. G. , Concilia, ii. 3.
2 M. G., Concilia, ii. 34 ; Hinschius, ii. 522 ; Hauck, i. 525, 545.
3 Hinschius, ii. 523 ; Hauck, ii. 200 ; Imbart, De la Tour, pp. 80, 192.

THE EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS 353
complain of the regime to which it had been subjected. If
Alcuin, in letters to his friends in England,1 protested against
the system of royal nomination, he took care that his
complaints should not reach the ears of his master. But
Louis the Debonnair, at the beginning of his reign, learned
that the legislation of the councils still had its apostles. At
the council of Aix-la-Chapelle (818) desires for episcopal
elections were expressed, and the pious emperor satisfied
them with a capitular, in which it is said : " We consent to
conform to the provisions of the sacred canons which are
known to us, in accordance with the agreement with which
bishops are canonically chosen in the diocese by the clergy
and the people." 2 The satisfaction was theoretical, for, after
the capitular of Aix-la-Chapelle, the recruiting for the
episcopate was conducted as before. Moreover, the emperor
was reproved. At the council of Aix-la-Chapelle (828),
Wala, the abbot of Corbie, making use of the freedom which
his position gave him — he was a cousin of Charlemagne —
indignantly protested against the contempt with which the
canons were treated, and demanded a return to the episcopal
elections.8 At the time when he made these claims, Wala was
almost isolated.4 Many demanded reforms ; but no one
included electoral freedom among them. For several years
the Frankish episcopate remained attached to the regime of
the royal nomination, and confined itself to petitioning the
prince to make good selections. The council of Paris (829)
requested the emperor "to take the greatest pains in the
future to appoint good pastors in the churches of God." The
council of Aix-la-Chapelle (836) expressed a like desire. The
council of Jutz (Diedenhofen) of 844 appealed to the three
sons of Louis the Debonnair, earnestly recommended them
not to leave the episcopal sees vacant any longer, and while
avoiding simony, to appoint bishops as soon as possible. To
1 Ep., 44 (to Eanbald of York) ; M. G., Epistolce, iv. 90.
2 Hinschius, ii. 524 ; Imbart, p. 178.
• Vita Wales (by Paschase Radhert), ii. 4 ; Migne, cxx. 1612.
4 Id., ii. 2, p. 1609.
23

354 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
complete the story, it may be said that the councils of 829
and 836 expressed the hope of one day seeing the elections
re-established. They desired the restoration of the former
discipline, but they did nothing to realize it.1
In the Church of Lyons there was a man who shared
the ideas of Wala, who had perhaps been inspired by those
ideas, who in any case defended them, at the latest, in 824.
This was the deacon Florus.2 Florus endeavoured to convert
the bishops in the neighbourhood of Lyons to his opinions,
and he partly succeeded. The council of Valencia of 855
published the following canon (canon 8) : " It pleases us to
declare that when the bishop of a neighbouring diocese is
about to die, the prince shall be asked to deign to grant to
the clergy and people a canonical election, . . . and when
the prince sends us one of the clergy of his own company to
place him at the head of the diocese, the clergyman should
be examined with prudence and with care as to his manner
of life, and as to his knowledge." 3 At the assembly of Aix-
la-Chapelle (818) a petition of the same kind had been
addressed to the emperor Louis, but we do not know by
whom. The council af Valencia (855) was the first, as far
as we know, in which bishops dared timidly and respectfully
to ask electoral liberty. It was from the Church of Lyons
that the demand proceeded, and it was inspired by Florus.
About the same time the " False Decretals " began to be
circulated. They too had their effect in withdrawing the
appointment of bishops from the civil power. Thereafter
electoral liberty was definitely on the programme of the
ecclesiastical party. And at the end of the ninth century
the powerful metropolitans became earnest apostles of
canonical principles, under cover of which they hoped to
raise their candidates to episcopal sees.4
What was the result of these complaints, of this struggle
for independence in the recruiting of the episcopate ? Little,
1 Hauck, ii. 529 ; Hinschius, ii. 524.
2 Imbart, p. 180.
• Mansi, xv. 1 ; Imbart, p. 188.
4 Hauck, ii. 529 ; Imbart, pp. 168, 175, 198.

THE EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS 355
very little, except formulas.1 Following the example of
Charlemagne, Louis the Debonnair, Charles the Fat, and
Charles the Simple granted charters of liberty, but in very
small numbers. We know of seven, and it is very probable
that we know of nearly all. These seven privileged churches
themselves had the right to elect their chiefs, under the
supervision of the prince ; they enjoyed a liberty which was
by no means absolute. The others remained under a pro
tectorate. It was not that the elections were never held ;
they often took place, but they were almost always influenced
by a candidature avowed or concealed. Hence the reproach
made by Pope Nicholas to Lothair H. : " According to reports,
you allow only your favourites to be elected as bishops." 2
Hence the complaint of Hincmar to Louis in. : " I am told
that every time you grant the election which is demanded of
you, the bishops, the clergy, and the people are obliged to
choose the one whom you desire, whom you impose." 3 To
be sure, Hincmar was not qualified to condemn the official
candidacy, considering that he owed to Charles the Bald his
elevation to the see of Reims. The same was the case with
Nicholas, who was imposed on the Roman electors by the
emperor Louis n. But with this reservation, it must be
admitted that the observations had a foundation. Moreover,
if the emperors or kings often took part in this comedy of
election, they also often dispensed with it, and without regard
to formalities made appointments to vacant bishoprics.
Alberic of Langres, Thierry of Cambrai, Ebbon of Reims,
owed their sees to direct appointment by Louis the
Debonnair. Charles the Bald made appointments in the
same way — Gotescalc of Chalons, Bernon of Autun, Hilmerad
of Amiens, Wenilon and Egilon of Sens, Bertulf of Treves,
Hilduin of Cologne, Oliba of Angoulgme, Wulfad of Bourges.4
The Carolingian king thus held all the bishoprics in his
hand. It was in vain that the metropolitans at the end of
the ninth century sought to make him surrender his prey.
They indeed succeeded in putting some restraint upon him.
1 Hinschius, ii. 526 ; Imbart, p. 192. 2 Migne, cxix. 869.
* Ep., xix. 3 ; Migne, cxxvi. 111. 4 Imbart, p. 81.

356 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Hincmar, for example, when there was a question regarding
the sees of Noyon (879) and Beauvais (881), thwarted the
administration of Louis in. Foulques, his successor, imposed
his candidate on Chalons, and maintained him in spite of
the electors, the king, and the Pope.1 But these were passing
victories which had no lasting result. The archbishops soon
gave up the struggle. The king continued to be the
dispenser of bishoprics ; and if Nicholas I. denied him
this right, several of the popes recognized it. John vni.
explained to the inhabitants of Verceil that Carloman, who,
without consulting them, disposed of their bishopric, had
acted according, to the custom of his predecessors. John x.,
learning that the bishop appointed to Liege by Charles
the Simple had encountered considerable opposition, wrote :
" We preserve the ancient custom whereby no one can
confer the bishopric upon a cleric except the king, to whom
the sceptre has been given by divine authority. No bishop
can be consecrated in a diocese without the will of the king.2
All through the tenth century the Frankish king con
tinued to grant bishopries, and the dynastic revolution which
in 987 entrusted a new family with the destinies of France,
made no change in the state of affairs. Yet after the tenth
century the relations between the French royalty and the
episcopate were not quite what they had been before. They
felt the influence of feudalism. On all sides arose counts
and dukes who wished to be masters in their own domains,
and acted accordingly. In other days bishoprics were con
ferred by the Carolingian prince ; now the Carolingian and
his successor the Capetian again distributed bishoprics in
the domain which they had reserved; but the counts and
dukes did the same at home.8 In other days there was
one master; now, there were several. That was one differ
ence; this is another. Owing to the confusion which had
been caused between the notions of authority and property,
the noble was proprietor of the domain in which he had
authority. He was proprietor of the buildings and lands,
which had a concrete reality, but also of the functions per-
1 Imbart, pp. 197, 200. 2 Jaffe, 3306, 3564. 3 Imbart, pp. 216, 294.

THE EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS 357
formed on these lands, and in these buildings. From this
it followed that when he appointed a bishop, he granted
him not only the material buildings of the bishopric, but
also the dignity, the right to govern, and the jurisdiction.
This grant was called the investiture, and was symbolized
by various ceremonies, especially north of the Loire — either
by delivery of the crozier or by the delivery of the crozier
and the ring. The investiture with the crozier, or with the
crozier and the ring, was general during the eleventh century
in the northern countries. But it had an older origin. At
the end of the ninth century we find Charles the Fat giving
the crozier to Herifid of Auxerre; and before him, his father
Louis Germanicus invested Rimbert of Bremen with the crozier.
In Germany the investiture appeared for the first time when
the country was still Frankish.1 Thus it was the product of
the Frankish Church. But it flourished especially in the
German Church, as we are now to observe.
For two reasons the narrative can be brief : first, because
the German was detached from the Frankish Church just
before the tenth century ; second, because this daughter was
so surprisingly like her mother. Otto I. appointed Adalbert
to Magdeburg, Hatton to Mayence, Wolfgang to Ratisbon,
Hugue to Liege, his son William to Mayence, his brother
Bruno to Cologne, his cousin Henry to Treves, his relatives
Poppon and Berenger elsewhere. Otto II. gave Mayence to
Willigis, Cambrai to Rotard. Otto in. placed Gerbert at
Ravenna, Erluin at Cambrai, Burchard at Worms. Henry n.
appointed his chaplain Taginon at Magdeburg, Guibert, then
Thietmar, at Merseburg, Eberhard at Bamberg, Menegard at
Treves, Arnold at Ravenna. Conrad II. fixed Azecho at
Worms, Bardo at Mayence, Bruno at Wiirzburg, Rudolph
at Paderborn. Henry ni. gave Aquileia to Eberhard, Milan
to Guy, Ravenna to Onfroy, Eichstadt to Gerhard, Verdun to
Theodoric.2 As a rule, and especially under Otto I., the
imperial nomination was more or less masked with a pre
tended election. But no one was the dupe of this artifice.
1 Hinschuis, ii. 529 ; Imbart, p. 345 ; Hauck, iii. 52-56.
1 Hauck, iii. 31, 398, 546, 577 ; Hinschius, ii. 530.

358 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
It was really the prince who distributed the bishoprics.
Moreover, he granted the investitures. In 1004, Henry n.
delivered the crozier to Taginon, " and," says the historian
Thietmar, "he set him in the episcopal see." This same
Thietmar tells how he himself was invested with the bishopric of
Merseburg : " I was led to the episcopal chapel where the king
was. . . . The king caused me to be elected [a pretended
election] and granted me the pastoral charge, with the crozier." 1
In Germany things happened somewhat as they did in
France; but there was a difference. In France the nobles
appointed and invested the bishops in their own domains.
They were rivals of the king. In Germany this rivalry did
not exist. There the emperor's hand was powerful enough
to prevent the nobles from usurping his rights. He alone
appointed the bishops ; he alone granted the investiture ; he
was exclusively master of the bishoprics.
We have now to set forth the laws which governed the
recruiting of bishops in England and in Spain.
Augustine was only a monk when he appeared before the
king of Kent (597). Directly after his first apostolic success
he visited Vigilius, bishop of Aries, who consecrated him
bishop.2 Four years afterwards he received instructions from
Pope Gregory whereby he was obliged to fix his see as
metropolitan in London, to consecrate twelve bishops, to
establish a second metropolitan see at York, and also to order
the consecration of provincial bishops.3 Nevertheless, the
plan was not realized. Augustine fixed his see at Canterbury,
and when he died (604) he had consecrated only three
bishops, namely, Lawrence, his successor ; Mellitus, bishop of
London; and Justus, bishop of Rochester. Lawrence died
(619), and was replaced in the see of Canterbury by Mellitus,
whose successor was Justus (624).
Before setting out to evangelize Northumbria (625),
Paulinus received episcopal consecration from Justus.4 He
in turn consecrated Honorius successor of Justus in the see
of Canterbury (633). Honorius consecrated Ithamar the
1 Chronicon, v. 25, vi. 27 ; M. G. , Scriptores, iii.
2 Bede, i. 27 ; Jaffe, 1518. 3 Bede, i. 29 ; Jaffe, 1829. 4 Bede, ii. 9.

THE EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS 359
successor of Paulinus (644), who consecrated Deusdedit the
successor of Honorius (655). Pope Gregory declared that
he himself had authorized Augustine to be consecrated as
bishop. On the contrary, Bede relates that the episcopal
consecration of Deusdedit was preceded by an election, con
cerning which he gives no details.1 Except in these cases,
the consecrating bishop also made the episcopal appointment.
During this period we meet with other examples of the
same procedure. But the princes hastened to intervene. In
664, when the priest Wilfrid asked Agilbert, bishop of Paris,
to consecrate him, he was, according to Bede, sent by king
Alfred. And Ceadda, who during Wilfrid's absence became
bishop of Northumbria, was commissioned by the king.2 In
667 the two kings, of Kent and Northumbria, appointed the
priest Wigard, archbishop of Canterbury, and sent him to
Rome to be consecrated by Pope Vitalian ; but as Wigard
died on the way, the Pope himself chose the Greek monk
Theodore, consecrated him (668), and sent him to Canterbury.3
During his pontificate, which lasted twenty-two years (f690),
Theodore founded dioceses and appointed bishops.4 The kings,
who at first gave him full freedom of action, did not long
preserve this attitude of reserve. The bishops sought to
arrest them, and they were momentarily led to believe that
they were sure of success ; for at the council of Beccanceld
(694), Withred king of Kent agreed to respect the liberty of
elections.6 But the other kings paid no attention to this
promise. In 705 we find Alfred, King of Northumbria,
establishing the bishopric of Ripon. In 796, Offa divided
the diocese of Canterbury into two parts. In 941, Odo was
placed in the see of Canterbury by king Edmund. In 953,
king Edred offered the bishopric of Crediton to Dunstan,
who refused it, but had Elfwold appointed in his stead. In
960, Dunstan was placed by King Edgar in the see of
Canterbury. Canute (fl035) chose his bishops from among
the clergy of his palace. His sons Harold I. and Hardicanute
sold the archbishoprics. In 1050, Edward appointed his
1 Bede, iii. 20. 2 Id., iii. 28, v. 20.
* Id., iii. 29. 4 Id., iv. 12. 6 Mansi, xii. 87.

360 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
councillor Robert, archbishop of Canterbury ; but Earl
Goodwin banished Robert and put in his place Stigand, who
assumed the pallium of Robert. Harold n., the successor of
Edward, followed the tradition of his predecessors. In short,
England presented the same spectacle as did the Continent.
In Spain, the council of Barcelona (599) forbade the
granting of episcopal consecration to laymen, even when they
had been appointed by the king.1 Hence we are justified
in concluding that Reccarede himself appointed bishops, at
least from time to time, and that he sometimes appointed
laymen. It is also evident that the council permitted the king
to make provision for the recruiting for the bishopric, and only
forbade him to choose foreigners for this ecclesiastical position.
The council of Toledo (633, canon 33) observed that the
episcopate was often made an object of traffic, and that even
when not purchased with money it was bestowed on un
worthy men. To remedy these evils the council decided
that in the future every episcopal consecration should be
preceded by a regular election.2 This rule, however, was so
little enforced, that fifty years afterwards, it was ignored by
the very persons whose duty it was to respect the law. The
council of Toledo (681) was confronted by the following
conditions : When a bishop died, the king appointed his
successor, and gave notice of his choice to the bishops, who
consecrated the nominee of the king. The council thought
that this system prolonged excessively the vacancy of the
episcopal sees.3 This is the reform which it introduced
(canon 6) : Henceforth the bishop appointed by the king
is to be consecrated by the bishop of Toledo, so that he can
go at once to his post.
To sum up : in the eleventh century the bishoprics were
frequently, and in every country, made an object of traffic.
They were bought as one to-day buys a commercial share or
a notary's office. Moreover, everywhere bishops were ap
pointed by princes, and the elections, as they were ordinarily
1 Mansi, x. 482 ; Thomassin, Vetus et nova Ecclesise disciplina, ii. 12, 15,
Lyon, 1706.
2 Mansi, x. 612. 3 Id., xi. 1023.

THE EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS 361
conducted, were vain pretences. Finally the royal appoint
ment was followed by an oath of fidelity, taken by the
bishop, and exacted by the prince. After the ninth century
this oath, in France and especially in Germany, was material
ized in the rite of investiture with the crozier, or with the
crozier and the ring. Condemned by Gregory at the end of
the sixth century, the traffic in bishoprics was subsequently
condemned by several councils. Notwithstanding the
anathemas pronounced against it, this abuse continued. Yet
the emperor Henry in. opposed it with an energy which
called forth the gratitude of Pierre Damien, of Humbert, and
of Gregory vn. Henry III. persisted in appointing bishops.
His zeal against simony — the name given in the canon law
to the traffic in bishoprics — proves that the evil was not
inherent in the system of royal nominations. Nor was it
confined to that system, for numerous were the elections in
which money had the last word. To sum up: simony,
which for long centuries had vitiated the recruiting of the
episcopate, might have been rather easily extirpated. That
which seemed to be irrefragably established, was the system
of royal nomination with the oath of fidelity and the investi
ture which accompanied it. In fact, the bishoprics were en
dowed by the generosity of the faithful and of princes owning
vast domains, which bestowed on the holders considerable
political powers. The bishops were real princes of the
church, who at their pleasure could support the throne or
overthrow it — as has been shown in the case of Louis the
Debonnair. The king could not give up recruiting for the
bishopric without suicide. The instinct of self-preservation
obliged him to keep watch on those who were appointed to
the episcopate, so that only faithful men should succeed, and to
have the strongest guarantees, which at that time were the oath
of fidelity, and investiture, for contingent failures or betrayals.
In short, appointment of the bishops by the king, with the oath
and investiture which completed it, was a social necessity.1
It was against this necessity that Gregory vn., with the
1 Hinschius, ii. 544 ; Imbart, p. 109.

362 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
monks who had become all-powerful in the Church, directed
his efforts. For Gregory was not alone : he had companions
who marched at his side and supported him by word and
pen. He had forerunners who prepared the way. He
belonged to a party which from its internal origin was con
nected with the monks of the ninth century, and with Wala
their leader, and which after slumbering long, was awakened
by the power of Cluny. In the eleventh century he was the
incarnation of the spirit of Cluny. Yet even at that period
this was not the first manifestation of it. In 1046 the
monk Halinard, who had been promoted to the archbishopric
of Lyons,1 refused to swear loyalty to the king. In 1049
Pope Leo ix., who was led by the monks, issued a decree at
the council of Reims in favour of episcopal elections.2 In
1058, Cardinal Humbert, formerly a monk, published a
violent book attacking the investiture.8 Gerbert and Abbon 4
had formerly protested, and it was repeatedly condemned by
Leo Ix. But it was Gregory vn. who fought the decisive
battle. Without him the apostles of ecclesiastical freedom
would have wasted their efforts in fruitless recriminations.
History is therefore right in considering Gregory as the sole
author of the dispute as to investitures.
Let us see him at work. His activity began during the
pontificates of Nicholas n. and Alexander n., who were merely
executors of his will. Then at the Roman council (1059)
two decrees were issued : One was designed to withdraw the
election of the Pope from the influence of the German court
and of the Roman nobility; the other (canon 6), in terms
which were purposely indefinite, denied to the laity the right
to dispose of churches.5 Then the French councils of Vienna
1 Imbart, p. 374 ; see the letter of Halinard to Pope John xix. ; Migne,
cxli. 1157.
2 Mansi, xix, 741 ; Hefele, iv. 731.
* Adversus Simoniacos, in M. G., Libelli de lite, i. 100-253 ; see C. Mirbt,
Die Publizistik im Zeitalter Gregors VII., pp. 463-468, Leipzig, 1894.
4 imbart, pp. 370 373.
B Mansi, xix. 898 ; Hinschius, ii. 543 ; Mirbt, p. 475. Nevertheless the
influence of Hildebrand during the pontificate of Leo ix. seems to have been
considerable, and it is probably to it that the decree of the council of Rome
should be attributed.

THE EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS 363
and Tours were held (1060), which were presided over by a
pontifical legate. They took a step in advance, and defined
precisely the legislation of the council of Rome, but reserved
their threats for ecclesiastics, and prudently refrained from
extending them to the laity. Next came the two affairs of
Milan: that of 1060, in which the archbishop Guy, after an
unfortunate dispute with the Roman Curia, capitulated and
received investiture from Pope Nicholas n. ; and that of
1068, in which the Roman Curia excommunicated archbishop
Godfrey, who had been appointed by the court of Germany.1
Some of these measures were definite, but local ; others were
of general application, but were enveloped in ambiguous
formulas. All were intended to influence public opinion, to
prepare it, and at the same time to avoid cataclysms.
Hildebrand was tasting his power.
During the first two years of his pontificate, Gregory
preserved this attitude of combined rudeness and prudence.
He made vigorous efforts, especially against Philip, king of
France, a weak prince from whom he had nothing to fear,
and whom he freely insulted ; but he took care not to go to
extremes. At times he even made important concessions :
for example, when he authorized Anselm of Lucques to receive
the investiture from Henry IV., before the episcopal consecra
tion.2 At length, in the Roman council of February 1075,
he laid aside the mask and made a declaration against lay
investitures, a condemnation which he renewed in the council
of 1078, and which received its final form in the decree of
the council of 1080: "If any one receives a bishopric or
an abbey at the hands of a layman, he is by no means
to be reckoned . in the number of bishops and abbots.
We declare him, furthermore, to be excluded from the
Church. . . . The same punishment will overtake any
emperor, king, duke, marquis, count, any lay dignitary
or any person who permits the investiture of a bishopric
1 Mirbt, pp. 475, 476 ; Hauck, iii. 697 ; Delarc, Saint Grigoire et la reforme
de l'Egliseauxi™siecle, ii. 210, Paris, 1889.
* Jaffe,' 4792, 4807, 4808, 4855 ; Mirbt, p. 491. In the beginning Gregory
had very decided opinions, but he realized them progressively.

364 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
to be conferred by him or any other ecclesiastical
dignity."1 Here we may pause, and ask : What exactly was the idea
of Gregory ? What did he intend ? Whither was he going ?
These questions he answered in the councils; he also
answered them in his letters. The councils give us official
declarations ; the letters put us in possession of the facts.
Let us examine successively these two sources of information.
In the councils Gregory promulgated two laws. One
condemned lay investiture, the other substituted election for
lay investiture. He condemned lay investiture : not merely
such manner of investiture, but investiture itself. What he
forbade the laity was not only to commit the crozier and
the ring to the bishop, but to grant the bishopric. The
interdiction applied of what the council of Poitiers (1078)
called the gift of the bishopric, donum episcopatus. More
over, the decree of the Roman council (1080) which has
just been noticed, was itself sufficiently clear. It condemned
any one who "receives a bishopric" at the hands of a
layman. Thus Gregory forbade laymen to grant bishops
jurisdiction over souls. Did his interdict stop there ? It
did not ; it went farther. It attained the temporal property
belonging to the office. The distinction between the spiritual
and the temporal was to be made later. The contemporaries
of Gregory had no idea of it. Gregory himself did not
recognize it. He declared to the laity that the churches
were wholly removed from their control; that they had
no right of property in them ; and that they therefore could
not, so far as these were concerned, claim to be their owners.
To give greater weight to this measure, he presented it as
an echo of regulations made by the Fathers.
While withdrawing the bishoprics from lay control,
Gregory also took away the appointment of bishops from
the laity. He decreed that all bishops were henceforth to
be elected by the clergy and people. To obviate the abuses
from which the elections in the past had too often suffered,
he decided that the electoral assembly was to be presided
1 Jaffe, pp. 634, 612 ; Mirbt, pp. 492, 497.

THE EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS 365
over by a delegate of the metropolitan, who was to have a
supervisory right in it. In addition to this, he gave notice
to the electors that if they made a bad choice their votes
were to be annulled, and that, the right of appointment was
then to devolve upon the metropolitan. Finally, he ordered
elections which were subject to metropolitan supervision.
If it had stopped at this point, and had gone no farther,
this would have been only the restoration of an ancient
right. But was it limited to these prescriptions ? This is the
moment to examine the legislation more closely. The
following is the sixth canon of the Roman council (1080):
"When at the death of the bishop of a church, one is
obliged to grant him a successor according to the canons,
the clergy and the people assembled, under the direction
of the visitor sent by the apostolic see, or by the metro
politan, . . . shall elect a pastor, according to the mind of
God, with the consent of the apostolic see or of the
metropolitan. If, yielding to some blameworthy motive, they
permit themselves to act otherwise, the election will be
nullified, and the electors will forfeit the right to make a
new choice. This right will then devolve upon the apostolic
see or upon the metropolitan."
This mention of the apostolic see is to be noticed, which
occurs three times, and which each time precedes the mention
of the metropolitan. It was the Pope who through his
delegate was to preside as a rule, to supervise and confirm
the episcopal elections ; he it was who, in case of abuses,
possessed the right of devolution. The metropolitan inter
vened only when the Pope was not represented : he took
the second place. In his legislation, Gregory, who seemed
to wish the restoration of the ancient right, endeavoured
actually to establish a new right. The tradition to which
he appealed was a screen which served to hide his
innovations. Let us now examine his acts. In 1076 — four years
before the decree of 1080 — he annulled the election of
Gildwin, Bishop of Dol, and forthwith, in the name of the

366 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
law of devolution, which was not to be proclaimed for four
years, he appointed in the place of Gildwin, Ives the abbot
of St. Melaine of Rennes. In 1078 the election of Wigold
of Augsburg took place under the direction of the Roman
legate. In 1080 the people of Reims received from the
Pope an order to proceed to the election of their archbishop
under the direction of the legate Hugues of Die. The same
year the bishop of Padua was sent as pontifical legate to
Constance, being commissioned to preside at an episcopal
election. Four years afterwards (1084) Otto, bishop of
Ostia, went to the same city on a like mission. In 1080,
Hugues of Cluuy was informed that no election should be
made in Spain without the assent of the pontifical legate.
In 1081 the king of Castile received a notice of the same
kind: he was even warned that foreign bishops might be
sent to him.1 As may be seen, Gregory in practice made
generous use of his legislation concerning elections.
He went even farther. In fact, what do we witness ?
In 1073 — at a time when Hildebrand, a simple cardinal,
was already master of the Church — Hugues, the treasurer
of the church of Langres visited, in passing, the city of Die,
and was met by the pontifical legate, Gerald of Ostia, who
said to him : " Thou comest, by the help of God, at a good
time. We are about to take thee as bishop of this church."
After a pretended election, Hugues was instituted bishop
of Die, and in 1074 he received consecration at Rome from
Gregory, who had become Pope.2 A short time afterwards
Hugues became the pontifical legate. As such, he appointed
Gebouin archbishop of Lyons (1077). It was an appoint
ment made at a session of the council of Autun, but which
was the work of the legate, supported by the duke of
Burgundy.3 In 1080 the Roman legate, after a pretended
election, appointed Richard, archbishop of Ravenna, and the
1 Imbart, p. 419 ; Mirbt, p. 600 ; Delarc, iii. 407 ; Bernold, Pro Gebhardo,
p. 7 ; Migne, cxlviii. 1242 ; Begist. , viii. 2, 19, ix. 2.
2 Berthold, Annates, 1078 ; Migne, cxlvii. 409.
3 Letter of Hugh to Gregory, Migne, cxlviii. 744. He admits that he has
held the election "contra oblatrantes hsereticos." The name of the bishop-
elect is known through Hugues of Flavigny (Delarc, iii. 347).

THE EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS 367
Pope knew very well the character of the election, for he
congratulated the people of Ravenna on having received
their pastor from the Roman Church.1 The same year
Dalmatius, archbishop of Narbonne, was appointed by Rome.
In 1282 the legate Hugues received from the Pope an order
to proceed to the election of the archbishop of Lyons, and
in case there was a scarcity of capable candidates, to put
himself at the head of that church. By carrying out this '
order, Hugues became archbishop of Lyons.2 By the terms
of the decree of the council' of 1080, the apostolic see was
not to substitute itself for the electors, unless in exceptional
cases. Practically, Gregory himself appointed the bishops
as frequently as he could. He preserved, indeed, the pretence
of an election, but the princes too respected this formality.
So much for the elections: here are facts of another
kind. After the ninth century the archbishops were obliged
to ask the pallium at Rome, an obligation which they
generally neglected to observe. After the pontificate of
Nicholas n., an archbishop who neglected to procure the
pallium, forfeited his powers; and in order to obtain it
he was obliged, except in unusual cases, to go himself to
seek it at Rome. Archbishops were therefore bound, in the
three months which followed their consecration, to present
themselves before the Pope.3 The latter profited by the
occasion to exact from them an oath, of which Cardinal
Deusdedit preserved the form : " Henceforth I will be
faithful to St. Peter, to the Holy Roman Church, to my
lord the Pope, . . . and to his successors. ... I will aid
them to the best of my ability to preserve and to defend
the Roman pontificate and the royal estates of St. Peter. . ; .
When I shall be called to a council, I will go, unless
canonically prevented."4 In 1073, that is to say, under the
pontificate of Alexander II., Guibert of Ravenna pronounced
this oath, which was almost identical with the oath of vassal-
1 Registr., viii. 18 and 14. 2 Imbart, p. 420 ; Mirbt, p. 499.
3 Hinschius, ii. 28 ; Imbart, p. 490 ; Mirbt, p. 482. See the letter of
John vnr. , Migne, cxxvi. 778.
4 Hinschius, iii. 201, 202,

368 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
age sworn by Robert Guiscard. In 1079, Henry, archbishop
of Aquileia, received the crozier and ring, after making the
same pledges, and promising besides to help, in case of need,
the Roman Church with " armed force." And it may be
recalled that in 1060, Guy of Milan received the investiture
from Nicholas H.1
Such are the facts. They complete and explain the
legislation of the councils. In the councils, Gregory
condemned lay investiture without explaining what he
intended to put in its place ; and he did not say what
was to become of the bishops whom he removed from the
authority of the princes. In his administration he substi
tuted for the evicted princes the papacy, to which he granted
the right of suzerainty over the archbishoprics. In the
councils he contended for what he called " the liberty of the
Church " ; he laboured to make the bishops free. In the
administration he subjected the archbishops to his domination
— and, by means of them, the bishops also whom he had
taken from beneath the yoke of the princes. In the councils
he concealed his plan of campaign, which his administration
alone revealed. This apostle of freedom was simply an auto
crat who wished to hold the episcopate in his hand.2
Gregory died in 1085. At this date, what had become
of his programme, this double-faced programme which had
caused the Church to rise up against the princes, only to
come under the control of the papacy ? In Germany, which
now engages our attention, Henry iv. was crushed for having
resisted the Pope. Rudolph the anti-Cassar submitted to
Gregory, and swore to respect the pontifical legislation. It
was only a temporary triumph. Henry lifted up his head,
and succeeded in installing the anti-Pope Guibert at the
Lateran. When Gregory died, Germany was closed to his
programme, which had momentarily gained ground there. It
was a failure.
The failure was even greater in England, which after
1 Hinschius, ii. 545 ; Hauck, iii. 764, 697 ; Delarc, ii. 524.
2 Mirbt, pp. 499, 501, 537, 539.

THE EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS 369
1066 was in the power of William the Conqueror. This
crafty Norman, full of deference for Roman legislation when
it served his policy, when it interfered with him, treated it
with a contempt which he hardly took pains to conceal. In
1070 he summoned the pontifical legates and gave them
full power to examine into the canonical situation of the
clergy. The delegates of the Pope held a council at Win
chester.1 There they made a strict inquiry as to the manner
in which bishops undertook their duties, noticed that several
of them had been irregularly elected, and pronounced the
penalty of deposition against them. William hastened to
execute the sentences, which freed him from the Saxon clergy.
But here the pontifical decrees stood in his way. He forbade
his bishops to go to Rome, and he made episcopal appoint
ments himself, in England as well as in Normandy. As to
the question of investitures, he pretended to ignore it. In
1080 he called a council at Lillebone, which made no
mention of investitures. In 1081 he forbade the Norman
bishops to attend a council in which Hugues, the pontifical
legate, intended to proclaim the decrees of the Roman council.
Furious at this, Hugues suspended the bishops, and Teuzon,
another representative of the Pope, took the liberty of
blaming William. But Gregory moderated this excess of
zeal. He wished William to be treated with consideration,
and he treated him with consideration himself. When he
wrote to him, he took pains to be amiable.2 He displayed
his indignation to the archbishop of Canterbury, Lanfranc.
In 1079 he wrote to him: "Thy fraternity hath never
taken thought of coming to see us, since the day when,
notwithstanding the affront, we were obliged to submit to the
sacerdotal yoke of the supreme pontiff. . . . We have felt this
neglect." Two years later there were fresh complaints, coupled
with threats : " In the name of apostolic authority, to come
within four months. ... At the end of which time, if
1 Mansi, xix. 1080, xx. 4 ; Delarc, ii. 454.
2 Begistr., vii. 23, 25, ix. 5, x. 1. Gregory says that William is the pearl
of princes (gemma principum).

370 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
thou hast not come, all episcopal functions will be inter
dicted." i
These were empty words. At this date Henry iv., upon
whom fortune had begun to smile, was in Italy with his
Pope Guibert, whom he sought to enthrone at the Lateran :
and Lanfranc, who thought that he saw the finger of God in
the victory of the German king, consented — without making
a decided stand — to regard Guibert as the true Pope.2
Let us now turn to France. Hugues of Die, the ponti
fical legate, convoked near that country the two councils of
Autun (1077) and Lyons (1080). He even solemnized one
in France at Poitiers. At these he made laws concerning the
liberty of elections, concerning investitures ; and he deposed
archbishops and bishops. He disorganized the Church of France.
The weak and indolent Philip I., who sought to preserve his
kingdom from pontifical agitation, did not succeed. It might
have been thought that France accepted the pretensions of
Gregory ; but such was not the case. One fact is sufficient
to inform us on this point. In 1090, Ives of Chartres
received the investiture from Philip, with crozier and ring,
and received it before his consecration.3 In France, even as
in Germany and England, Gregory was defeated.
But before his death, Gregory infused a new spirit into
the papacy, a spirit of domination and of conflict. He
transformed it. The Popes who succeeded him continued
the struggle. The episcopal elections entered upon a new
phase, in which they were for some time to be associated
with the problem of investitures. Let us first notice what
became of the latter; we shall speak afterwards of the
elections proper.
As might have been expected, the storm raised by
Gregory passed beyond the limits of the political world and
penetrated into the sanctuary of theology. The doctors dis
cussed the problem of investiture. It was solved in various
ways. There were three parties. There were the friends of
1 Begistr., vi. 30, ix. 20. » Lanfranc, Ep., 59 ; Migne, cl. 548.
8 Ives, Ep.,8; Migne, clxii. 20 : " Cum virga pastorali a rege mihi intrusa."
See also Ep., 22.

THE EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS 371
the emperor Henry, who justified the investitures by referring
to the usage of the Christian emperors, to the example of the
Maccabees, to the conduct of the kings of Israel. Moreover,
like Guy of Ferrara, they declared that unction was con
ferred upon the emperors, which placed them above the
laity, above the priests.1 Opposed to these were the friends
of Gregory, who denounced in lay investiture the crimes of
simony, sacrilege, and heresy. Geoffroy of Vendome wrote :
" The investiture of which we are speaking, is a sacrament,
that is to say, a sacred sign which separates the prince of the
Church, the bishop, from other men. . . . The ring and
crozier, when granted by those who have the right to grant
them, are sacraments of the Church, like the salt, the water,
the oil, the chrism, and certain other matters." 2 From these
premises the author had no difficulty in concluding that the
prince who granted investiture with ring and crozier usurped
a strictly ecclesiastical function, was guilty of heresy, and
committed sacrilege. Between these two extremes there was
a moderate party, which was recruited especially from the
French episcopate, and the principal representative of which
was Ives of Chartres.3 Certainly Ives wished the suppres
sion of lay investitures; but he noticed that this question
had nothing to do with dogma, that it was purely disciplinary
in its nature, and that tolerance was necessary in dealing
with it. According to him, the prince granting investiture
did not profess to confer a spiritual gift, but only to put the
bishop in possession of the property of his bishopric, that
is to say, it granted him this property. He concluded :
" Whether this concession is made by hand, by a sign of
the head, by a word, by the gift of the crozier, what difference
does it make, since kings do not profess to grant anything
spiritual ? "
While theorists were disputing, the papacy remained as
1 Mirbt, p. 506.
2 M. C, Libelli de lite, ii. 685 : "Investitura enim de qua loquimur, sacra
mentum est"; Imbart, p. 404; Mirbt, p. 599; A. Esmein, La question des
investitures dans les lettres d'lves de Chartres, Bibliotheque de l'ecole des Hautes
Etudes, Sciences religieuses, i. 152, Paris, 1889 ; Hinschius, ii. 554.
3 Ives, Ep., 60 and 236 ; Esmein, p. 166 ; Mirbt, p. 513 ; Hinschius, ii. 553.

372 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
bellicose as at the beginning of the war. Victor in. con
demned lay investitures at the council of Benevento (1087);
Urban II. condemned them at the councils of Melfi (1089),
Clermont (1095), Tours (1096), Ntmes (1096), Bari (1098),
St. Peter's, Rome (1099). There were fresh condemnations
at the council of Poitiers (1100), presided over by the legates
of Pascal n. ; at the council of Troyes (1107), which was held
under the presidency of the same Pope ; and at the council
of Reims (1119), presided over by Calixtus n. And this list
is not complete. The popes did not wish to forsake any
of the claims of Gregory vn. On the contrary, they
accentuated them. In the councils of Clermont, of St. Peter's,
Rome, of the Lateran, not satisfied with proscribing the
investitures, they interdicted the homage. They forbade the
ecclesiastics to place hands which consecrated the sacred
Eucharist into the soiled hands of the laity, or to be subject
to the laity.1
Under the influence of these aggressive measures hos
tilities extended the radius of their activity and penetrated
into England. Up to the end of the eleventh century the
kingdom of William the Conqueror was not aware that the
question of investitures existed. The pious and learned
Anselm, appointed by William Rufus to the Archbishopric of
Canterbury (6th March 1093), received investiture with the
crozier ; subsequently he did homage to the king. He become
" the king's man," which gave him the seizin of the property
of the archbishopric. But in 1097, Anselm went to Rome,
came into contact with Urban n., and became imbued with
the pontifical ideas. When he returned to England (1100)
he refused to do feudal homage to the new king, Henry I.,
and rebelled against a practice which his predecessors had
respected, which he himself had followed in the reign of
William Rufus. The war of investitures had reached
England. It cost Anselm exile, and the king, four embassies
charged to treat with the Pope ; but at the end of seven
years, peace was restored ; and under what conditions ? Pope
1 Esmein, pp. 151-175.

THE EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS 373
Pascal n., who was inflexible as to investiture with crozier
and ring, yielded on the question of feudal homage. The
king, for his part, surrendered the granting of investiture, and
was satisfied with his right to homage, which Rome recognized.
The council of London (1107) took note of the arrangement.
The dispute ended in a compromise.1
Moreover, a compromise put an end to the German
conflict. But in this country the struggle had begun much
earlier, and it did not come to an end until much later ; it
was of a more tragic kind. An account is given elsewhere2
of the events of 1111— the ceremony of the coronation of
Henry V. at St. Peter's, Rome, and the reasons why it was
interrupted, the captivity of Pascal n., and his capitulation.
Mention has also been made of the feeling aroused by this
concession. The Gregorian party exclaimed that it was
heresy. The council of Vienna assembled by Guy, the
archbishop of that city — who was afterwards Calixtus II. —
made a declaration to that effect, and sent Pascal a threaten
ing letter (1112). But this unhappy Pope had already made
amends in the Lateran council (1112). For some years the
theses of Gregory vn. and of Urban n. were most rigorously
imposed upon the Emperor, who always contemptuously
rejected them. At length, in 1122, Calixtus n. and Henry V.
signed the concordat of Worms on the following basis : the
emperor gave up granting investitures with crozier and ring,
but was authorized by the Pope to grant investiture with the
sceptre, and, except in Italy and Burgundy, to grant it before
consecration. Here is to be found, under another form, the
distinction made at the council of London between investiture
and feudal homage. The prince no longer delivered the
crozier and ring to his bishops, but guaranteed to them the
temporal authority in their bishoprics, and bound them to
vassalage.3 1 Eadmer, Hist. Novorum, i. iii. iv. ; Migne, clxix. 372, 454, 466, 469 :
"Nam papa concesserat hominia quae Urbanus papa seque ut investituras
interdixerat," Stubbs, iii. 303 ; Hinschius, ii. 584, 585.
2 See chapter on "Papacy and Empire."
8 Esmein, pp. 155-173 ; Hefele, v. 316, 363 ; Hinschius, ii. 565.

374 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
With some slight differences, the same state of affairs was
established in France, but gradually and without formal
agreement. In 1090, as has already been stated, Ives of
Chartres received from Philip i. investiture with crozier and
ring ; and in spite of the anathemas pronounced by Gregory vn.
upon those who were guilty of this crime, asked episcopal con
secration of Urban il, who bestowed it on him. Five years
later, Ives made arrangements to consecrate Daimbert arch
bishop of Sens. Being reproved for this by the pontifical
legate, Hugues of Lyons, who remarked that this Daimbert,
having received investiture from the king, had rendered him
self unworthy of consecration, made the well-known reply.
He said that investiture, even when granted with crozier and
ring, was in itself a matter of small importance. He was
soon informed that his language had wounded the Pope, and
after that he spoke less slightingly of investiture. But he
continued to regard the condemnations pronounced against it
as purely disciplinary measures, which could be legitimately
disregarded when obedience would be attended by unpleasant
consequences. Supported by this principle, in 1108 he
authorized Raoul le Vert, appointed bishop of Reims, to swear
allegiance to king Louis the Fat, who exacted it.1
The French king, therefore, as we learn from Ives,
imposed an oath of vassalage upon his bishops. This oath
was to be taken when he delivered the property annexed to
the bishopric, which was later known as the " temporality,"
and which was already called the " regality " ; for the king
claimed the right of eminent domain over this property.
He took possession of it when the bishop died, and it was he
that gave it to the successor. In what way, or rather by
what ceremony, was this cession made ? In 1 1 1 9, William
of Chalons declared to the German emperor, Henry v., that
the king of France had not granted him the crozier and ring.
About 1115 then, this rite was no longer performed. The
details that we have concerning the affair of Raoul le Vert,
authorize the conjecture that it was already abolished in 1108.
Nevertheless accuracy is here impossible. It may merely be
1 Ives, Ep. 2, 60, 190.

THE EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS 375
said that Ives of Chartres was one of the last French bishops
to receive investiture with crozier and ring. Between 1100
and 1120, investitures disappeared ; or rather, while still main
tained, they were in different form. They were transformed. The
kings invested the bishops with the prerogatives of bishoprics,
imposing upon them an oath of vassalage. For some time this
investiture preceded episcopal consecration ; but during the
twelfth century its place was changed, and it was subsequent
to the consecration. In his ordinance of 1190, Philip
Augustus said that the bishop should receive the replevin of
the prerogative after he had been consecrated. Moreover, the
oath taken by the bishop very soon lost its feudal character
and became merely an oath of fidelity.1
Let us now consider the election. If one may judge by
the canon of the Lateran council (1123), it again assumed
the place which it formerly had : " No one should consecrate
a bishop who has not been canonically elected." But was
this canon observed ? History alone can answer this
question : it is of history that the question must be asked.
The spectacle that history first presents to us is this.
The composition of the electoral body during the twelfth
century underwent a thorough transformation.2 The majority
of its members were eliminated : it kept only a very small
minority, and was greatly reduced. The reduction occurred
in this way. The electoral body at first included " the clergy
and the people." Afterwards the people were excluded from
the election, and a majority of the clergy was also discarded.
The electoral body was made up only of the chapter — except
in England, where in most of the churches at the end of the
twelfth century the election was in the hands of the monks.
This transformation was not the work of Gregory vn., who, on
the contrary, wished the people to take part in the episcopal
elections. It was slowly accomplished. The clergy, while
leaving the people to arrange the election, gave them only
the right to approve and confirm it, and diminished the r&le of
the laymen. The latter therefore lost interest in the elections,
1 Esmein, p. 175 ; Imbart, p. 448 ; Hinschius, ii. 581.
2 Imbart, pp. 513-533.

376 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
in which they had no concern. An analogous procedure
permitted the elimination of priests attached to mferior
positions, or strangers to the episcopal city. It was not
so easy to eliminate the monks, who resisted and defended
their traditional rights, sometimes by force, sometimes by
diplomacy. They appealed to the people, and the people
came to their aid. They appealed to Rome, and Rome
supported them, especially in the Lateran council of 1139,
which ordered the canons not to proceed to an election
without the co-operation of viri religiosi. It was in vain.
From the second half of the twelfth century the chapters
alone — except in England — elected the bishops, and that
which at first was an encroachment, became a right recognized
by the popes.
We know the electoral body ; let us observe it in the
performance of its functions. Canons and monks endeavoured
to conduct the business of elections with entire independence,
But they were singularly impeded, sometimes by the prince,
sometimes by the Pope, sometimes by both at once. And
the history of episcopal elections after Gregory vn. is hardly
anything but the manifestation of different tactics which
kings and popes adopted in order to direct or to suppress
the elections at their pleasure.
Until the middle of the thirteenth century the influence
of the popes, although considerable, was not equal to that of
the princes. It was the princes especially who, with success
which varied according to circumstances, laboured to control
the elections. In England their success was complete.1 The English
king appointed his bishops, and the election was only a
formality which followed the royal appointment. Anselm
was appointed archbishop of Canterbury by William Rufus
(1093); Thomas a Beckett received the same see from
Henry n. (1162); Richard i. gave the archbishopric of
York to Geoffrey, his bastard brother (1189). In 1243,
Henry ni. appointed to Canterbury Boniface, an uncle of
the queen. The electors had only to record the act.
1 Hinschius, ii. 585-588.

THE EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS 377
They had another r&le in mind, and at times they played
it; for example, in 1191, when the monks of Canterbury
refused to accept the candidate of Richard I.; in 1205,
when the same monks elected an archbishop without the
knowledge of John Lackland, and sent privately to Rome,
to assure the confirmation by the Pope. But these attempts
at independence were rare; and they failed. About 1240
there was an eloquent acknowledgment of this from the
pen of Edmund, archbishop of Canterbury, who asked Pope
Gregory ix. to protect the freedom of elections against the
king.' In Germany and in France, with relation to the civil
power, the elections played a less humble part than they
did in England. Nevertheless, they were far from being
independent. At first they were held only by the per
mission of the prince. The French electors could not meet
without having received from the king the authorization
to elect.1 In Germany the subjection was even greater.
There, the choice of a new bishop had to be made in the
presence of the Emperor or of an imperial delegate. Such
was the order of the concordat of Worms. Under these
conditions the election was necessarily under the influence
of the will of the prince. That was generally the case.
The electors found themselves with an official candidate
whom they accepted, whether they wished it or not : more
over, they gained nothing by braving authority; for by
refusing the investiture the prince could practically always
nullify an election which displeased him.2 In opposition
to the royal action a pontifical action was displayed which
was progressive and varied. Let us study it.
During the whole of the twelfth century the popes did not
think of imitating the bold method of Gregory vn. Their
r61e was limited to examining and judging the elections
which were referred to their tribunal From a theoretical
point of view it was a modest r61e, since it consisted only
in setting aside unworthy or incapable candidates. But it
was a laborious r61e ; for there were many irregular elections,
1 Imbart, pp. 441-447. 2 Hauck, iv. 117, 146, 195, 276, 297.

378 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
and there were many, too, disputed because they were in the
interests of a clique. It may be added that this interven
tion, which was theoretically unimportant, had practically
considerable importance. As supreme arbiter of elections,
the Pope by his sentence ended disputes. The candidate
in whose favour he decided, was " confirmed," that is to say,
was assured of the possession of the bishopric guaranteed
against any attack. And this confirmation was so valuable,
that even those whose appointment was undisputed, were in
the habit of asking confirmation at Rome. An election
which was not confirmed was always precarious, was always
subject to attack on the part of envious persons. The
pontifical confirmation guaranteed its stability. It was an
insurance against shipwreck.1
From the thirteenth century the electoral action of the
Holy See assumed a new character. Until that time, popes
confined themselves to annulling irregular elections, and con
firming choices which were beyond reproach. After this
they did not fear to take the place of the electors, and them
selves to appoint the bishops. The author of this arbitrary
evolution was Innocent III.2 It was this pope who, by
transforming the audacious precedents set by Gregory vn.
into juridical maxims, arrogated to himself the right to
make episcopal appointments. His most famous interven
tion of this kind was that by which he settled the Canterbury
affair.8 In 1205 two candidates for that see arrived at
Rome. One had been elected by the monks of king John
Lackland, the other was supported by the king himself.
Innocent annulled both elections, and put Stephen Langton in
the place (1207). Moreover, he made use of his right only
rarely, and with much discretion, and he did it with great
skill. For example, he concealed the appointment of Stephen
Langton behind a pretended election which he caused to be
held at the Lateran ; subsequently he thought himself author
ized to say that Stephen had been canonically elected.
As might have been expected, the tree planted by
1 Imbart, pp. 482-499 ; Stubbs, iii. 310. 2 Hauck, iv. 728-730.
3 Matth. P3,ris, Chronica majora, 1205 ; Luard, ii. 492 ; Hefele, v. 819.

THE EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS 379
Innocent m. grew, was developed, and sent forth vigorous
branches, especially from the time of Innocent rv.
All the popes in the second half of the thirteenth
century, themselves appointed many bishops in Germany,
Italy, Sicily, and England. They chose them chiefly from
among the Dominicans and Franciscans.1 During his conflict
with Philip le Bel, Boniface vni. subjected France to this
system — a country which until that time had escaped. Then
came Clement v., who reserved for appointment by the Holy
See all the bishoprics the titularies of which died at the
court of Rome (1305). Then came John xxn., Benedict xn.,
and Clement vi., who extended the principle laid down by
Clement v.2 In short, in the fourteenth century the popes
controlled a considerable number of bishoprics. They were
formidable rivals of the chapters and kings.
This rivalry continued without serious hindrances through
out the fourteenth century ; yet it soon caused lively dis
satisfaction in England.3 In 1307 the English parliament
uttered complaints, which it renewed in 1343, in 1351, in
1365, in 1376, and in 1390. In consequence of these
complaints were passed the "statute of Carlisle" (1307), and
the "provisor's statute," which revived the electoral right.
But the popes soon won over the kings by giving certain
bishoprics to the favourites of the latter. Assured of royal
protection, they could disregard the opposition of parliament.
They did not retract until the Great Schism. Then the
scene changed. The papacy was weak and could only
indulge in empty threats. The law of the strongest did its
work. Kings once more seized upon the bishoprics ; they
gained slowly, but progressively, the ground they had lost.
The French and the Germans themselves took advantage
of the Great Schism and sought to escape the encroachments of
the pontifical authority. The Germans acted with moderation.
1 Hinschius, ii. 574, iii. 127, 129 ; Hauck, iv. 838 ; P. Viollet, Hist, des
constitutions, etc., ii. 330.
2 Raynald, 1303, 39 ; Hinschius, iii. 130 ; Stubbs, iii. 316-320 ; F. Rocquain,
LaPapauU au moyen dge, p. 215, Paris, 1881 ; C. Eubel, "Zum papstlichen
Reservations- und Provisionswesen," Bbmische Quartalschrift, viii. (1894) 173.
3 Stubbs, iii. 321, 338, 340.

380 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
They did not wholly object to the Pope reserving to himself
the appointments to certain bishoprics. They asked him to
confine himself within the rightful limits fixed by John xxn.
and Benedict xn. Martin V. gave them satisfaction, and, in
accordance with their wishes, granted them the concordat of
Constance (141 8).1 The French were more radical. In the
national councils of 1398 and 1406 they declared what is
known as " the withdrawal of obedience " ; they refused
submission to the French Pope, to him who, in their eyes,
was the true Pope. They therefore put into full force the
system of episcopal elections, supervised and confirmed by
the metropolitan.2 At Constance, when the Pope proposed
a concordat to them, analogous to the concordat accepted by
the Germans, they refused it. Unfortunately at this time
the English were masters of a part of France. The duke of
Bedford, who ruled in the name of the young king, Henry vl,
and who wished to have the sympathy of Rome, authorized
the Pope to choose the bishop from a list of three candidates
presented by the civil power (1425). The feeble Charles vn.
then yielded for fear of being sacrificed to the English by the
Pope.3 Martin v. triumphed in France even as he did in
England. But the battle was not over. In 1433 the council of
Bale suppressed all the rights which the Holy See had
assumed with respect to conferring bishoprics, and established
again the system of elections. The decree of Bale was
accepted successively by the States-General of Bourges
(1438) and by the diet of Mayence (1439). It entered
into the Pragmatic Sanction of the Gallican Church, and into
the Jnstrumentum acceptationis of the German Church.4 At
the end of twenty years there was nothing left of the
victories won by Martin v., all had to be begun again.
1 B. Htibler, Die Constanzer Beformation und der Concordat von 1418, pp. 115,
192, 205, 315.
2 Noel- Valois, La France et le Grand Schisms, iii. 164, 607, 614 ; iv. 178.
3 Hiibler, 284, 292, 298 ; Noel -Valois, iv. 420-435 ; Id., Hist, de la Pragm.
Sanction de Bourges, vi, xxxiii, Paris, 1906.
4 Noel- Valois, Hist, de la Pragm. Sanction, lxxviii-xcii ; Pastor, i. 252 ;
Hinschius, iii. 138.

THE EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS 381
The papacy began it again, and laboured energetically to
rebuild its crumbled fortunes. In Germany, several years
were sufficient to achieve a satisfactory result. By the
concordat of Vienne, which Pope Nicholas v. signed with the
emperor Frederick m. (1448), and which once more enforced
the convention of Constance, the papacy achieved it.1 And
it will be remembered that this convention confirmed the
juridical situation created by John xxii. and Benedict XII.
In France the condition was much more difficult. For more
than sixty years the popes uttered the most lively protests
against the hated Pragmatic Sanction, without succeeding in
abrogating it.2 At length, in 1516, Leo x. obtained from
Francis I. the much-desired abrogation. That was the
purpose of the concordat of Bologna. But the crafty king of
France, in making the convention, had thought only of his
own interests. He had surrendered the Pragmatic Sanction,
only in order to be the master of the Gallican Church, to
take from that church the independence which the Pragmatic
Sanction assured it. Therefore it was with great parsimony
that he gave Rome a share in the recruiting of the bishops.
He reserved to himself and to the kings of France his
successors, the appointment of bishops. He left to the Pope
only the right to confirm the choice of the king. After this,
France no more received its bishops from the chapters, but
neither did it receive them from Rome. The Gallican Church,
deprived of its episcopal elections and partly freed from the
protectorate of Rome, was to be ruled by kings.3
1 Hinschius, iii. 138.
2 Noel- Valois, Hist, de la Pragm. Sanction, cxxviii, clii, clxxxv, clxxxvi ;
J. Combet, Louis XI. et le Saint Siige, pp. 2, 16, Paris, 1903.
* Madelin, De conventu bononiensi, p. 65, Paris, 1900 ; Pastor, iv. 578-591.

CHAPTER XI
Ecclesiastical Celibacy
The feverish expectation of the end of the world inspired
the early Christians with a mystical exaltation which, among
the most ardent, paralyzed the lust of the flesh and produced
a kind of aversion to married life. Those chaste persons
exercised a considerable influence. They were admired for
their virtue. It was from them especially that the clergy of
the primitive communities were recruited. After some
generations the mystic intoxication which characterized the
beginning of the movement was calmed ; but the work was
continued and developed by the Gnostic agitation which
from the opening of the second century invaded the Church,
imparted to Christians a hatred of matter, and gave them
the disposition which was the source of the monasticism of
the fourth century. The usage was established, the tradition
was created. The bishops, priests, and even the deacons
could not obtain popular veneration unless they practised, or
at least pretended to practise, continence. The celibacy of
the clergy was introduced into the Church by the excitement
concerning the end of the world ; it was supported by the
Gnostic movement and by the allurement of prestige. About
the year 300 A.D. the council of Elvira made the practice
obligatory for the Spanish clergy. Nevertheless in 325 the
council of Nicaea, being urged to apply this local decision to
the Church universal, refused to do so. Until the end of the
fourth century the celibacy of the clergy, whether sincere or
feigned, was a matter of choice, except in Spain. It was
submitted to in the large towns, where there were many
candidates for the episcopate, and where it was important to

ECCLESIASTICAL CELIBACY 383
win the first prize for virtue ; but where there was no such
rivalry, no pains were taken to preserve appearances, and
natural inclinations were followed without pretence.
After the closing years of the fourth century the bishops
of Rome took the cause of celibacy in hand. Then appeared
the decretals of Lirice, of Innocent, and of Leo, which forbade
the marriage of bishops, priests, deacons, and, after Leo, of
sub-deacons. At this time the Roman Church had to impose
its will on all the bishops of the Latin world, a right de
rived from Valentinian I., from Gratian, and lastly from
Valentinian ni. Moreover, the councils of Carthage (390),
Hippo (393) in Africa, the council of Toledo in Spain (400);
in Gaul, the councils of Orange (442), Angers (453), Tours
(561), and Vannes (465) obeyed the orders of the Pope,
which were also those of the emperor. In 476 the western
empire disappeared; but celibacy was prescribed in the
ecclesiastical legislation, and there it remained. The councils
of Agde (506), Orleans (511), Tarragon (516), Epaone (517),
Toledo (527), Auvergne (535), Orleans (538, 541, and 549),
Eauze (551), Tours (567), Auxerre (about 580), Lyons (583),
Macon (583), Toledo (589, 633, 653, 655), Paris (after 614),
Chalons (648), Bordeaux (about 663), St. Jean de Losne
(673), adhered to the Roman discipline. This discipline,
which on the one hand was severe, on the other was rather
lenient. It removed from the surroundings of the clergy all
women who were "strangers," exception being made of the
mother, the sister, and the aunt. But it authorized those
who before taking orders had married — until the seventh
century this was almost universally the case — to keep their
wives on condition that they treated them as sisters. In
other words, in the matter of wives, it permitted a common
dwelling, but not a common bed.
The law of ecclesiastical celibacy was promulgated by
numerous councils in the sixth and seventh centuries. Diffi
culties arose when it was enforced. We may first mention the
work of Pope Gregory and its results. The possessor of vast
estates in Italy and the islands adjacent, in Dalmatia, and in
southern Gaul, invested throughout his domains with almost

384 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
royal authority, Gregory exercised that authority in the
enforcement of discipline. His officials were commanded to
watch closely both the higher and the lower clergy, and to
denounce ecclesiastics who were notoriously scandalous, to
suspend them from their functions, to banish them, and if
necessary to put them in prison. Of course, this inquisi
torial police could not, save in exceptional cases, supervise
the relation of wives to their former husbands whose dwell
ing they shared. But it concerned the wives who were
" strangers." Gregory thus put into force, so far as possible,
celibacy in the real sense of the word, or at least outward
decency. He also endeavoured to act upon the Frankish
Church. Not being able to interfere authoritatively in that
territory, he became a suitor. He wrote to Brunehaut, to
Thierry n., to Clotaire n., and to certain bishops. He de
manded various reforms, among which celibacy was discreetly
mentioned. But his efforts encountered a malevolent
indifference, and he failed.
Since the sixth century the Frankish Church, which Pope
Gregory depicts in rather dark colours, had made a serious
attempt at celibacy by instituting the " canonical life," or
life in common. The clergy of the episcopal city lived in
the bishop's house, into which no woman might enter ; they
ate at his table, lodged in his room. This community of life,
to which witness was borne by the council of Tours (567,
canon 13) and by Gregory of Tours, permitted the clergy to
have an eye upon their bishop, who for his part watched his
clergy.1 Under this regime the genuine practice of celibacy had
reassuring guarantees. It need not be said that the canonical
life did not prevail in the country, where priests, in conformity
to Roman discipline, lived in the same houses with their
wives. Was it practised in all the cities ? Was it adopted
by all the bishops ? There is no proof of it. Indeed, even
1 M. G., Concilia asvi merovingici, p. 125 ; Greg. Tur., Hist. Franc., vi. 36 ;
Vitce Patrum, ix. 1. Nevertheless it may be seen by Hist. Franc., i. 39, iv. 4,
viii. 19 ; Gloria confess., 76, 78 ; Vita Bemigii, 42 (by Hincmar, Migne, cxxv.
162), that delinquencies were not uncommon.

ECCLESIASTICAL CELIBACY 385
where it was in force, there were certainly deception and
delinquencies. The reality was not conformed to the ideal :
but it felt the influence of the ideal. After the middle of
the sixth century the Frankish Church practised celibacy
sincerely but imperfectly. From this point of view it was
superior to the Italian Church. What has been said of the
Frankish, is equally true of the Spanish Church, where, as we
are informed by canons 22 and 23 of the council of Toledo
(633), the priests as well as the deacons lived in the neigh
bourhood of the bishop, and slept in his dormitory. The
same was true of the Anglo-Saxon Church of the seventh
century. There the bishop was a monk, and lived with his
priests, who were monks like himself. The clergy lived under
the regime of a monastic life. Founded by a monk,
Augustine, the Anglo-Saxon Church bore the imprint of its
founder. This seems to have been imported to the Irish
Church, where ecclesiastical celibacy did not seriously take
root until the seventh century.
At the beginning of the eighth century Charles Martel
distributed bishoprics and abbeys of the Frankish Church to
his companions in arms. The regime had its inevitable
consequences. The discipline which the bishops for four or
five centuries had found difficulty in preserving, went to
pieces. The clergy afforded a spectacle of thorough-going
immorality. They shook off the yoke, not merely of celibacy,
but of the commonest decency. The decadence had been
speedy, but was not permanent. In the middle of the eighth
century a powerful reform' movement was planned and pro
gressively accentuated. The impulse was given by the monk
Boniface and by Chrodegang, bishop of Metz. Boniface
laboured to introduce good behaviour and dignity of life
among the clergy. Chrodegang regarded it as his mission to
restore the life in common, " the canonical life " as it was
then called, and to transform the clergy into "canons."
The following is one of the articles of this rule : " All the
clerical canons shall sleep in one dormitory, excepting those
whom the bishop has permitted to sleep in separate houses,
situated, however, in the interior of the cloister. Each one

386 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
will have his separate bed. The beds will be assigned
without reference to the age of the canons, so that the
young will be associated with those who are older. ... No
woman and no layman shall enter the cloister without
the permission of the bishop, the archdeacon, or the director."
Left to their own resources, the reformers would have
reached no result : besides, Chrodegang had legislated only
for his own clergy at Metz. But they were not left to them
selves: the civil power lent them ardent and eager aid.
Carloman and Pepin executed the measures instituted by
Boniface or under his influence, in the Frankish councils of
742-744. They scourged profligate priests unto blood ; they
imprisoned and deposed them. In 789, Charlemagne com
manded his bishops to introduce the rule of Chrodegang into
their dioceses, to subject their priests to the canonical life
and carefully to guard their behaviour. In 813 he repeated
his injunctions. Besides, he endeavoured to permit only
honourable men to become bishops. All these efforts were
not ineffective. Of course, perfection was not attained. In
a letter to the English archbishop Egbert, we learn from
Boniface that the latter was obliged to close his eyes to many
abuses, and often to practise indulgence. At least the im
morality which shamelessly prevailed in the time of Charles
Martel disappeared. Moreover, the council of Aix-la-Chapelle
(816) at this time bore witness to the canonical life which was
almost everywhere practised. It may therefore be concluded
that the clergy of Charlemagne generally observed the law
of celibacy. This was especially true of the clergy in the
episcopal cities ; for the country priests, who were ruled from
a distance, lived as they pleased, under the sole condition
that they should avoid scandalous debauchery.
Scarcely had Louis the Debonnair ascended the throne
when he found that his clergy fell far short of perfection, and
he put forth all his energies to reform them. By his orders
the bishop of Metz, Amalaire, inspired by the model of
Chrodegang, drew up a new rule for the canonical life, which
was promulgated in the council of Aix-la-Chapelle (816).
The canons would have been as innocent as angels, had

ECCLESIASTICAL CELIBACY 387
they but followed the instructions which were given them in
the name of the emperor. But they did not follow them.
Indeed, it was not long before the bishops permitted them
selves to be absorbed with political preoccupations which led
them to forget their religious mission. Pretending to watch
over the destinies of the Frankish empire, they left their
clergy without supervision. Moreover, the invasions of the
Normans began the work of disorganization which was to
persist for a century. Clerical discipline did not resist these
two trials, one of which alone would have been enough to
defeat it. The canons — it is needless to mention the country
priests — surrendered themselves to. all kinds of excesses.
The devout Louis the Debonnair tried to put an end to the
evil. He convoked the councils of Paris (829) and Aix-la-
Chapelle (836), and begged them to legislate. His son
Charles the Bald imitated him, and convoked the councils of
Ver (844), Meaux (845), Paris (846). These venerable
assemblies met, and recognized the fact that the morality of
the clergy left much to be desired. To remedy the evil they
found nothing better than to enforce the old rules. They
therefore issued a serious decree that the bishop should
always have in his chamber, clergy to be witnesses of his
conduct (council of Paris, 829, canon 20), that his canons
should pass the night in a common dormitory (council of
Paris, 846, canon 53), and that the priests should always
be separated from women (council of Paris, 829, canon 42 ;
Aix-la-Chapelle, 836, canon 6). The councils of Mayence
(847) and Worms (868) expressed their opinions after the
same manner. During this time the torrent of clerical
licence overflowed its banks. The council of Trosly (909),
after observing that many houses of the canons had been
destroyed by the barbarians, admitted that in those that
remained there was a reign of disorder and immorality.
All these ecclesiastics whom celibacy threw infallibly,
and in a certain way necessarily, into debauchery, would have
found a safeguard in the bonds of matrimony. Lawfully
joined to a wife, they would have led the lives of good laymen,
they would not have yielded to the caprices of carnal lusts.

6tS» THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Marriage contracted according to the laws of that time
seemed the only escape from the conditions with which the
clergy were grappling. That was understood by righteous
men. About 893, Angelric, a priest of the diocese of
Chalons, married in the presence of his parishioners.1 His
example was contagious. Soon on all sides the marriages of
bishops and of priests took place. Thibaud, bishop of Rennes,
married the daughter of an archdeacon of Nantes. When he
became a widower, he took a second wife. Before his death
he granted his bishopric to Gauthier, one of his sons, who
received episcopal ordination, married, became the father of a
family, and was succeeded by his son Gu^rin.2 This happened
between 950 and 1027. At Dol, the bishop Eveno (about
1070) married, then gave his daughters in marriage, and paid
their dowry with Church property.3 At Rouen, at Quimper,
at Le Mans, and elsewhere, during this period bishops con
tracted regular marriage relations.4 It need not be said that
the priests readily imitated their leaders. Piligrim, bishop
of Passau, declared that in Germany, priests were publicly
married.6 The history of the Frankish clergy is that of the clergy
elsewhere. In 701, Witiza, king of Spain, ordered his priests
to give up celibacy.8 His orders were at once executed.
Thereafter the Spanish clergy openly practised concubinage
and marriage. The Arab invasion, which occurred in 711,
only aggravated this state of things. In England the
monastic regime instituted by Augustine continued — not
without serious abuses, which are noticed by Bede 7 — until
1 Letter of Mancion, bishop of Chalons, to Foulques of Reims, Migne,
cxxxi. 23.
2 Du Paz, Histoire g(ne"alogique de plusieurs maisons illustres de Bretagne,
p. 47, Paris, 1620.
3 Letter of Gregory vn. to William the Conqueror, Exlrav. 28 ; Jaff6, 5005.
4 Orderic Vital, Hist, eccl., v. 12 ; Migne, clxxxviii. 403 ; A. de La Borderie,
Histoire de Bretagne, iii. 168, Rennes, 1896; "Actus pontif cennoman," in
Historiens de France, x. 384.
* Piligrim published this letter with the name of Pope Leo vn. ; Migne,
cxxxii. 1086 ; Jane, 3614.
• Hefele, iii. 356 ; see J.Tailhan, Anonyme de Cordoue, pp. 146-159, Paris, 1887.
' See above, Chapter III.

ECCLESIASTICAL CELIBACY 389
the arrival of the Danes (about 850). The disorder caused
by these barbarians was fatal to ecclesiastical discipline. The
monasteries disappeared, and the clergy, deprived of their
institutions, gave themselves up to every kind of disorder.
As time passed, the evil increased mstead of diminishing. In
the English council (969), king Edgar declared that the
houses of the clergy were dens of debauchery.1 In the
council of Enham (1009) it was remarked that many of the
priests had two or even three concubines, and that they
frequently changed wives.2
At the end of the eightj^eatfe- century the Roman Church
was exposed to criticism. In 778, Charlemagne learned that
evil reports were current concerning the behaviour of the
priests of Rome. He informed Adrian I. of this, who ex
claimed against the calumny and guaranteed the virtue of
his subordinates. Twenty years later, public rumour attacked
not only the clergy, but Pope Leo III. himself, who was
accused of adultery. Charlemagne went to Rome, summoned
a council to throw light on the affair, then, fearing complica
tions, he saved the Pope by asking him to swear that he was
innocent.8 But these incidents were as nothing, compared
with the spectacle offered by the Church at Rome during the
tenth century. Then appeared Sergius in. (904), the lover
of Marozia; John x. (914), the lover of Theodora; John xn.
(955), who passed his life in debauchery, and was killed by
an outraged husband; and Boniface IX. (1033), who, after
giving himself over to all sorts of lewdness, sold the papacy,
contracted a regular marriage, and reascended the pontifical
throne.4 Emperor Henry in. went to Rome to depose this
infamous person, and put the bishop of Bamberg to succeed
him, with the name of Clement n.5 (1046). The monk
Bonizo, in giving the story of the latter's election, declared
that this foreigner was chosen because it was difficult to find
1 Mansi, xix. 15; Hefele, iv. 630; Lea, i. 193. See in Jaffe, 3753, the
letter of John xm. to King Edward.
2 Mansi, xix. 297 ; Hefele, iv. 667 ; Lea, i. 200.
3 See above, "Papacy and Empire."
4 Baronius, Annates, 908, 2 ; 912, 7 ; 963, 16 j 964, 17 ; 1044, 2.
6 Hauck, iii. 589.

390 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
among all the Roman clergy a single priest who was without
a concubine.1 But in reality most of the Roman priests
were married, like those in France and Germany. They did
not have concubines, according to the exact meaning of the
term. That is proved by the following passage from Didier,
- who was afterwards Pope Victor ni. 2 : " The mass of the
clergy cast off all restraint. The priests and deacons,
disregarding purity of heart and of life, which are requisite
for celebrating the sacraments of the Lord, married like
laymen, and bequeathed their property to their children.
There were even bishops who trampled modesty under foot
and took wives. This accursed custom continued to flourish
especially at Rome, the city which the Apostle Peter and his
successors had formerly made the home of religion."
Celibacy was thus abolished at Rome in the tenth
century. It disappeared also in the churches of northern
Italy. In the tenth century Rathier, bishop of Verona,
stated that the mulierositas (the love of woman) prevailed
among all the clergy.3 " They were publicly married," he
f said ; speaking of his priests, " they professed to have the
right and even the duty to marry, and they suspected those
who did not marry of practising paederasty." In the eleventh
century Pierre Damien remarked that in all the states of
Adelaide, duchess of Burgundy, and especially in the diocese
of Turin, priests contracted regular marriages, taking an oath
of fidelity and sealing the agreement before a notary : he
observed that the bishops, far from opposing these unions,
approved them. Furthermore, in one of his opuscules he
states that bishops themselves had wives.4 About this time
Landulf, a priest of Milan, wrote as follows concerning the
clergy of that city : 5 " Every priest had his own wife. He
1 Ad amicum, v. ; M. G., Libelli de lite, i. 586 : "Ut in tanta ecclesia vix
posset unus reperiri qui non . . . esset concubinatus. "
2 Dialogi, iii. ; Migne, cxlix. 1002.
8 Discordia, i. ; Migne, cxxxvi. 619. See also Serm. , xi. ib. p. 752.
4 Opusc, xviii. ; Migne, cxlv. 398, 412, 416 ; Opusc, vi. pp. 18, 127.
3 Historia mediolanensis, ii. 35 ; M. G., Scriptores, viii. 70 ; Landulf adds
(iii. 5) that Anselm of Lucques is said to have confessed: "The priests of
Milan were all respectable, if they had not had wives. "

ECCLESIASTICAL CELIBACY 391
was revered as if he had no wife. Those who were in the
priesthood, and apparently practised celibacy, were always
suspected of leading a disordered life. . . . This was for a long
time the custom in the Latin as well as in the Greek Church,
where, when the faithful saw that a priest was married,
was a good father of a family, they chose him as bishop,
with deep feelings of reverence and joy."
These married priests of Milan lived the lives of good
fathers of families. That was not everywhere the case.
The council of Enham showed that many of the English
ecclesiastics supported several concubines. Was marriage
responsible for these sorry practices ? Public opinion did
not think it. On the contrary, it laid the responsibility for
all the disorders from which the clergy were suffering upon
celibacy. The people suspected the celibate ecclesiastics
of shameful habits, and saw in married life a guarantee of
morality, awarding to married priests an esteem which some
times amounted to veneration. As witnesses to this may be
cited the bishop of Fi^sole, Rainbald, and the priest Marinus,
who, although married, were regarded by the people as workers
of miracles. The marriage of priests met with popular sympathy, but
had its adversaries. How should this not have been so ?
Such marriages were a condemnation of monachism which
had just been renewed at Cluny and was advancing to the
attack. Marriage inspired the priests with the pre-occupa-
tions of fathers of families, anxious to assure the future of
their children. For this reason it endangered ecclesiastical
property. The kings, who were the guardians of this property,
were therefore obliged to fight for it. In fact, monks and
kings, the former impelled by mystical motives, the latter
governed by economical motives, made efforts to restore
ecclesiastical celibacy. The monks took the lead. In the
middle of the tenth century Cluny, through the medium of
Fleury on the Loire, one of its annexes, made its action felt
in England. Odo, archbishop of Canterbury, Dunstan his
successor, ^Ethelwold, bishop of Winchestor, Oswald, bishop
of Worcester, all friends of Fleury on the Loire, and all

392 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
inspired by it — Oswald had been a monk in that abbey —
laboured to bring back the clergy under the yoke of celibacy.1
After monachism, politics exercised its influence. The
emperor Henry n. was its interpreter. Observing that the
priests transferred ecclesiastical property to their children,
Henry n. resolved to put an end to this disorder, and asked
Pope Benedict vin. to aid him in curing the evil. A common
soldier who had found his way to the throne of St. Peter,
Benedict would never have thought of reforming the clergy
had he been left to himself. But he had a debt of the
papacy to pay to the emperor, and he could not refuse his
benefactor. Thus in agreement with Henry IL, he called the
council of Pavia, which forbade concubinage and the marriage
of priests.2 This measure was enacted with heavy penalties.
Priests who had wives or concubines were deposed ; their
children were made serfs of the churches, without hope of
freedom. In order to justify these severe measures the
Pope vehemently opposed the sons of priests, whom he
accused of ruining the Church. He could not more plainly
announce that he adopted a utilitarian point of view, and
that for him the celibacy of priests was a question of
economic order.
About 1030,, William, the abbot of St. Benigne of Dijon,
wrote to John xix. : 8 " We wish that you would display
more energy in correcting abuses and maintaining discipline."
William was a son of Cluny, and it was Cluny, through him,
which called the Pope to order. But it soon became un
necessary for Cluny to administer reproof, for the papacy
was its docile servant. The monk Hildebrand, educated in the
monastery of Sancta Maria of Aventinus, where he learned
the principles of Cluny, had considerable influence' upon
Leo ix. During the reigns of Victor il, Stephen ix.,
Nicholas il, and Alexander il, he was the real Pope,
until he was made the legal Pope.4 Under his direction the
1 Lea, i. 194. 2 Mansi, xix. 343 ; Hefele, iv. 670 ; Hauck, iii. 528
3 Migne, cxli. 1157.
4 C. Mirbt, Die Publizistik im Zeitalter Gregors VII., p. 601, Leipzig, 1894,
made with reservations so far as Leo ix. and Victor n. are concerned ; Delarc,
St. Grigoire VII. et la reforme de VEglise au xi™ sOele, i. 105.

ECCLESIASTICAL CELIBACY 393
papacy worked energetically to impose celibacy upon the
clergy.1 The Roman council (1049) condemned to slavery
all the wives of priests who lived at Rome. A second Roman
council (1050) forbade the laity to come into contact with
priests who were married, or who had concubines. In 1059
a third Roman council forbade them to be present at mass
said by these priests. A fourth council (1063) renewed the
prohibition. In this period Anselm, a young enthusiast,
spoke in public at Milan against the incontinence of the
priests, caused an uprising of the people against the clergy :
in a word, began a revolution. To be freed from this dis
turber, the archbishop of Milan had him appointed bishop of
Lucques (1056). But this expedient did not still the storm.
Two fanatics, Landulf and Ariald, continued the revolutionary
movement of Anselm, and appealed to the worst passions of
the populace, which, excited by these agitators, invaded and
pillaged the houses of the priests. Very soon the Pataria,
the name given to the anti-clerical revolution caused by
Landulf and Ariald, received the support of Hildebrand. It
then became formidable. Incapable of resisting the storm,
the clergy were forced to capitulate. They capitulated, and
agreed to give up marriage (1059). The course of celibacy
was everywhere triumphant, and its success seemed to be
permanent, for the Roman council (1059) renewed the
legislation of the Carolingian period, and required the priests
to live a life in common : " We order the clergy ... to have
a refectory and dormitory in common, situated near the
churches to which they are assigned." The institution of
canons was, by this decree of the council of 1059, enforced,
or, what was the same thing, restored to its ideal state. The
marriage and concubinage of priests was therefore about to
disappear for ever. That, at least, was what might have been
expected. This expectation met with a cruel disappointment. At
Milan the Pataria took advantage of its triumph and gave
itself over to excesses, which made it odious to the people.
1 Lea, i. 218, 249-264 ; Hauck, iii. 599, 696 ; Delarc, i. 119, 191, ii. 58,
107, 184.

394 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
A first reaction, which occurred in 1066, failed. But in
1075 a second reaction took place, and this time the Pataria
was drowned in blood, and the clergy returned to their
former practices.1 In England something of the same sort
occurred. King Edward having been indoctrinated by
Dunstan, for some time after the council of 969 treated
harshly the priests who had concubines, but the latter quietly
resumed their traditional manner of life.2 In England and
at Milan the law of celibacy became obsolete after it had
begun to be enforced. Elsewhere, even the beginning of this
enforcement was wanting. Councils legislated, prescribed
ecclesiastical celibacy, adopted appropriate measures, inflicted
terrible punishments upon the delinquents ; yet all this was a
matter of theory. And when Hildebrand, who had become
Gregory vn., ascended the pontifical throne, the marriage of
priests was as common as ever.8
Gregory vn. continued the work begun by Hildebrand,
and having in the Roman council of 1074 promulgated the
legislation of 1059, he took pains to have it enforced. At
Rome he deposed the recalcitrant priests. In the rest of the
Church there was more difficulty. The legates sent to
Germany to enforce celibacy, drew upon themselves indignant
protests from the episcopate ; but, undiscouraged, they were
lavish in threats and promises, and then certain bishops
ventured to prescribe the Gregorian rule to their priests.
They nearly paid for this audacity with their lives. One of
them, Altmann of Passau, assembled his clergy and read, to
them the pontifical decrees.4 " Then," says his biographer,
" cries of fury were heard on every side, and the servant of
God would have been slain forthwith had not Divine
Providence, seconded, by the courage of some great per
sonages, released him from the hands of these enthusiasts."
1 Delarc, ii. 202, iii. 140.
2 Lea, i. 203.
3 For example, the Council of Bourges (1031, canon 19) says : " No one
shall give his daughter in marriage to a priest, to a deacon, to a sab-deacon,
or to their sons " ; Delarc, iii. 66.
4 Vila Altmanni, M. G., Scriptores, xii. 226 ; Acta sanctorum, ii. 366, Migne,
cxlviii. 878 ; Hefele, v. 32 ; Delarc, iii. 83 ; Lea, i. 271.

ECCLESIASTICAL CELIBACY 395
At Erfurt, the archbishop of Mayence received a like
welcome.1 The German clergy did not desire celibacy.
Nor did the French clergy. Here is what a contem
porary writer said of the council of Paris2 (1074): "A
council assembled at Paris to determine whether obedience
should be rendered to the orders of the Lord Pope Hilde
brand of holy memory, with regard to ecclesiastical celibacy,
and to his prohibition to hear mass said by a priest having a
concubine. Almost all the bishops, abbots, and clergy who
composed the assembly declared that the orders of the Pope
were absurd, and they concluded that they could not, and
should not, be obeyed. Gauthier, abbot of Pontoise, then
arose and protested against the decision which had been
made. . . . The words of Gauthier caused a fearful distur
bance in the assembly. He was attacked from all sides,
was unmercifully beaten, spit upon, and dragged into the
king's prison, from which his friends subsequently released
him." The legate Hugues of Die, selected by Gregory to go
through France in order to awaken a sentiment in favour of
celibacy, only encountered insults. The king and the nobles,
upon whom he relied for support, did what they could to
interfere with his work. The bishops, sure of impunity,
insolently repudiated the pontifical proposal. Hugues was
determined to show equal audacity, and convoked a council
at Poitiers8 (1078). There he was insulted, spurned by the
prelates, especially by the archbishop of Tours and the bishop
of Rennes. But Gerard, bishop of Cambrai, was zealous to
secure the favour of the Pope, and promulgated the law of
celibacy in his diocese. It was labour lost. His clergy
denounced him throughout all the province of Reims in a
letter of protest from which the following is an extract4:
" The Romans carry their insolence so far as to revolutionize
1 Hefele, v. 31 ; Delarc, iii. 81.
2 Mansi, xx. 437 ; Acta sanctorum, Avril, i. 753 ; Hefele, v. 34 ; Delarc,
iii. 86.
3 Mansi, xx. 499 ; Letter of Hugh to Gregory, Migne, clvii. 609 j Delarc,
iii. 356 ; Hefele, v. 115.
4 M. G., Libelli de lite, iii. 574.

396 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
everything. . . . They have forbidden all the clergy to
marry, while according to our rules the clergy are not obliged
to observe continence, and may marry, provided they marry
only once. . . . Our pastors conform to these manoeuvres in
order to appear to be submissive to Roman authority.
Governed by fear, they endeavour to load us with heavy
burdens, while with a light heart they lend themselves to
the degradation of our order. They, whose behaviour is far
from being blameless, do not cease to oppose our manner of
living, as if they themselves were good. ... If you have
any feeling, and if you wish to behave like men, you should
despise these councils, which only expose you to public
scorn. ... As for us, we are firmly decided to preserve in
its integrity the usage which up to this time has been in
force among us, which the wisdom of our fathers established.
We utterly repudiate dangerous innovations."
We may now consider England. The reform movement,
which after the middle of the tenth century spread through
out that country, wholly failed ; and when William the
Conqueror took possession of the island, he found a clergy
either married or living with concubines (1066). One of
his first administrative acts was in the council of Winchester
(1070) to cause the deposition of the most powerful of the
Saxon clergy, and to fill their places with Normans.1 The
undertaking confided to the Norman legates was carried out
according to the requirements of canon law. The victims
were accused of violating either the law of celibacy or the
law of elections. The bishop of Lichfield, for example, lost
his see because he had taken a mistress and had a family.
William thus made use of Roman discipline to further his
political interests. When he was rid of the Saxon clergy
his zeal for ecclesiastical celibacy vanished, and after 1070
the marriage of the clergy went on as before. Upon arriving
in England (1070), Lanfranc found that the practice prevailed
to such an extent that he did not think he could suppress
it, at least directly. In the council of Winchester (1076)
1 Mansi, xix. 1080; Hefele, iv. 886; Delarc, ii. 453 [important]; Lea, i.
829.

ECCLESIASTICAL CELIBACY 397
he promulgated the following discipline : x " The canons may
not have wives : as for the priests who are in the castles or
in the villages, if they have wives, they are not obliged to
put them away; if they have none, they are forbidden to
marry. For the future, the bishops are to ordain as priests
or deacons only those who have promised not to marry."
Lanfranc, except so far as the canons were concerned,
accepted the conditions as he found them. His hope was
for the future.
The hope was excessive. The rule of Lanfranc remained
a dead letter. All the priests, the canons themselves, con
tinued to have wives. And when, thirty-six years later,
Anselm of Canterbury undertook to subject the English
clergy to the rule of celibacy, he aroused a storm of protest.2
It was pretended that celibacy was a novelty, a practice
against nature, an immoral thing. Anselm, supported by the
king, successfully resisted the storm, and set out to execute
his plan. To avoid deposition certain priests, especially
among the dignitaries and canons, put their wives away. But
the king soon lost his interest in ecclesiastical discipline. The
priests then took their companions once more. Anselm, who
was in exile, ordered his archdeacon to excommunicate those
who were guilty. The latter derided the excommunication.
The council of London (1108) observed that the decrees of
1102 were not enforced, and it renewed them,3 but it was
almost in vain. At the council of London (1126) the
pontifical legate who presided, admitted that marriage was
as prevalent as ever in the English Church.4
We shall see hereafter what was the condition of the
churches of Spain, Hungary, Poland, Scotland, and Denmark.
Yet a word may be said concerning the Irish clergy. St.
Bernard6 affirms that throughout Ireland ecclesiastical dis-
1 Mansi, xx. 449 ; Hefele, v. 110 ; Freeman, Hist, of the Norman Conquest,
iv. 422 ; Delarc, 378 ; Lea, i. 330.
3 Mansi, xx. 1150 ; Migne, clix. 95 ; Hefele, v. 268.
3 Mansi, xx. 1229 ; Eadmer, Hist. Novorum, iv. ; Migne, clix. 470 ; Anselm,
Epist, iii. 109, 110, 112; Hefele, v. 292.
4 Mansi, xxi. 327 ; Lea, i. 338.
5 Liber de Vita Malachite, x. 19 ; Lea, i. 360.

398 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
cipline was decadent from the time when the archbishop
Malachi assumed the see of Armagh (1130); and he gives
an explanation of this decadence. Malachi was the suc
cessor of Celsus, and his eight predecessors were married
men. The bishops of Armagh were the primates of
Ireland. Their example could not fail to be contagious.
Bernard confesses that in 1130 the Irish clergy con
tracted marriages. Moreover, this was an old state of
things ; the decrees proceeding from Rome had made no
change. Instead of being discouraged by the uselessness of its
legislation concerning celibacy, Rome continued to make laws.
With unwearied perseverance Urban n. in the councils of
Amalfi (1089) and Clermont (1095), Pascal n. in the
council of Troyes (1107), Calixtus II. in the councils of
Reims (1119) and the Lateran (1123), Innocent n. in a
second Lateran council (1139), Eugenius III. in the council of
Reims (1148), required their clergy to be continent. The
old decrees were renewed, or rather they were made stricter
For during a long period the legislation which condemned
the marriage of priests, recognized its validity. Only en
thusiasts of the school of Pierre Damien pretended to confuse
the marriage of priests with concubinage. The pontifical
decrees finally declared that priests could not contract
valid marriages. Thereafter married ecclesiastics were re
garded as having concubines. The legislation was agreeable
to those enthusiasts. To this evolution the Lateran council
of 1139 bears plain witness in canon 7, where it is said:1
"Bishops, priests, deacons, regulars canons and monks, pro
fessed monks, who have relations with women should be
separated from these persons ; for we think that these
unions, made contrary to the rules of the Church, are
not marriages." They " are not marriages " ; and so the
wives of ecclesiastics were degraded to the rank of con
cubines, even though' the marriages had been regularly
performed. Nevertheless, the Lateran council (1123) pre
sided over by Calixtus il, expressed the same germinal
1 Mansi, xxi. 528 ; Hefele, v. 441.

ECCLESIASTICAL CELIBACY 399
idea ; x for, without making any declaration as to unions
contracted by the clergy, it ordered that these unions
should be dissolved. It was therefore Calixtus n. who
affirmed that priests could not be married. It was he who
made the celibacy of the clergy more severe.
We may now observe the practical working of this
legislation. What results were achieved by it ? What
influence had it on the life of the clergy ?
In England for a whole century it was a dead letter.
The priests continued to be publicly married. The sons of
priests were still admitted to the ecclesiastical profession,
and succeeded to their fathers. Everything went on as
before. Popes Innocent n. (1138), Alexander in. (1171),
Lucius m. (1182), protested, threatened, even sought to use
violent means. It was of no avail In 1202, Innocent in.
learned that in the diocese of Exeter the sons of priests
inherited the benefices and functions of their fathers. In
1203 he discovered the same state of things in the diocese
of Norwich, and also in 1205 in the diocese of Winchester.
At this time, Giraud de Barry, bishop of St. David, admitted
that almost all the English priests had wives, transferred
their functions to their sons, and married their daughters to
the sons of priests. Notwithstanding the legislation, the
English priests led respectable lives as fathers of families.
This was freely done, without molestation. Pope Gregory ix.
put an end to this condition. Being all-powerful with
Henry ni., king of England, who needed the support of
Rome to oppress his subjects, Gregory used his influence to
serve Roman discipline. By the pope's order, his legate
Otto presided over a council at London (1237), where severe
measures were adopted against married priests and their
sons.2 These measures, which ordered priests to put away
their wives under penalty of deposition, and which, except
in the case of a dispensation, forbade their sons to assume
ecclesiastical office (canons 15, 16), contained nothing
1 Mansi, xxi. 277 ; Hefele, v. 381 ; Lea, i. 385-388 ; Hefele (v. 290) is
wrong in discovering the same idea in the council of Troyes of 1107.
2 Mansi, xxiii. 441 ; Hefele, v. 1057 ; Lea, i. 350.

400 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
new. The only thing new was the manner in which they
were executed. Whether they liked it or not, the bishops
were forced to obey, and to act as police in their dioceses.
Doubtless some prelates were reluctant to take up this
work, and their priests had little to suffer. But others
worked zealously, and were terrible. No one was more so
than the famous Robert Grosseteste, who was bishop of
Lincoln.1 Marriage did not resist the persecutions, or at least the
annoyances to which it was subjected. It gradually dis
appeared. Of course, celibacy gained nothing from this
defeat. The priests continued to have wives, and even
children. Yet they could not have the conjugal union blessed
at church. Their children were no longer their heirs, nor
could they take orders. The clergy practised concubinage.
In Ireland, archbishop Malachi from the year 1130 until
his death was an ardent advocate of ecclesiastical celibacy.
His zeal had its effects. From the middle of the twelfth
century the Irish clergy acquired a reputation for chastity,
which at the beginning of the thirteenth century was re
cognized by Bishop Giraud de Barry. In 1171, Henry n.,
king of England, undertook the conquest of Ireland, and
brought English priests into that country. Thereafter there
were two kinds of clergy in Ireland : one was Irish, the
other, Anglo-Saxon. The latter were married, and made
themselves known as married in the council of Dublin
(1186). For some time these two classes of clergy were
distinguished by their morals. But gradually the Irish
took the Anglo-Saxon priests as their models. In 1205
Innocent in. observed that the hereditary transference of
benefices was a common practice among the Irish clergy.
He ordered his legate to stop this abuse. In 1219
Honorius m. indignantly protested against the laxity of the
Irish Church. In 1250 Innocent rv. endeavoured to effect
the reform attempted in vain by his predecessor. He failed ;
and the council of Ossory of 1320 confessed that the Irish
priests openly supported concubines. 1 Lea, i. 356.

/

ECCLESIASTICAL CELIBACY 401
In Scotland, King David, obedient to the legate Jean de
Creme, endeavoured to suppress the marriage of ecclesiastics,
but without success (1125). Throughout the twelfth century
the Scottish clergy married, just as did the English clergy, to
whom they belonged, since Scotland was under the jurisdiction
of the archbishop of York. In 1188 a decree of Pope
Clement m. freed the Church of Scotland from this subjection,
and placed it under the direct control of the Holy See. In
the thirteenth century this measure had an unexpected effect.
While the English bishops, subservient to the orders of Rome,
endeavoured to abolish the marriage of priests, the Scottish
bishops, who were less supple, rebelled against the pontifical
commands. There was therefore this difference, that while
the English clergy were obliged to resort to concubinage, the
Scottish clergy were free to marry.
The popes of the Gregorian school, in the middle of
the eleventh century, sought to introduce their plans into
Spain. Hence were held the councils of Saint Jacques de
Compostella (1056) and Gerona (1068 and 1078), which
assumed to subject the clergy to the law of celibacy. These
assemblies achieved no result. At the beginning of the
twelfth century Diego Gelmirez, archbishop of Compostella,
who made serious attempts to raise the moral standard of the
Spanish clergy, prudently abstained from opposing marriage.
He attacked those who were dissolute, particularly the Bene
dictine abbot of St. Pelayo of Antealtaria, who had seventy
concubines. He permitted his priests to have mistresses.
During the thirteenth century the councils of Lerida
(1250), Valencia (1255), Gerona (1257), and others took
various measures in conformity to the Roman rule. Their
decisions were supported by the king of Castile, Alfonso
the Wise, who endeavoured to impose celibacy upon his
clergy. But at the beginning of the fourteenth century the
people, in spite of the existing laws, obliged the priests to
marry, in order that they might be sure of their morality.
The priests, even the bishops, therefore married : they had
children ; they were present at the baptism and marriage of
their children ; they transferred to them their ecclesiastical
26

402 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
property. The council of Valladolid (1322) noted this state
of things (canons 6—8), and, as its president was a pontifical
legate, it endeavoured to employ force.1 Fifty years later, no
change had taken place, and the council of Palencia (1388),
under the presidency of a pontifical legate, made another
unsuccessful attempt at reform.2 In 1330 the Spaniard
Alvarez Pelayo, the confessor of John xxn., said to his
countrymen : 3 " God be praised that they have never
promised to be continent, especially in these provinces of
Spain, where the children of the clergy are almost as
numerous as those of the laity. . . . They often sin with
their penitents. . . . Many of the priests in Spain, in the
Asturias, in Galicia and elsewhere, swear fidelity to women,
who for the most part are of noble origin. They take the
vow publicly, and sometimes register it before a notary.
And, in token of it, they give ecclesiastical property. They
marry publicly in the presence of their relatives and friends,
and they complete the ceremony with a sumptuous feast."
In Germany, when Henry V. rebelled against his father,
one of his first acts was to convoke the council of Nord-
hausen4 (1105), which, among other measures favourable to
Roman discipline, condemned married priests to be deposed.
Henry, who at that time needed the papacy, sought to win
its favour. The zeal which he displayed for reform was
a mere manoeuvre, and was not sincere. Futhermore, the
council of Nordhausen left the German clergy just as they
had been before. In his commentary on the Apocalypse,
written about the year 1120, Rupert reproaches the priests
of his country for marrying wives whom they subse
quently abandon, without taking account of the bonds of
matrimony.6 In 1128, Meinhard, archbishop of Treves,
desiring to discipline his clergy, caused such indignation that
he was obliged to take flight.6 In 1131, Pope Innocent n.,
1 Mansi, xxv. 695 ; Hefele, vi. 612 ; Lea, i. 380.
2 Mansi, xxvi. 735 ; Hefele, vi. 866.
• Deplanctu ecclesix, ii. 28, 1517, p. 131
4 Hefele, v. 279 ; Hauck, iii. 880,
' In Apocalyp., ii. 2 ; Migne, clxix. 878, 879.
6 Gallia Christiana, xiii. 419 ; Ecclesia trevirensis, 58.

ECCLESIASTICAL CELIBACY 403
seeing that Lothair, king of Germany, was the humble
servant of the papacy, whose help he needed, profited by
this favourable occasion, and at Liege held a council in which
the laity were directed not to attend masses celebrated by
priests who had concubines.1 This law, like all those which
preceded it, remained a dead letter. Some years afterwards
(1135), Albero, bishop of Liege, authorized his priests to
marry publicly.2 About 1170 the archdeacon of Salzburg
wrote : 3 " The evil is such that a priest is revered when he
has but one wife, and respects other married women." And
about 1150, Gerhoch, in complaining of the morals of the
clergy, observes that they were, with very few exceptions, in
ferior to those of the laity.4
Gerhoch desired the re-establishment of life in com
munities.6 It was the dream of a monk. The common life,
which for centuries had been rejected by the secular clergy,
was an institution which had been abolished for ever. Men
of experience generally appreciated this. During the
thirteenth century, several German councils legislated with
respect to the morals of the clergy. Only one, the council
of Cologne (1260), which was probably merely a diocesan
synod, revived the old system of a common dormitory.6
Others had more modest ideas. They forbade priests to
bequeath church property to their wives and children, and
in connection with this they condemned the practice of
concubinage. Such were the councils of Mayence (1225
and 1261), Fritzlar (1243), and Bremen (1266). But even
these acts were not confirmed. In 1260, as we know from
the council of Cologne of that year, priests married their
children with great pomp. Twenty-four years later, the
1 Mansi, xxi. 473 ; Hefele, v. 413 ; Hauck, iv. 139.
'Gallia Christiana, iii. 871, Ecclesia leodiensis : "Horrenda vigebat non
in plebe tantum sod in clero et in cleri principe morum corruptela. . . . Civium
plerique viris e clero non minus imo et libentius quam e populo filias suas dare
non erubescebant."
3 De ealamitate ecclesice Salisburgensis, 9, Migne, cxcvi. 1551.
4 Inps., lxiv. 49 ; Migne, cxciv. 38 and 40.
5 Inps., lxiv. 30 and 35 ; De cedificio Dei, 26, Migne, cxciv. 1264.
6 Mansi, xxiii. 1012 ; Hefele, vi. 63.

404 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
council of Passau1 (1284) took notice, with regret, of the
same custom. In 1296, Boniface vni. reproached the priests
of Utrecht for being publicly married and for bequeathing
church property to their families.2 And in 1359 the emperor
Charles rv. urged Pope Innocent vi. to suppress the profligate
morals of the German clergy.8
This is the place to refer to the churches of Hungary,
Bohemia, Poland, and Sweden — all daughters of the German
church, from which they had become detached at various
times. The Hungarian clergy had no acquaintance with the
discipline of celibacy until 1092. Their first action was to
enter into negotiations with Rome and obtain a dispensation.
Hence the following canon of the council of Szaboles
(1092) :4 "Priests who are regularly married and for the
first time, for the sake of peace, are to be treated with in
dulgence provisionally until the advice of the Holy Father
has been taken concerning them." We do not know what
answer was made by Rome. What we do know is, that the
council of Gran, held about 11 10,5 authorized (canon 31)
priests who had been married before their ordination, to keep
their wives. This situation continued until 1267. Then
the Roman legate succeeded in imposing the discipline of
celibacy (council of Vienna). The Hungarian clergy, which
up to that time had been regularly married, took concubines.
This was done officially, but as a matter of fact the Hunga
rian priests continued to be married in public, even as their
German colleagues did.
The history of Bohemia, with some shades of difference,
was that of Hungary. In Bohemia, too, the clergy married
long after the promulgation of the Gregorian legislation.
There, too, a Roman legate upset their usages. About 1192,
Cardinal Peter, sent by Celestine in., came to Prague and
1 Mansi, xxiv. 570 ; Hefele, vi. 232.
2 G. Digard, Les registres de Boniface VIII., i. 348 n., 1001, Paris, 1884.
3 Raynald, 1359, 11-23 ; Hefele, vi. 701.
4 Mansi, xx. 751: "Presbyteris autem qui prima et legitima duxere
conjugia indulgentia ad tempus datur . . . quousque nobis in hoc Domini
Apostolici paternitatis consilietur. "
6 Mansi, xxi. 97 ; Hefele, v. 323.

ECCLESIASTICAL CELIBACY 405
endeavoured to impose celibacy on all candidates for the
priesthood. Meeting with insults from the older priests, he
had the most recalcitrant of them arrested by soldiers, sent
some into exile, and left the rest to die in prison. This
energetic policy was efficacious.1 Thereafter celibacy was
the official regime of the clergy in Bohemia, even as it was
in Germany. The Polish clergy lived their married life in peace until
the end of the twelfth century — more exactly, until the
year 1197, when the Roman legate, Peter of Capua, called
the council of Lenczig, and made celibacy obligatory.2
Peter did not achieve any result; for in 1207, Innocent in.
bitterly reproached the Polish bishops because their priests
were married, and had children, to whom they bequeathed
their functions.3 Did Innocent succeed in suppressing
regular marriages? The council of Breslau (1279) gives
reason to think that such was the case, for it dealt severely
only with the concubinage of the priests. In any case, the
victory of the Pope, if it was a victory, was only temporary.
In fact, the council of Breslau (1416) showed that ecclesi
astical functions were at that time hereditary in Poland,
from which it follows that sons of priests were regarded as
born in lawful wedlock.
The first serious attempt to introduce celibacy into
Sweden was made about 1204 by the archbishop of Lund,
at the instance of Innocent in. It had no result. The
Swedish priests refused to leave their wives ; they even
pretended formerly to have received from the Holy See an
indulgence authorizing them to live in the bonds of matri
mony, and Innocent in., disconcerted by this response, left
them in peace. In 1239, Gregory ix. renewed the attempt
of Innocent in. with no greater success. At length, in 1248,
Cardinal de St. Sabina, a legate of Innocent iv., returned to
the attack in the council of Skening. This time Rome was
supported by the civil power, which crushed all opposition.
The Swedish priests gave up their lawful wives and were
content with concubines : their celibacy consisted in that.
1 Lea, i. 294. 2 Mansi, xxii. 673 ; Hefele, v. 1178. 3 Potthast, 2967.

406 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
It remains for us to speak of Italy and of France. In
the second half of the twelfth century Pope Alexander m.
was informed that the priests of Calabria were being publicly
married. He made laws against this abuse, but without
avail; for the council of Melfi (1284) remarked that the
discipline of celibacy was disregarded by all the clergy of
southern Italy. Moreover, the following is the judgment
which St. Bonaventura pronounced on the morality of the
Italian priests of the thirteenth century : 1 " Many of them
are so vicious that a virtuous woman would fear to be com
promised by going to them for private confession. . . . The
members of the clergy are for the most part notorious
adulterers. They have concubines, sometimes at home,
sometimes elsewhere."
In France the public and regular marriage of priests had
not disappeared at the beginning of the twelfth century.
This is proved by two letters from Ives of Chartres ; one
(ccxviii.) relative to a canon of Paris who married a wife,
and gave her a regular marriage contract ; the other (cc),
wherein a dignitary of the Church at Sens was shown to be
already bound by contract of marriage to a woman whom he
had just espoused. Nevertheless, at this time the regular
marriage of the French clergy was the exception ; every day
it happened less frequently, and the councils of Calixtus IL,
Innocent n., and Eugenius in. were about to abolish it. It
was concubinage and debauchery which were in vogue.
There were some priests whose lives of disorder were a scandal
to the people. Such an one was the dignitary of Sens, just
mentioned, who before his regular marriage kept two con
cubines; such an one was Adalbert, bishop of Le Mans,
around whom, according to Ives of Chartres, moved a whole
band of women who were his concubines,2 and children
whose father he was. And these clerical debauchees, to
judge by the complaints of Honorius of Autun,3 of Abelard,4
1 Opusculum : Quare Fratres minores prasdicent et confessiones audiant.
2 Ep., oolxxvii. 3 De offendieulo, 16, Libelli de lite, iii. 42.
4 Sermo 29, Migne, clxxviii. 563: " Saepe ut audio, earum ori hostias porrigitis
manibus, illis quibis ipsarum nates vel obscenas partes contrectare soletis."

ECCLESIASTICAL CELIBACY 407
and various other writers of the twelfth century, were
numerous. Yet are we to believe that the majority of the
French clergy led such a life? It seems that such was not
the case. The first biographer of St. Bernard relates that
the illustrious abbot, when upon a journey, stopped at the
house of a priest who went to the church every day to say
matins, but who, " like many other priests, had a concubine "
and children. This priest, who was the father of a family,
lived with his concubine " like many other priests " ;x he was
the representative of a common condition in the middle of
the twelfth century. At this time the French clergy, which
had in its ranks a fair minority of debauchees, ordinarily
lived an orderly life. It was orderly not because of
marriage, but because of concubinage. Priests, with very
few exceptions, were not regularly married, but had wives;
they brought up children, were fathers of families, and the
public found no fault with it.
Popes Alexander in. (council of Avranches, 1172) and
Innocent m. (councils of Paris, 1210, 1212; of Montpellier,
1215) issued, through their legates, reformatory measures
which the councils of Rouen (1231), Saumur (1253), Sens
(1269), and Bourges (1286) repeated. Priests were for
bidden to keep their own children ; legislation was especially
directed against the concubines, whom the council of Rouen
ordered to be shaved in public and afterwards to be cast
into prison. But in 1259, Pope Alexander iv. admitted
that the wound of concubinage was everywhere;2 and
doubtless he did not refer specially to France ; neither did
he except it from his observations. About 1307 the
Frenchman, Pierre Dubois, a counsellor of Philip le Bel,
declared 3 " there are very few " priests who observe celibacy ;
and about 1330, Alvarez Pelayo, the confessor of John xxn.,
In Ep., i. 13, he says that each of the monks of St. Gildas had several con
cubines "... unus quisque se et concubinas suas cum filiis et filiabus
sustentaret." 1 Sancti Bernardi abbatis vita, i. lib. vii. 21.
2 Raynald, 1259, 22.
3 De abreviatione, an unedited treatise from which an extract is cited by
Langlois in his edition of the De recuperations terre sonde, p. 51, Paris, 1891.

408 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
who lived in Avignon, exclaimed : " Few of the clergy in
God's Holy Church practise chastity." 1
We come now to the fourteenth century. Notwith
standing the immense effort made by the papacy to impose
a superhuman life on the priests, the priests continued to
live as other men. Everything went on as it did when
Hildebrand began his chimerical project of suppressing
marriage among the clergy ; or rather, two new events had
occurred, one among the clergy, the other at Rome.
In the eleventh century, priests were regularly married.
At their death they bequeathed their property to their
families — the property of the Church ; their sons went into
the Church ; the priesthood was hereditary. In the fourteenth
century the marriage of the clergy was suppressed, not every
where, but in several countries. The priest could no more
have a family ; he could no more bring up children, nor
bequeath to them his property and his functions. He made
up for this by surrendering himself to the caprices of passion,
by living the life of a libertine. In the fourteenth century
licentiousness was the wound of the clergy. And this wound,
which was already great, would have been still greater had
it not been for the ingenious contrivance of the law of
collagium. Under pretence of attacking concubinage, the
bishops and archdeacons often employed it as a source of
revenue. They imposed fines on priests who had concubines.
The priests paid, and were no longer disturbed. Now, the
faithful purchased every year, by means of an offering, a
dispensation from abstaining, and the right to eat meat on
days of abstinence. In the Middle Ages, priests, when their
finances permitted it, purchased a dispensation from celibacy
and the right to have a concubine. Such was the right of
collagium which made its appearance in the eleventh
century.2 This practice was condemned by several councils, notably
1 Deplanetu ecclesice, p. 131, 1517.
2 Lea, i. 309 ; Nicolas de Clamanges says (De corrupto ecclesias statu, 22) :
"Plerique in diocesibus rectores parochiarum ex certo et condueto cum suis
prelatis precio passim et publice concubinas tenent."

ECCLESIASTICAL CELIBACY 409
by those of Mayence (1261), Bremen (1266), and Melfi
(1284); but it remained in force. And Pope John xxn.
was not ashamed to feed the pontifical treasury with taxes
levied on concubinage. We learn this from his confessor,
Alvarez Pelayo, who tells us : " He sent by me many letters
to the clergy of Spain who had concubines, to authorize
their bishops to dispense them from the irregularity with
which they were afflicted." x In short, the right of collagium
must have been extensive. Yet nothing justifies the idea
that it was universally put into practice. It remains true
that in the fourteenth century the marriage of priests, where
it was abolished in principle, was at least often put into
practice. This was a first contrast to the eleventh century,
when the clergy were generally married.
A second contrast followed from this, and that is to be
found in the attitude of Rome. From Hildebrand to
Innocent in. the papacy laboured untiringly to impose
celibacy on the clergy. During the thirteenth century, that is,
following the fourth Lateran council, it lost its former zeal and
gave the matter only intermittent attention. In the fourteenth
century, when it was occupied with the concubinage of priests,
that is under John xxn., in order to exploit it financially
and acquire revenue from it ; it did nothing to stop the
current. At times it even went with the current, as is
testified to by Clement vi., who, to excuse his relations with
women, answered those who were scandalized : 2 " I acted on
medical advice." Moreover, from the time of Urban vi. it
was struggling amid the convulsions of the Great Schism.
Though it would have liked to reform the clergy, yet it
1 De planctu ecclesics, p. 102, 1517: "Multas literas dedit clericis con-
cubinariis Hispaniae ut cum eis sui episcopi irregularitate sic contracta
auctoritate mea dispensarent."
2 Burton, Chronicon monasterii de Melsa, iii. 89, London, 1867: "Quando
juvenis fuimus hoc usi sumus et quod facimus modo, facimus ex consilio
medicorum . . . (then names are cited), summorum pontificum qui lubrici et
incontinentes fuerunt, demonstravit ex factis ipsorum . . . quod ipsi melius
rexerunt ecclesiam et multa plura bona fecerunt quam alii continentes."
Concerning Boniface vni., see Finke, Aus den Tagen Bonifaz VIII., pp. 245-
247 ; Finke believes that certain accusations made against this Pope during
the latter's lifetime are worthy of belief.

410 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
could not do so, for it could not exercise a control which
belonged to the episcopate.
At the time of the Great Schism the episcopate, being
master of the Church's destinies, addressed itself to the work
which the popes of Hildebrand's school had vainly desired
to accomplish. At Constance and at Bale, the immorality
displayed by the clergy was deplored, and edicts were issued
intended to bring it to an end. The celibacy of the clergy
was discussed, lively sympathy with it was expressed, and
it was decided that the clergy should practise it. There
were high-sounding declamations, but there was nothing
further. In reality the reform was desired by an elite
of virtuous men, such as Gerson, Peter of Ailly, and Nicholas
of Clamanges. The body of the clergy had no desire to
change their habits ; they seemed to have lost the sense of
decency. On the eve of the council of Constance, bishops
assembled at Pisa, elected as pope, John xxm., one of the
princes of debauchery, the man who had gratified bis luxurious
instincts with hundreds of women. And while the council
of Constance was in session, an army of courtezans, more
than four hundred, say some, more than seven hundred,
say others, descended upon the city and plied their
trade. At length the bishops ceased to pretend to govern
the Church, and the papacy, restored to its former privi
leges, was confronted with the moral reformation of the
clergy. Unfortunately, since the evil days of the tenth century the
papacy was never more incompetent for its mission. It was a
period during which Paul n., who occupied the papal throne,
kept a mistress ; when Sixtus iv. was surrounded by dissolute
cardinals ; when Innocent vni. had more than half a dozen
bastards, possibly a dozen ; when Alexander VI. transformed
the Vatican into a palace of orgies ; and when Julius n. had
three daughters, and a shameful disease.1 It may be easily
imagined of what a kind the College of Cardinals was which
1 Lea, i. 428; concerning Paul n., see Mansi-Baluze, Miscellanea, iv.'519,
1761 ; concerning Alexander vi. and Julius il, see the admissions of Pastor,
iii. 820, 475-478 ; iii. 282.

ECCLESIASTICAL CELIBACY 411
elected such men, of what a kind the clergy were which
accepted them. For they were accepted, and among all the
clergy there were only two monks to denounce their vices
and those of the Roman Curia. The Carmelite Thomas
Connecte, and the Dominican Savonarola, who had a wonderful
influence in northern Italy, had only a passing success. Both
failed, and both paid a cruel price for their audacity. Connecte
was burned by order of Eugenius IV. (143 3).1 A half century
later Alexander VI. inflicted the same punishment upon his
enemy Savonarola.2 During this time the corruption of the
clergy, encouraged by the example of Rome, followed its
course. And that nothing might be wanting to this dis
tressing spectacle, Popes Sixtus iv., Alexander vi., and
Julius n: added a ludicrous element. They gravely elaborated
plans of reform, the first two of which never saw the light,
and the third of which, promulgated in the fifth Lateran
council, called forth a burst of laughter.8 It was not that
the laity looked upon this licentiousness of the clergy with
indifference. They murmured and uttered their complaints
in France4 (States-General of Tours, 1484), in England5
(Henry vn., 1485), in Germany6 (Gravamina of 1510), and
everywhere. But these complaints had been made for. so
long a time that they did not excite attention.
The thunderbolt of Protestantism effected a terrible
awakening. When it was perceived that a part of Christen
dom was in revolt, there was a tardy searching of heart. In
1524 the pontifical legate, Campeggio, observed that the
Lutheran heresy owed part of its success to the disordered
morals of the clergy.7 And in 1523, in a memoir read by
the nuncio Cheregato at the diet of Niirnberg, Pope Adrian vi.
1 Cosme de Villiers, Bibliotheca carmelitana, ii. 814, Orleans, 1752.
2 H. Lucas, Savonarola, pp. 232, 300, 372, Edinburgh, 1906.
3 Pastor, ii. 632-642 ; iii. 379, 388-392, 740.
4 Journal de Masselin, "Collection de documents inedits sur l'histoire de
France," p. 167 ; Cahier des Etats Generaux, Paris, 1835, p. 662.
6 Lea, ii. 16.
' E. Munch, Vollstandige Sammlung oiler alteren und neueren Konkordaten,
i 94, 108, Leipzig, 1830.
i Raynald, 1524, 26.

412 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
made this admission : x " God has permitted this persecution
(the Lutheran) to come upon the Church on account of the
sins of men, especially on account of the sins of priests and
prelates. . . . We know that not long ago abominable things
took place in this Holy See ; . . . everything there has been
profaned. The evil, beginning at the head, has passed to the
members. This is not surprising. We all, prelates and clergy,
have left the strait way, and for a long time there has been
not one among us that doeth good." No one could now close
his eyes to the scandal caused by the depraved lives of the
clergy. It was understood that this evil should be promptly
uprooted. But where was a cure to be found ? For a long time the
more serious minds were inclined to think that the disorders
of the clergy had their origin in celibacy itself, and that
priests would lead a moral life if they were permitted to have
families. In the twelfth century Pope Alexander in., after
vainly forbidding priests to have mistresses, thought of abolish
ing ecclesiastical celibacy — that is, at least, the testimony of
his contemporary Giraud, archbishop of St. David, which we
have no reason to suspect.2 At the beginning of the four
teenth century, Durand, bishop of Mende,3 discreetly advised
that there should be introduced into the West the discipline
of the Eastern Church, which permitted priests to marry.
Gerson, a witness of the licentiousness of those parish priests
who had no concubine at home, wished to have the public
concubinage of the clergy tolerated as a lesser evil.4 Pope
Pius n. was not afraid to say : " In other times they did well
to deprive priests of the right to marry ; but it would be
1 Raynald, 1522, 66 ; extract in Mirbt, Quellen zur Geschichte des Paps-
thums, p. 187, Tubingen, 1901. See the note of the nuncio Aleander,
Dbllinger, Das Papsthum, p. 484, Miinchen, 1892.
2 Lea, i. 402.
3 De modo concilii generalis celebrandi, ii. 46, Paris, 1671, p. 157. See
extracts from this book, Fleury, Histoire eccl. , Li v. xci. 52.
4 De vita spirituali animce, lectio iv. coroll. 14, prop. 3 ; iii. 51-52, Anvers,
1706: "Scandalum certe magnum est apud parochianos curati apud con-
cubinam ingressus, sed longe deterius si erga parochianas suas non servaverit
castitatem."

ECCLESIASTICAL CELIBACY 413
better if it were restored to them to-day." 1 And Erasmus
wrote : " Celibacy is a very noble thing, but considering the
life actually led by priests and monks, at least in Germany,
the remedy of marriage would be far preferable for them." 2
This opinion, which had spread even before the appearance of
Protestantism, gained new support after Luther's revolt. As
priests were seen to profit by the general disorder, and to
marry, it was difficult not to perceive that celibacy was
chimerical. In 1541, therefore, the Emperor Charles v., in
a memoir presented to the diet of Ratisbon, declared that
he favoured the marriage of priests.8 In 1548, when he
published the Interim, he authorized married priests to keep
their companions provisionally, that is to say, until the council
should pronounce a definite opinion concerning celibacy.4 In
1560, emperor Ferdinand sent to Pope Pius iv. a memoir
designed to present marriage as the only remedy for the
corruption of the clerical world. Shortly afterward the duke
of Cleves and the duke of Bavaria supported the opinion of
Ferdinand6 (1562).
Rome did not yield. When Charles V. published the
Interim, the pontifical throne was occupied by Paul m. This
pontiff, like all the prelates of his time, had passed a dissipated
youth — it was known that he had four bastards.6 Becoming
Pope, he obstinately defended the institution of celibacy in
opposition to the emperor, to whom he addressed protests,
and whose edict he would have publicly condemned had he
not been restrained by his advisers. In 1563, at the twenty-
fourth session of the council of Trent, the bishops, whom the
pontifical legates influenced as they chose, made ecclesiastical
1 Platina, De iritis pontificum Romanorum, p. 329, A., Cologne, 1600 :
"Sacerdotibus magna ratione sublatas nuptias, majori restituendas videri."
(This assertion forms part of a collection of maxims of Pius n.) Concerning
Innocent vni., see Pastor, iii. 269.
1 Epist., xxxi. 43.
3 Goldast, ii. 199 ; Pastor, vi. 306.
4 Interim, xxvi. 17, in Raynald, 1548, 69 ; Goldast, i. 518.
6 Pallavicini, Histoire du concile de Trente, xiv. 13, 18 (edit. Migne, 1844,
ii. 907) ; xv. 5, 9 (p. 963) ; xvii. 4, 8 (p. 1161) ; Fleury, Liv. cliv. 118.
8 Pastor, vi. 16, which proves that these children were illegitimate.

414 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
celibacy an article of faith (canon 9). This was the response
of the papacy to the requests of emperor Ferdinand and of
the Catholic princes of Germany. In spite of this rebuff,
Ferdinand was not discouraged. When the council dispersed
he demanded of Rome, not the aboHtion of celibacy, but
an authorization for the German priests who were already
married, to keep their wives. After his death, which occurred
in the meanwhile, his son Maximilian II. renewed this demand.
It was in vain. Pius rv., without a formal refusal, let the
negotiations drag on in order to gain time. Pius v., his
successor, frankly declared (1566) that the legislation pro
mulgated at Trent was forthwith obligatory.1
1 Raynald, 1564, 29, 38 ; 1565, 1 ; Dollinger, Beitrdge zur politischen,
Mrchlichen und Kulturgeschichte der seeks letzten Jahrhunderte, i. 588-635,
Ratisbon, 1863 ; Lea, ii. 213, 223.

CHAPTER XII
Speculative Heresies
Until the time of Charlemagne, the doctrinal disputes which
disturbed the West were imported from the East. After
the Carolingian period, the Latin Church, without ceasing
to be tributary to foreign countries, engaged in theological
quarrels on its own account. They were quarrels which
at first were limited to the metaphysical domain, which for
the most part were of no interest to the people, but which
from the eleventh century, raised by the hatred of the
clergy, had a revolutionary character, and at times shook
Christian society to its very foundations. The heresies of
the Middle Ages may, therefore, be divided into three -classes.
In the first place were those which came from the East, and
which the West knew only by their effects ; in the second
place, we meet with purely dogmatic theories, which inter
ested only the clergy ; in the third place, antisacerdotal and
revolutionary theories made their appearance. The last of
these will be dealt with in a subsequent chapter. For the
present, the first two classes will engage our attention
The Eastern controversies, an echo of which reached the
West, were four in number : the affair of the Three Chapters,
which had as its final result the dispute concerning Adop-
tionism ; Monothelism ; the question as to the worship of
images ; and the Filioque clause.
By the affair of the Three Chapters is meant the
condemnation of Theodore Mopsuestius and of his works,
certain writings of Theodoret, and of a letter of Ibas. These
writings were condemned first by the emperor Justinian (A.p.
544), then by Pope Vigilius in the Judicatum (548), and
416

416 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
finally by the Council of Constantinople (553), with the con
sent of Vigilius, who had previously made a retraction, and
who in a declaration, well known as the Constitutum, with
drew his sentence of 548. The Western bishops refused to
subscribe to this condemnation, in which they saw — and
they were right — a manoeuvre inspired by the Monophysites
to oppose, without appearing to do so, the decisions of
Chalcedon. The attitude of Vigilius and his successors
provoked a feeling which almost produced a schism. Africa,
northern Italy, Dalmatia — as we have already seen — severed
relations with Rome. The Frankish Church did not display
the same animosity ; it did not banish Pope Pelagius I. from
its communion, but it subjected him to an investigation.
It charged King Childebert that he should obtain informa
tion as to the orthodoxy of the Roman pontiff. And on
two different occasions Pelagius was forced to give an
account of his faith to the Frankish prince.1 He did not
dare to compel Childebert and his bishops to submit to the
fifth council. He confined himself to affirming his fidelity
to the council of Chalcedon. In short, he confused the
matter, as far as possible, by equivocations and concealments.
Forty years later St. Gregory employed the same tactics.2
Thanks to these contrivances, and to the conciliatory spirit
of the time, the troubles in Gaul, northern Italy, and
Dalmatia gradually came to an end. In Africa, Justinian
promptly drowned the schism in blood. Hence persecution
and subterfuge were proceedings which acclimatized in the
West the condemnation of the Three Chapters, which tem
porarily put an end to the dispute raised by the Council
of Constantinople (553).
Peace achieved by such means was artificial. Actually
the West rejected Monophysitism, to which the East re
mained steadfastly attached. Nevertheless, even factitious
peace cannot be secured without some compromises. In this
case the compromises were in the nature of formulas. Rome
1 Jaffe, 942, 946 ; see also the letter of Vigilius to the bishop of Aries,
ib. 925.2 Jaffe, 1214, 1273, 1275, 1309.

SPECULATIVE HERESIES 417
adopted certain expressions of Monophysite origin which
did not seem to endanger the doctrine of the two natures
of Christ.1 From another point of view it perceived that
certain technical phrases formerly employed by the doctors
had a Nestorian savour more or less pronounced, and it
abandoned them. After the sixth century the vocabulary
of Roman Christology began to be evolved. It was this
evolution which, during the last years of the eighth century,
gave rise to the Adoptionist controversy. It occurred in
the following manner.
The Church of Spain, having no close relations with
Rome, paid no attention to the scruples of Roman Christ
ology, and relied on the texts of Tertullian, Ambrose, and
Augustine, where the distinction between the natures of Christ
is placed in bold relief. Isidore of Seville did not fear to say
that the only-begotten Son of God, desiring to make us His
brethren, took a man and adopted him. The composers of
the Spanish liturgy made use of the same language, and
in the Mazarabian missal Jesus was represented as a man,
adopted by the divine Word.2 Spain remained in peace,
preserving its usages, until the end of the eighth century.
At that time Roman formulas, admitted by the Frankish
Church, crossed the Pyrenees and found their way into the
Iberian Peninsula. Then Elipand, the metropolitan of Toledo,
and Felix, bishop of Urgel, took the cause of tradition
actively in hand : " Since Jesus has two fathers," they said,
"Almighty God and King David, we should find in Him
two sons." In fact, they distinguished in Christ, two sons
of God : a real son, who is the Word, and a son by adoption,
who is the man adopted by the Word.
This caused a dispute which was to last for nearly fifteen
years. The priest Beatus and the bishop Heterius wrote
a long treatise to prove that as man, Jesus was, strictly
speaking, the Son of God. Their voices found hardly an
•In 534, Pope John n. accepted the theopaschitical formula: "Unus
de Trinitate carne passus est." Jaffe, 884, 885 ; Gunther (Colleetio avellana
in the Corpus of Vienne), p. 320
2 Hefele, iii. 650.
27

418 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
echo in Spain, where the Adoptionist Christology was
respected ; but it had an effect beyond the Pyrenees.
Pope Adrian I. heard it, and at once sent a letter to the
bishops of Spain, in which, according to the custom of his
predecessors, he set forth the importance of the Roman
Church, and proved to them that Jesus was really the Son
of God1 (785). Charlemagne was also informed, probably
by Adrian, that a theological dispute had arisen in one part
of his realm. He wished to throw light on the matter, and
called the council of Ratisbon, at which he presided (792).2
Felix, whose episcopal see belonged for some time to the
Frankish kingdom, was summoned, and appeared. Find
ing no defender at hand, he retracted. Charlemagne then
sent him to Pope Adrian, who subjected him to an examina
tion. Felix reiterated his retraction to the Pope. He
swore on the holy mysteries, and on the body of St. Peter,
that he would never again call Christ the adopted Son of
God. After this oath he was authorized to return to his
episcopal city. The Adoptionist dispute seemed to be ended.
But Felix had been playing a part. His submission was
not sincere; and after returning to his country he hastened
to preach Adoptionism. When complaint was made to
Charlemagne, he crossed the frontier and went among
the Moors. Elipand, who was under Frankish control,
could afford to be brave without fear of punishment.
Through his influence the Spanish bishops held a council,
made the Adoptionist Christology a dogma, and communicated
to the Frankish bishops as well as to Charlemagne the result
of their labours. Charlemagne was not in the habit of
letting his adversaries have the last word. In reply to
the profession of faith of the Spanish bishops, he again
convoked his own bishops at Frankfort, attacked the danger
which the Adoptionist heresy was causing to the true faith,
and without difficulty had it condemned.3 He also asked
men of learning to aid him with their writings. By his
order, Alcuin wrote a treatise against Felix and another
1 Hefele, 658. 2 Mansi, xiii. 875 ; Hefele, iii. 672.
8 Mansi, xiii. 873 ; Hefele, iii. 678.

SPECULATIVE HERESIES 419
against Elipand (about 799). Paulinus of Aquileia, who
after the Council of Frankfort refuted Adoptionism, was
for a second time urged to write in favour of the Franco-
Roman orthodoxy. Charlemagne went farther. He caused
the condemnation of the Spanish heresy in a Roman council
(798).1 He was especially preoccupied in bringing Felix
to Aix-la-Chapelle. This plan, which required diplomacy
in its execution, had a good effect. Felix came to the
court of the powerful monarch for the second time, made
a retraction, and was then committed to the care of Leidrade,
bishop of Lyons. The second retraction was no more sincere
than the first. Felix privately propagated his Christology
at Lyons. When he died (818), he left behind him
certain partizans whom the archbishop Agobard took pains
to convert. Thereafter Adoptionism disappeared from the
Frankish Church. The Church of Spain remained faithful
to it ; but, overcome by the Moors, it soon afterwards ceased
to think ; it almost ceased to live. Five centuries later,
when it awoke from the long slumber in which it had
been plunged, it had forgotten many things — especially
Adoptionism. Monothelism is a theory which attributes to Christ only
one will and a single principle of action, although out of
respect for the council of Chalcedon it recognizes the fact
that He possesses two distinct natures, one divine, the other
human. This doctrine, propagated by Sergius, bishop of
Constantinople, and Cyrus, archbishop of Alexandria, with
the support of the emperor Heraclius, was in 634 brought
to the attention of Pope Honorius. The Roman pontiff
received it favourably ; in fact, he wrote two letters to
Sergius,2 one of which, the most famous, developed the three
following conceptions: 1. In Christ, divinity and humanity
were united so as to form one person ; 2. From this unity
of person it follows that Christ had but one will ; " Hence
(unde) we admit that only one will existed in Christ " ; 3. In
1 Mansi, xiii. 1030 ; Hefele, iii. 721.
» Mansi, xi. 537, 579 ; Jaffe, 2018, 2024 ; Hefele, iii. 146, 166.

420 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Christ there was but one principle of action ; nevertheless, to
avoid vain cavil, the formulas " one operation " and " several
operations " should be avoided.
The Roman Church thus greeted with sympathy the
appearance of Monothelism, that is to say, a doctrine which
secretly, without professing to do so, abolished the work of
Chalcedon. Let us hasten to add that it made a retrac
tion. John IV., at the beginning of his pontificate (the
early part of the year 641), proclaimed the distinction be
tween two wills, two principles of action in Christ, repudiated
the inconvenient texts from Honorius his predecessor,
affirmed that this pontiff had remained faithful to the law of
Chalcedon, and condemned the Ecthesis, the symbol of the
Monothelite Christology drawn up by Sergius, and promul
gated by the emperor.1 Two years later, Theodore, the
successor of John iv., ordered Paul the patriarch of Con
stantinople to suppress the Ecthesis, and after several useless
injunctions issued a sentence deposing Paul (648).2 It was
a sentence which was not executed, and which ended in
reprisals. For Paul, not content with keeping his throne,
dealt rigorously with the pontifical apocrisarii, and drew up
a new Monothelite confession of faith, the Type, which was
promulgated by the emperor. Pope Martin I. endeavoured
to reply. Hardly had he ascended the pontifical throne
when he held a council in the Lateran palace, in which he
heaped anathemas upon the Monothelite Christology, upon
the bishops of Constantinople, upon the other prelates who
had defended it, upon the " most impious Ecthesis," and upon
the " abominable Type." 3 The emperor repaid this audacity
by sending him to die miserably in the Chersonesus (655).
Martin's successors, Eugenius I. and Vitalian, who did not
feel that they had the vocation of martyrs, made great con
cessions. The papacy seemed to be crushed. It was saved
by the people, or rather by the monks of Rome, and also by
1 Mansi, x. 607 ; Hefele, iii. 183 ; Jafite, 2040, 2042.
2 Mansi, x. 702 ; Hefele, iii. 186 ; Liber Pontificalis, Vita TheodoH ; Jaffe,
2049, 2052.
3 Mansi, x. 863 ; Hefele, iii. 213.

SPECULATIVE HERESIES 421
circumstances.1 Already in 656, Eugenius i. had been
constrained by popular murmurs to display energy and to
reject the synodical letter of the patriarch of Constantinople.
Vitalian, indeed, hastened to make a public apology for this
(657); but the death of Constantius n. (668), and the diffi
culties which then assailed the empire, fortified his weakened
courage. He severed communion with Constantinople. His
successor, Adeodatus, adopted the same attitude — an attitude
which under other circumstances would have been dangerous,
but which at this time was adroit. The sympathies of Italy
were with the Papacy, not with Constantinople. The
emperor Constantine Pognatus, thought that the best means
of pleasing the Italian people was to flatter Rome, and this
he did. He called a council at Constantinople (the sixth
oecumenical council), the debates of which he directed him
self or through his officials, in which he made the Latin
theology prevail (680).2 However, in order to console the
Eastern theologians, he caused Pope Honorius to be inscribed
on the list of Monothelite heretics : " We stamp with our
anathema and our exclusion, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius,
Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter, as well as Cyrus, and with them
Honorius, once bishop of Rome, who followed them." * After
the time of John rv., Rome was bent upon saving the honour
of Honorius. Pope Agathon, in a letter read by his legates
before the sixth council, did not fear to say : " My prede
cessors have always defended the true faith." 4 The anathema
pronounced upon Honorius by the council was thus a painful
humiliation for the apostolic see. But how could a protest
be made at the moment when Latin theology was triumphant ?
Pope Leo n. yielded respectfully to the condemnation pro
nounced against his predecessor ; but by adroit interpreta
tion he endeavoured to lessen its effect, and in his letter to
the king of Spain, and to the bishops of that country, he
explained that the unfortunate Honorius had not exercised
the diligence necessary to avoid error.6
1 Liber Pontificalis, Vita Eugcnii, Vita Vitaliani.
2Hefele,iii. 250, 262. "Mansi.xi. 554; Hefele, iii. 277(seealso 291).
4 Mansi, xi. 242; Hefele, iii. 256. e Mansi, xi. 726 ; Hefele, iii. 289, 294.

422 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Finally, it may be added that in their conflict with
Monothelism the popes were sustained by the sympathies of
the Western churches. About 646 three African councils
plainly arrayed themselves on the side of John iv. and of
Theodore. The Latin theology was likewise defended by a
council of Orleans, concerning which, however, we have little
sure information.1 The Lateran council of 649 included
one hundred and five bishops who came from Italy, Sicily,
and Sardinia.
On the eve of the sixth oecumenical council (680), one
hundred and twenty-five bishops gathered about Pope Agathon
at Rome. And in 679, divers councils at Milan, Heatfield in
England, and possibly elsewhere, proclaimed their belief in
the two wills of Christ.2
During the time of St. Gregory (the end of the sixth
century) images of Christ and of the saints were admitted
to the churches of Rome for the instruction of the faithful,
but they were not worshipped.3 A century later Roman
theology underwent an evolution through the inspiration of
the Eastern spirit. Rome was dominated by the Byzantine
emperors, and the majority of the popes came from the East.
The East authorized the worship of images. Thus when Leo
the Isaurian engaged upon his iconoclastic campaign, popes
Gregory n. and Gregory m. resisted him, gave legal sanction
to the religious worship of images, and anathematized the
iconoclastic doctrine4 (Roman councils, 727 and 731). To
have his revenge, Leo confiscated a part of the patrimony of
St. Peter, and took away some provinces from the Roman
patriarchate.6 Copronymus finished this paternal undertaking
by calling the Eastern council of 753, which ordered the
suppression of images. This was successful, but the price
paid for it was dear. Under Stephen il the papacy became
1 Hefele, iii. 206, 212. 2 Mansi, xi. 174, 175, 186 ; Hefele, iii. 250.
3 J. Turmel, Histoire de lo theologie positive des origines au Concile de Trentc,
p. 174, Paris, 1904.
4 Mansi, xii. 267, 299 ; Hefele, iii. 405.
6 Hefele, iii. 407 ; H. Hubert, " Etude sur la formation des etats de l'Eglise,"
Revue historique, lxix. 22 (1899),

SPECULATIVE HERESIES 423
free from the yoke of Constantinople, and made an alliance
with the Franks. Undismayed, Constantine Copronymus
endeavoured to win to his iconoclastic theology the Frankish
king, Pepin the Short. The latter convoked the assembly of
Gentilly (767), which took the side of the papacy. The
court of Constantinople then yielded to the inevitable and
capitulated. The empress Irene restored the worship of
images. After an agreement with pope Adrian I., she con
voked the seventh oecumenical council — the second council
of Nicaea, at which pontifical legates were present, which
made the worship of images a dogma.1
Encouraged at the success which the papacy achieved at
Nicaea, Adrian sent immediately to Charlemagne the act of
the council of 787, translated into Latin. To this transla
tion he added his letter to the empress Irene, and sent
these documents to Charlemagne, who referred them to his
theologians. The pontiff had not foreseen what would
happen. In France, the question as to images had not been
raised ; the doctrine of St. Gregory remained in force. The
worship of idols was repudiated, and they were regarded
merely as a means of instruction. The Frankish theologians
read with indignation the documents which came from Rome,
including the Pope's letter to Irene. Charlemagne had a
reverence for the Church of Rome, which in his eyes was
primate of all the churches and the bond of Christendom,
but he placed the science of his own theologians above that
of the Pope. Besides, from the political point of view, he
had to complain of the court of Constantinople, and he was
pained to see the apostolic see come into close relations
with that court. He resolved to give Adrian, as well as
Irene, a lesson in orthodoxy. He gave it haughtily and
severely in the Carolingian Boohs, which were written at his
request by the theologians about him, in his name, on his
responsibility, of which he was the official author, and of
which the following are the data. 1. The council held at
Nicsea (787, the seventh general council) is as criminal
(compar flagitio) as that of 753. 2. The presence of images
1 Mansi, xii. 951 ; Hefele, iii. 458 ; Hauck, ii. 308,

424 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
in the churches as ornaments is lawful but not obligatory.
3. Worship offered to images is a superstition which cannot
be justified either by Scripture or tradition ; for neither
Scripture nor the Fathers permit the worship of images.1
The Carolingian Books were long. When they were
completed, Charlemagne caused eighty-five propositions con
tained in them to be published. He then required his friend
Angilbert to bring them to Rome (about 792).2 Adrian
took up the propositions one at a time and refuted them. His
refutation, although not exempt from vivacity (we read some
where: 6 insania frementium contra fidem), was on the whole
written with great calmness and praiseworthy courtesy. The
Pope made a point of pleasing his powerful friend ; yet he could
not permit attacks upon the faith for which his predecessors
had fought and suffered. He attempted to prove that the
council of 787, "a council with whose decisions we agree," as
he said, was faithful to the teachings of Scripture and
tradition. His plea was useless, for the council of Frankfort
(794, canon 2) solemnly rejected the dogma proclaimed by
the second council of Nicaea.3 The Frankish clergy would
not hear of the worship of images.
Thirty years later their opinions were the same.4 Urged
by the court of Constantinople to study the question of
images, the emperor Louis the Debonnair convoked his bishops
and the most famous theologians at Paris, and asked their
opinion. Such was the origin of the Assembly of Paris, 825.
In conformity to the emperor's will, the bishops and theolo
gians drew up a statement in which the following ideas were
presented. 1. Pope Adrian had acted imprudently in ordering
a return to the superstitious worship of images (indiscrete
noscitur fecisse in eo quod superstitiose eas adorare jussit). 2.
The letter of the Pope to the empress Irene is an endeavour
to legalize the worship of images by an appeal to the authority
1 M. G., Epist., iii. 449 ; Hefele, iii. 694 ; Tunnel, pp. 350, 481; Hauck,
ii. 316 ; A. Gasquet, L'Empire byzantin et la monarchic franque, p. 274,
Paris, 1888.
2 Hauck, ii. 324.
3 Mansi, xiii. 899 ; Hefele, iii. 689, 712 ; Hauck, ii. 329.
4 Mansi, xiv. 421, 461 ; Hefele, iv. 42 ; Hauck, ii. 487.

SPECULATIVE HERESIES 425
of the Fathers ; but it cites absurd proofs which are quite
irrelevant (valde absona et ad rem de qua agebatttr minime
pertinentia). 3. Being refuted by Charlemagne, Adrian
answered that prince with whatever happened to come into
his mind, but his response was unimportant (respondere quce
voluit non tamen quce decuit conatus est). 4. He acted in
good faith, thinking that he was following the teachings of
Pope St. Gregory. 5. We know that at Rome images are
the object of superstitious veneration (illorum erga imagines
superstitiosam venerationem). The error should be corrected ;
but this must be done with caution. The Pope (Eugenius n.)
must be flattered, the Holy Roman Church must be praised,
and truth must be introduced adroitly, by referring to the
authority of Scripture and of the Fathers.
Louis the Debonnair followed the advice of his bishops,
and sought to convert the apostolic see to the Frankish
doctrine concerning images. We do not know what reception
Eugenius ii. gave to the envoys. It is certain that Rome
did not modify its usages. In the end it even imposed them
upon the Frankish Church. But this victory was the work
of time. The dissertations of Jonas of Orleans, Agobard, the
monk Dungale, the monk Walafrid Strabo, written after 825,
were faithful to the teaching of Pope Gregory. And in 867,
Enee, bishop of Paris, was still opposed to the worship of
images.1 From the time of Augustine there was a latent conflict
between the East and the West as to what conception
should be formed of the origin of the Holy Ghost. In the
seventh century two theologies were on the point of coming
into collision. It was during the Monothelite controversy.
The orientals — already disputing the Christological question
with Rome — read in the letters of Pope Martin that the
Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son, and
they disputed about this formula.2 But the chief preoccupation
1 Tunnel, pp. 354, 483.
2 M. Leqnien, Dissertationes damasceniccs, i. 10, at the head of his edition
of Saint Jean Damascene ; Migne, Pat. gr., xciv. 51.

426 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
of the moment was to determine whether one will or two wills
should be attributed to Christ. The language of Pope Martin
diverted attention only momentarily from this point. The
dispute became warm only when it was taken up on the
liturgical field.
During the later years of the fifth century, Peter the
Fuller, patriarch of Antioch, caused the creed of Nicaea-
Constantinople to be sung at mass.1 Peter was a Monophysite ;
his appointment was intended as a protest against the dogma
defined at Chalcedon. It was agreeable to the people of the
East ; and about the middle of the sixth century the symbol
of Nicaea was sung at mass throughout the Greek Church.
During this period the bishops of Spain were disputing with
the Arian Visigoths, and were endeavouring to maintain
among the Spanish people belief in the divinity of Christ.
They thought there was no better way to obtain this result
than to adopt the liturgical usage introduced by Peter the
Fuller.2 Thus the symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople, which in
the East was sung at mass, to protest against the doctrine of
Chalcedon, was in Spain sung to protest against the Arian
heresy. The Spaniards intended not only to defend their belief in
the divinity of the Son ; they wished also to prove it. They
thought that a decisive proof was furnished in the Augustinian
doctrine of the Filioque; and they were right. The Son
should be equal to the Father in order to be united to the
Father in effecting the procession of the Holy Ghost. The
council of Toledo (589), therefore, proclaimed the Filioque, and
in order to engrave this peremptory proof of the divinity of
Christ on the minds of the faithful, it decided to insert the
term Filioque in the symbol.8 The Spanish usage gradually
spread ; and in the eighth century the symbol of Nicaea with
the Filioque was sung at mass in a part of the Frankish Church.
1 Tillemont, Mdmoires pour servir d Vhistoire eccUsiastique, xvi. 376.
2 Mansi, ix. 978 ; Capit, i. ; Hefele, iii. 50.
3 Mansi, ix. 977 ; Hefele, iii. 49. The Filioque is to be found already in the
profession of faith of the council of Toledo (446), but it was probably inserted
there at a later date. See Hefele, ii. 307.

SPECULATIVE HERESIES 427
Thus, thanks to a vexatious concourse of circumstances,
the opposition, which for a long time existed between the
Western and the Eastern theology on the subject of the Holy
Ghost, ended by taking a conspicuous place in the liturgy,
that is to say, a place where the least clairvoyant eyes could
perceive it. A conflict was bound to arise sooner or later.
We have a vague knowledge that it broke out in the council
assembled by Pepin the Short at Gentilly to receive the
embassy of Constantine Copronymus (767).1 The envoys of
the emperor came to seek the support of the Frankish king
in the dispute concerning images. They also had the mission
to arrange certain political difficulties. But in the course of
their discussions they were occupied with the divergence of
opinion of the East and the West with respect to the Filioque ;
and the problem of the procession of the Holy Ghost, which
had no place on the programme of the Byzantine ambassadors,
was discussed. The chroniclers have unfortunately failed to
report any details of this incident. It is certain, however,
that the Occidentals remained even more than ever attached
to the term in dispute; for some years later (796) Paulinus
of Aquileia, in the council of Frioul, proclaimed the truth of
the Filioque and the legitimacy of its introduction into the
symbol.2 In the first years of the ninth century the dispute, which
had been temporarily extinguished, was rekindled. It occurred
in the following manner. At Jerusalem there was a com
munity of Frankish monks who, faithful to the custom of
their country, sang the symbol of Nicaea at mass, with the
addition of the Filioque. Being accused of heresy, and even
persecuted by the neighbouring Greeks, the Frankish monks
wrote to Pope Leo ni., assured him of their attachment to
the doctrine of the Fathers, and called his attention to the
Filioque. The Pope sent their letter to Charlemagne, who
charged Theodulph of Orleans to study the question, and
ordered the Frankish bishops to assemble in council at Aix-
la-Chapelle (809). Theodulph gathered from the works of
1 Hefele, iii. 432.
2 Mansi, xiii. 830 ; Hefele, iii. 718 ; see also the Carolingian Books, iii. 3.

428 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
the Fathers all the texts favourable to the Filioque, read the
compilation to the bishops assembled at Aix-la-Chapelle, and
the addition made to the symbol of Nicaea was confirmed by
the council.1 Sixty years later, the question of the Filioque was again
agitated under graver circumstances. This was in 867.
Photius had issued a violent indictment of the Latin Church,
in which the origin of the Holy Ghost had the most im
portant place. Photius reproached the Latins for holding
that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son as well as from
the Father. Moreover, he reproached them for having been
so impious as to insert the Filioque in the symbol. Pope
Nicholas I. at once informed Hincmar of Reims of the peril
which threatened the Church, and charged him to entrust to
learned men the refutation of the haughty Greek patriarch.
Hincmar communicated to his colleagues the Pope's letter.
Then from various quarters, writings to refute Photius were
published. Three of these apologetic treatises have come
down to us ; the authors were Ratramne, Ende of Paris, and
one of the bishops who took part in the council of Worms.2
Two centuries later, Michael Cerularius renewed the accusa
tions brought by Photius against the Latins, and he too
denounced the Filioque as blasphemy. St. Anselm took up
the defence of the Latin dogma, and by a series of meta
physical considerations proved that the third person of the
Trinity proceeded from the two others.3 This was in vain ;
the Greek Church remained separated from the Latin Church.
Later, at Lyons, then at Florence, repeated efforts were made
to bring them together, efforts in which the Filioque question
had the foremost place. These had only a passing success.4
The two branches, artificially united, separated once more,
and the Latin Church retained a monopoly of the Filioque.
Let us return to the council of Aix-la-Chapelle (809).
Charlemagne sent a deputation to convey to the Pope the
1 Lequien, i. 13-15 ; Hefele, iii. 750.
2 Hefele, iv. 362 ; Turmel, pp. 259, 368.
• Hefele, v. 254 ; Turmel, pp. 261, 370.
* Turmel, pp. 262, 374.

SPECULATIVE HERESIES 429
acts of this assembly.1 Naturally Rome had for some time
been won over to the doctrine of the Filioque. But the
question, as it was here presented, was not merely dogmatic.
The Frankish bishops, not content with believing that the
Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and from the Son,
sang the symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople at mass, and sang
it with the Filioque clause. Now, in spite of the admiration
bestowed on the liturgical institution of Peter the Fuller in
the West as well as in the East, Rome had not yet intro
duced the symbol into the mass, and therefore had never
been tempted to add to it the Filioque clause. Without
doubt this double innovation caused no difficulty to the envoys
of Charlemagne, but the Pope did not see the matter from
the same angle of vision. The singing of the symbol at mass
was looked on by him as an innovation in which Rome had
taken no part, and the Filioque as an alteration in a text
clothed with the authority of holy councils. Could the
Roman Church, without lowering itself, follow in the wake
of other Churches, and borrow their usages — a Church which
should give the tone to the whole Christian world ? Could
it, the guardian of canons and discipline, without being false
to its mission, modify a text of the council ? This was what
the Frankish delegates did not understand, but which the
Pope, regarding the matter from a loftier point of view, could
not fail tc perceive. A courteous discussion took place be-
ween Leo m. and the envoys of Charlemagne. The latter set
forth to the Pope the reasons which made it necessary to add
the Filioque to the symbol, and which rendered its suppression
impossible. It was wholly in vain ; the Pope refused to
agree to the innovation.
Two centuries passed before the pride of Rome yielded
to the imperial power. In 1014 the emperor of Germany,
Henry n., came to Rome. Observing that the Roman Church
did not sing the symbol at mass, he expressed his surprise to
the Pope. Pope Benedict vin. endeavoured to justify the
usage of his Church. The emperor would not listen ; and
1 Mansi, xiv. 18 ; Hefele, iv. 766 ; Liber Pontificalis, Vita Leonis III. ;
Lequien, i. 15.

430 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
intimated to the pontiff that he should conform to the universal
custom. Benedict vni. did so, and introduced the symbol into
the liturgy of the mass. And he did it in the form in which
it was everywhere sung, that is to say, with the addition of
the Filioque.1 Thus ended the petty conflict between Rome
and the Churches of the West, the subject of which had been
the problem as to the source of the Holy Ghost.
We now pass to the disputes of a purely dogmatic kind
which arose in the bosom of Western theology. They may
be reduced to five principal ones — certain skirmishes without
significance may be disregarded — which concerned Grace,
the Eucharist, the Trinity, Mariology, and the precise time of
the Beatific Vision.
The controversy concerning grace arose in the middle
of the ninth century, at the instigation of Gottschalk ; but
preparation had for a long time been made for it, through
differences of ideas, which it is indispensable to notice.
From the fifth century three doctrines contended in the
West as to the solution of the problem of salvation : the
absolute predestinarianism derived from St. Augustine, the
moderate predestinarianism of Rome, and the Semi-Pelagian
system. This last, advocated by the monks of Lerins, and
notably by Faustus, was made an article of faith in the
councils of Aries and of Lyons (about 475). Up to the end
of the fifth century it represented the official doctrine of the
Gallican episcopate. But at that time it encountered a for
midable opponent, Caesarius of Aries. Thoroughly attached
to the apostolic see, of which be was the vicar, Caesarius
laboured ardently to introduce the Roman faith into Gaul.
He therefore constituted himself the teacher of prevenient
grace, and collected in a book the texts of the Fathers which
supported it. This undertaking did not fail to provoke
certain protests. The bishops of the Burgundian countries
assembled at Valence, took up the defence of Faustus, and
1 Bernon, Libellus de quibusdam rebus ad missam spectantibus ; Migne, cxlii.
1060 ; Lequien, i. 28.

SPECULATIVE HERESIES 431
taught that faith precedes grace. But they had not taken
into account the energy of the bishop of Aries. Caesarius at
once appealed to the apostolic see, which sent him his in
structions. Then, armed with orders from Rome, he sum
moned the bishops of his province to Orange, and caused
them to condemn the doctrine dear to the Gallican bishops.1
The council of Orange dealt Semi-Pelagianism a mortal
blow. From 529 there remained only two solutions of the
problem of salvation : the doctrine of absolute predestination
as conceived by St. Augustine, and the moderate doctrine of
predestination held by Rome. These two doctrines did not
meet until the middle of the ninth century. At that time
the archbishop of Mayence, Raban Maur, learned that the
monk Gottschalk attributed to God the will to predestinate
certain men to hell. Gottschalk followed faithfully the teaching
of St. Augustine. Raban Maur took Gregory as his guide. It
was these two rival doctrines which now met for the first time.2
The encounter was by no means friendly. Uneasy at
the harm caused to souls by the disquieting preaching of
Gottschalk, Raban Maur summoned the importunate monk to
appear before the Council of Mayence (848), commanded
him in vain to retract, and then as a last resort sent him
to his colleague Hincmar, who at once called the council of
Kiersy. At Kiersy, Gottschalk was judged, scourged, and
condemned to prison (849). The affair seemed to be
ended. On the contrary, it then assumed unforeseen pro
portions. Gottschalk had partizans who disclosed themselves
and took up his defence. Ratramne, abbot of Corbie, Loup,
abbot of Ferrieres, Prudentius, bishop of Troyes, pleaded the
cause of Augustinianism. They proved that, far from willing
the salvation of all men, God predestinated some among
them to hell, and that Christ did not shed His blood for all
men. Hincmar took up the pen to refute this theory, which
seemed to him horrible. Others followed his example. But
one of his allies, John Scotus Erigena, employed language so
1 Tunnel, " La Controverse semi-pelagienne apres Saint Augustin," Revue
d'histoire et de UtUrature religieuses, ix. (1904), 497-518.
2 Turmel, " La controverse piedestinatienne au ixme siecle," loe. cit. x. 47-69.

432 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
strange — he denied eternal punishment, the fire of hell, etc. —
that he compromised the archbishop of Reims, and provoked
new adversaries, notably Remi, archbishop of Lyons. For a
time it might have been thought that the greater part of
the Church of France was attached to the doctrine of pre
destination ; for the councils of Paris (849), Sens (853),
Valence (855), Langres (859), arrayed themselves with
Prudentius against Hincmar. But their votes did not truly
represent the state of opinion. In reality, many of those
who had shown themselves favourable to Gottschalk held to
the universality of redemption, and Prudentius attained success
only by cunningly leaving in the background the theory of
limited redemption. A majority acquired in this way could
be reversed without much trouble. Hincmar reversed it.
In the national council of Tusey (860) he caused the
doctrine of universal redemption to be adopted by the
majority of the bishops. The war was ended, but decidedly
Augustinianism had lost the day.
The eucharistic controversy was provoked in the ninth
century through a book by Paschase Radbert ; two centuries
later it was reopened by Berenger. It went through two stages.
In its first phase it was only a pen polemic, and the
following are the chief incidents in it.1 Paschase Radbert, a
monk of Corbie, wrote for one of his disciples a book entitled
Be corpore et sanguine Bomini, designed to prove that the
eucharist contains the flesh of the Saviour, not flesh in
definitely, but his historic flesh, that is, " that which was
born of Mary, which suffered on the cross, and which rose
from the tomb." The thesis of Paschase Radbert gained
many supporters, but it also encountered opponents.
" Never," exclaimed Raban Maur, " have I heard such
language, never have I met with such ideas." 2 And the
learned theologian opposed to Radbert the following
1 J. Bach, DU Dogmengeschichte des Mittelalters, i. 176-203, Wien, 1873 ;
Turmel, Histoire de la thiologie positive, i. 306, 432 ; Schnitzer, Berenger von
Tours, p. 133, Miinchen, 1890.
2 lettre d Egil, Migne, cxii. 1513. See the letter to Heribald, M. G., Epist.,
v. 513, in which Raban alludes to the letter to Egil.

SPECULATIVE HERESIES 433
principles : Christ has three bodies, the first is born of the
Virgin Mary ; the second is formed of the eucharistic elements
upon which the blessing of the Holy Ghost has descended ;
the third is constituted by the Church. These three bodies
are three distinct substances. The body formed in Mary
(historic body) is by no means to be confused with the body
formed of the consecrated bread and wine (eucharistic body),
nor with the Church (mystical body). But the divinity of
the Word which dwells in all three serves as a common
bond, and gives them a certain unity. These three bodies
are bodies of the same Lamb. The unconsumable flesh (the
risen Christ) gives his consumable flesh (the eucharistic bread
and wine) to his corruptible flesh (the Church) in order to
render the latter incorruptible. Raban Maur was not alone
in refuting the eucharistic theory of the Be corpore et sanguine
Bomini. The monk Ratramne also opposed a refutation to it,
and endeavoured to demonstrate that the eucharist contains
the body and blood of Christ, " in mystery, not in verity " ;
that the bread and wine are " figuratively " the body and
blood of the Saviour.1 Another opponent was John Scotus
Erigena.2 About 845 the monastic world was excited by
the problem of the real presence of Christ. But the excite
ment did not pass beyond the limits of the monasteries.
The bishops — Raban Maur was at that time only a monk —
did not think it proper to intervene in the dispute. Each
one could then believe if he liked that the eucharist contains
the historic body of Christ, or that it possesses only the
divine Word. There was complete freedom, and use was
made of it. It is this which explains the fact that one
hundred and fifty years afterwards, about 1000, we see the
monk He"riger take up on his own account the formulas of
Raban. Nevertheless Paschase Radbert gained ground con
tinually. New recruits constantly joined him. About the
middle of the eleventh century his eucharistic system fixed
the law, and the opposite opinion began to fall into disrepute.
Berenger had experience of it.
1 De corpore et sanguine Domini, 5, 10, 21, etc., Migne, cxxi. 129, 181, 137.
2 Schnitzer, p. 180.
28

434 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Berenger 1 was a pupil of Ratramne — whom he confused
with John Scotus Erigena — and he regarded Ratramne as
the faithful interpreter of Scripture and the Fathers. On
the contrary, Paschase Radbert was in his eyes an innovator ;
he deplored the error of simple souls who, seduced by this
man, imagined that in the communion they received "a
fragment of the flesh " of Christ, and believed that the body
of the Saviour could be " broken with the hands, masticated
with the teeth." But he soon perceived that the theory of
Paschase had become profoundly rooted in the Christian
consciousness. From 1047 intimations came to him from
various directions that he should be guarded in his language,
rectify his ideas, and avoid the abyss of heresy. In 1050
the council of Rome,2 at the instance of Lanfranc, passed a
sentence of condemnation against him, which six months
later was confirmed by the council of Verceil. At the
council of Tours (1054) the legate Hildebrand treated him
with benevolence which, while tempered with diplomacy, was
nevertheless of great use to him, and permitted him to
extricate himself with advantage.3 But at the council of
Rome (1059), Pope Nicholas n., urged by Cardinal Humbert,
obliged him to avow that the eucharist contains the true
body of Christ, which " is touched materially by the hands
of the priest, broken and masticated by the teeth of the
faithful." 4
Perceiving that his life was in danger, he made all the
retractions required of him, then declared that retractions
obtained by force were null, and inveighed once more against
the " insanity " of the common belief. As might have been
foreseen, hostilities were revived. Berenger, on the point of
falling into the hands of opponents who were furious for his
destruction, was saved by Gregory vn., who took him under
his protection, made him come to Rome, and was satisfied
1 Bach, i. 370 ; Schnitzer, p. 297.
2 Mansi, xix. 744 ; Hefele, iv. 741 ; Schnitzer, p. 24.
3 Mansi, xix. 839 ; Hefele, iv. 777 ; Schnitzer, p. 52 ; H. Sudendorf,
Berengarius Turonensis, p. 130, Hamburg, 1850.
4 Mansi, xix. 841 ; Hefele, iv. 826 ; Schnitzer, p. 65.

SPECULATIVE HERESIES 435
with his equivocal profession of faith, which had satisfied him
twenty- four years previously (1054) at Tours1 (council of
Rome, November 1078). But powerful though he was,
Gregory could not altogether evade the requirements of this
ambient character. He was therefore obliged to make
Berenger appear before a fresh Roman council (March 1079).
This assembly assured the triumph of the common opinion
by making the definition that the bread and wine, by means
of consecration, "are changed substantially," and that the
body of Christ is present in the eucharist " according to its
veritable substance." Berenger submitted to the definition,
and returned to his country with a benevolent letter from
the Pope.2 He was conquered. With him succumbed the theology
of which he had constituted himself the belated defender.
Yet his defeat was not complete. From the end of the
eleventh century the triumphant disciples of Paschase
Radbert ceased to say that the eucharist body of Christ is
masticated by the teeth of the faithful. They subjected this
carnal body to the laws which govern spirits. These altera
tions were devised to do justice to the objections of their
adversaries. While powerless to put an end to the realistic
theology of the eucharist, Berenger at least succeeded in
purifying it.
In the early Middle Ages the dogma of the Trinity was
quietly accepted in the form which Augustine had given to
it.3 One lived on the thought of this doctor, or rather on
his formulas, which had been partially collected at the
opening of the sixth century in the so-called symbol of St.
Athanasius. As philosophical culture had long since dis
appeared, no attempt was made to investigate the problem
of the three divine persons. It was regarded as a mystery
1 Martene, Thesaurus novus anecdotum, iv. 103, Paris, 1717 ; Mansi, xx.
516 ; Hefele, v. 126 ; Schnitzer, p. 99.
2 Martene, iv. 103 ; Mansi, xx. 523 ; Hefele, v. 129.
8 J. Turmel, " The Dogma of the Trinity in St. Augustine," The New York
Review, ii. 86 (1906).

436 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
upon which the eye of the reason should not be fixed
Moreover, the Athanasian symbol had been composed in
precisely this state of mind. The antitheses of ideas were
there accumulated at will, as though the better to convince
the reason of its helplessness in the sphere of faith, and to
discourage in advance all attempt at speculation. Meta
physical study, which at the end of the eleventh century
made its appearance, and asserted itself in the discussion
about universals, was a formidable trial of the traditional
faith. Indeed, so soon as one dealt with the concepts of
essence, of nature, of the individual, one was in danger of
upsetting the arrangements so delicately fixed by St.
Augustine. But it was especially at this moment that the
Athanasian symbol made its beneficent influence felt.
Thanks to it, the explanation of the Trinity had been so
completely given up, that it was placed beyond the circum
ference of philosophical discussion. The divine persons being
in a sphere superior to human concepts, it was thought
possible to study the latter without touching the former.
This respectful attitude attenuated the crisis with which
dogma was threatened. It might even have conjured it,
if the scruples against introducing metaphysics into the
realm of dogma had been universal. But there were some
exceptions. The first was the Breton Roscelin. Roscelin was a
nominalist. According to him, the universals have no reality,
and are merely products of the human mind. He extended
his philosophical theory to the Trinity, and arrived at the
following conclusions : " The essence common to the three
divine persons is a pure abstraction ; consequently these three
persons are three beings as separate as three angels or three
souls ; if it be insisted that the same essence should be
attributed to these persons, it should be admitted that the
Father and the Holy Ghost became incarnate with the Son."
Roscelin was condemned by the council of Soissons (1092),
but this did not prevent him from continuing to spread abroad
his doctrine.1 Then Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury,
1 Mansi, xx. 742 ; Hefele, v. 202.

SPECULATIVE HERESIES 437
undertook to refute him in a book wherein he declared the
unity of the substance of the divine persons (1094).1 A
quarter of a century later, Roscelin saw a fresh adversary
arise, who was none other than Abelard. He replied to him
in a violent and vulgar letter.2 Subsequently he disappeared
from view ; the Trinitarian controversy was extinct.
It was not long before it was rekindled. It was in fact
perceived that the unity of the substance of the divine persons
had as its adversary him who had set himself up as its defender.
Yes, it was said, Abelard had fallen into the error with which
he had reproached Roscelin. Called to appear before the council
of Soissons (1121), he endeavoured to justify himself. His
mouth was closed, and he was asked to cast his book forth
with into the flames. He obeyed. He was commanded to
recite the Athanasian symbol, and he recited it, weeping.
He was subsequently imprisoned in the monastery of St.
MeMard at Soissons.3 He was considered a heretic, and was
treated as one ; but he judged himself differently. Sincerely
attached to the substantial unity of the divine persons, he
repudiated the error of which he was accused. Therefore,
having been set free — his captivity was not prolonged —
he wrote two theological syntheses in which reappeared the
ideas contained in the book which he had burned at Soissons,
developed, and explained, with a recital of his motives.
New trials awaited him. These writings were minutely
examined by the monk William, who discovered several
heresies in them, and denounced them to St. Bernard. As
to the Trinity, William accused Abelard of teaching that the
Father alone is omnipotent, and that the Holy Ghost does
not issue from the substance of the Father and of the Son.
Bernard endeavoured to avert the conflict. He visited
Abelard and urged him to correct his writings. Abelard re
turned an energetic refusal, and demanded a council. His
demand was complied with. The council which he asked
1 Liber de fide Trinitatis et de Incarnations VerVl, Migne, clviii. 262.
3 Migne, clxxviii. 357 (among the letters of Abelard, Ep. xv.).
3 Autobiography of Abelard, entitled Hisloria calami/alum (Ep., i. 9 ;
Migne, clxxviii. 146) ; Mansi, xxi. 265 ; Hefele, v. 358.

438 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
met at Sens in the presence of the king, and of almost all
the bishops of the province. A memorable duel between
Abelard and Bernard was expected. Hence the pupils of
the illustrious victim, sure in advance of their master's suc
cess, assembled in crowds to be present at the spectacle.
There was universal disappointment. Abelard doubtless
despaired of enlightening judges who were prejudiced against
him, and he did not deign to begin a useless pleading. He
simply declared to the bishops that he made his appeal to
the Pope. Then he went out brusquely, leaving the assembly
stupefied (1141).1
These were clever tactics. In reality, whoever had
recourse to Rome was sure to find support and protection.
St. Augustine in the affair of Apiarius, Hincmar in his
disputes with Rothad, and with his nephew, and others
besides, learned to their cost with what partiality the
apostolic see decided cases which were submitted to it.
The accused, even though he were a miscreant, became a
sacred being so soon as he appealed to Rome. The Pope,
careful to reward the homage rendered to his supremacy,
regularly annulled the sentence of the bishop, and proclaimed
the innocence of the accused. The appeal to Rome, there
fore, seemed to afford a plank of safety to Abelard. His
judges well understood this. They believed that their
victim was about to escape them, and so their uneasiness
was great. What increased it the more was that the ideas
of the innovator had partizans, it was said, even at the
Roman court, and in the College of Cardinals.2 At this
difficult juncture Bernard displayed great activity. He sent
the Pope a list of Abelard's errors, accompanied by a long
refutation filled with sarcasms and insults directed at his
adversary. Would he have succeeded by this literary pro
cedure in moving the Pope and his council ? No one knows ;
but in his portfolio there was a more overwhelming document.
1 Mansi, xxi. 559; Hefele, v. 457; St. Bernard, Ep., 189, 326, 330, 337;
Tractatus, xi. ; E. Vacandard, Vie de Saint Bernard, i. 118, Paris, 1895.
2 St. Bernard, Ep. , 191 ; Ep. , 193 : " Cardinales et clericos curire so discipulos
habuisse gloriatur."

SPECULATIVE HERESIES 439
For some years Italy had been greatly disturbed by the
preaching of a revolutionary monk. Arnold of Brescia
— that was the agitator's name — had caused an uprising of
the people against the clergy. He subsequently retired to
escape reprisals from the hierarchy. Now Arnold was a
friend of Abelard, and being driven from his country he
went to the illustrious master. Bernard cleverly exploited
this circumstance. " Abelard," said he, " advances like a new
Goliath, preceded by his squire Arnold of Brescia. No union
more intimate than that of those two men can be imagined.
They might be called the two shells of an oyster which
permit no air to enter in to separate them."1 The man
whose name could be coupled with that of Arnold, the knight
to whom the revolutionary Italian served as squire, was
unavoidably lost. Upon the requisition of Bernard, without
awaiting the arrival of the accused, who had appealed to the
apostolic Pope, Innocent n. condemned the "perverse
dogmas" of Abelard, ordered his books to be burned, and
decided that he and Arnold his accomplice should be separ
ately imprisoned in a monastery.2 Abelard was proceeding
towards Rome, and had arrived at Lyons when he learned the
news. Stunned and overcome, he asked advice of Peter, the
venerable abbot of Cluny. Peter retained him near him, con
soled him, and to his wounds applied the balm of benevolence
and goodness. But this profound shock coming suddenly after
so many others, ruined the health of the great combatant.
Abelard died shortly afterwards (21st April 1142), He
died after having protested that he was orthodox, and after
having declared that he was innocent of the heresies with
which his enemies had charged him.3
Innocent he was, but only partially so. No doubt he
believed firmly in the substantial unity of the divine persons,
and his adversaries could not impute to him the heresy
contrary to this belief, except in subjecting his writings to
1 Ep., 189, 3.
2 Jaffe, 8148, 8149 ; Hefele, v. 483.
"See his apology (Fidei Confessio), Migne, clxxviii. 105, and his letter to
Heloise, ib. 375.

440 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
malicious mutilation which distorted their meaning. But he
believed the human reason capable of reconciling the unity of
the divine essence with the trinity of persons, and he en
deavoured to effect this reconciliation. This chimerical
undertaking led him, without his being aware of it, to obscure
the two terms that he intended to unite. Thus he erred,
but he erred unconsciously, through excess of faith.
Another victim of the reconciliation was Gilbert de la
Porre'e, bishop of Poitiers.1 In philosophy Gilbert was at
the antipodes of Roscelin, the nominalist ; he believed in the
objective reality of the universals. Nevertheless he reached
almost the same result as Roscelin did — so true is it that the
danger of heresy lay not in such or such a solution of the
problem of universals, but in the application of metaphysics
to dogma. He separated the divine persons, and thus
obtained three or even four gods. Denounced by his arch
deacons to Pope Eugenius m., he was commanded to appear
before the council of Reims (1148). There he had to account
for his doctrine to the great champion of orthodoxy, St.
Bernard. For a moment he sought to hold his own against
this formidable adversary, but was soon forced to give up
the fight and to acknowledge that he was vanquished.
The Pope was present at the debates, and he forthwith
condemned the doctrine of Gilbert, who signed everything
that was required of him. Some time afterwards Bernard,
encountering the theory of the bishop of Poitiers, refuted it
anew; but he rendered homage to the humble submission
of its author.
After the condemnation of Gilbert de la Porre'e, the
dogma of the Trinity went on its way without hindrance, and
encountered no other enemies than the enemies of the Christian
faith.2 It was understood that between the two concepts —
substantial unity and plurality of persons — there was an ir-
1 Mansi, xxi. 724 ; Hefele, v. 520.
2 Notice, however, the condemnation of Joachim of Flase by the Lateran
council (1215), cap. ii. ; Hefele, v. 881 : The affair in litigation was,
moreover, a pure subtlety, and the council was especially preoccupied with
proclaiming the orthodoxy of Peter Lombard against the attacks of Joachim.

SPECULATIVE HERESIES 441
reconcilable antinomy for the human mind, and that to
wish to unite both in the categories of the reason was to
sacrifice one to the other, or to reform both at once. There
fore in principle it was assumed that the dogma of the Trinity
was above the reason, that it was an object of belief, and
not of philosophical speculation. In truth, this assumption
was not new. It had been proclaimed by St. Anselm ; before
St. Anslem, it inspired the Athanasian symbol, and already
St. Augustine had taken it as his guide in researches con
cerning the relations of the three divine persons. But until
about the middle of the twelfth century it had been several
times eclipsed. After Gilbert de la Porr^e, it was like a
beacon towards which the theologians turned, the beneficent
light of which enabled them to avoid the rocks.
During the early Middle Ages the doctors attached to
the doctrine of the absolute virginity of Mary did not regard
her impeccability as beginning until the day when the mystery
of the Incarnation was accomplished in her womb.1 Accord
ing to them, the Holy Virgin, when once she became Mother
of God, ceased to commit the lightest fault ; but up to that
time she had fallen into actual sin ; she had remained under
the dominion of original sin. So thought Bede, Paschase
Radbert, Fulbert of Chartres, St. Anselm, Peter Lombard,
Hugh of St. Victor. In short, up to the middle of the twelfth
century Mariology did not advance beyond the point where
St. Augustine left it. In order to reach its definitive form,
it had to remove from Mary all actual sin, and relieve her
from the law of original sin. There were thus two stages.
The first was passed over without difficulty with the aid of
the liturgy, which since the ninth century had celebrated the
nativity of Mary. Setting out from the principle that the
Chureh cannot honour any one who is not a saint, Bernard
concluded that Mary was holy from the time of her birth,
since this birth was the occasion of a festival. " Her nativity
would not have been honoured," said he, " had she not been
born holy." The deduction of Bernard was universally
1 G. Herzog, La Sainte Vierge dans Vhistoire, p. 68, Paris, 1908.

442 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
accepted, and the absolute holiness of the Mother of the
Saviour, since her nativity entered into Christian dogmatics.1
It was also with the aid of the liturgy that the second
stage was traversed, which had as its climax the Immaculate
Conception.2 Another festival was introduced, that of the
Conception of Mary, which about the tenth century came
into England from the East, and thence, in the twelfth
century, entered France. The theological principle was
recalled, according to which the Church honours only holy
things, and from the festival of the Conception it was
deduced that Mary had escaped the law of original sin. But
difficulties quickly arose. The festival of the Conception, far
from having the prestige which earlier times had given it,
was in the twelfth century a novelty to the doctors in the
Churches of France, Germany, and Italy. Moreover, it had
against it the law of original sin, from which even Christ
could not have escaped except by being born through the
operation of the Holy Ghost. It was therefore vigorously
opposed by St. Bernard, who treated it as a " superstition,"
and endeavoured to suppress it (Letter to the Canons of
Lyons, Ep. clxxiv.). Bernard failed : his vehement protest
could not stop the festival, which gradually gained ground.
Then a curious phenomenon took place. Alexander of
Hales, Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventura,
in a word, all the doctors of the thirteenth century, like
Bernard, arrayed themselves against the new belief, and
demonstrated that Mary could not have escaped the taint
of original sin. But in their time the festival of the
Conception had assumed such proportions that they gave up
trying to suppress it. They laboured only to neutralize it,
to take from it its dogmatic meaning. Consequently they
no longer said with Bernard that the festival of the Conception
was a superstition ; they said as follows : " The festival of the
Conception does not prove that Mary was not subject to the
law of original sin, but only that she was purified from
the original stain during her intra-uterine life."
But this second dike had the same fate as that which
1 G. Herzog, p. 84. 2 Id., p. 98.

SPECULATIVE HERESIES 443
St. Bernard had constructed. It was carried away by the
torrent of popular piety. The belief in the Immaculate
Conception succeeded the festival of the Conception as a
daughter succeeds her mother, and the subtilties imagined to
separate mother and daughter were unsuccessful. Further
more, in the fourteenth century a doctor, the English
Franciscan, Duns Scotus, went over to the enemy and ranged
himself on the side of popular piety. He drew in his train
the whole Franciscan order, which thus became the bulwark
of the new belief. Thereafter the ancient doctrine was an
object of suspicion to the ecclesiastical authority. It would
even have been condemned if it had not been able to claim
the patronage of St. Thomas. Protected by this doctor, its
agony was prolonged throughout the Middle Ages. It was
only in the middle of the nineteenth century (1854) that it
received its death-blow.
In 1331, on All Saints' Day, Pope John xxn. preached a
sermon at Avignon, in which he taught that the saints in
heaven now have imperfect happiness, and that until after
the resurrection they will not have the plenitude of the
beatific vision. This opinion, formerly supported by the
greatest doctors, had long since been abandoned. The
pontifical sermon on All Saints' Day — which was, however,
twice re-edited at intervals of some weeks — created some
excitement. The incident seemed to have been forgotten,
however, when two years later the Dominican Thomas
Waldeis, of English origin, dared to preach even at Avignon,
in conformity to the scholastic opinion. John xxn. had
this audacious preacher cast into prison, and then sent two
monks to Paris to preach the postponement of the beatific
vision. His orders were executed, but the scandal was such
that he was forced to beat a retreat. This he did in a letter to
the king of France, in which, after having justified his attitude
by the authority of the Fathers — this plea was necessary
to mask his defeat — he demanded that the doctors of Paris
should be called upon to give their opinion as to the problem
of the beatific vision. The king complied with the demand.

444 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
By his orders the Parisian doctors met in solemn assembly
at Vincennes (December 1333), with a mission to fix the
time of the beatific vision. All pronounced in favour of the
scholastic doctrine. Nevertheless, out of gratitude to the
Pope, who on every occasion had defended the interests of
France against Germany, they declared that John xxn. had
never taken into account the contrary opinion, but that he
had acted only as a reporter. This fiction spared the
pontifical self-respect, and permitted the Pope to submit
without too great humiliation. John xxii. submitted. On
1st January 1334, he drew up a slightly embarrassed pro
fession of faith against the postponement of the beatific
vision, which he renewed on his deathbed (December 1334),
giving it a more exact form.1
1 The official documents in this affair are collected in Denifle, Chartularium
unirersitatis parisiensis, ii. 414-440, Paris, 1891, where it is reported that John
xxn., in answer to objections made to him by the King of France against the
incarceration of Thomas Waldeis (or Thomas the Englishman), replied : (a) This
monk was arrested by the inquisitors ; as for me, I had nothing to do with this
incarceration (p. 417) ; (b) Thomas was arrested, not on account of what he said
as to the precise time of the beatific vision, but for divers heresies (p. 415).
See also Baluze, Vitcs paparum avenion., i. 182, 787 (notes of Baluze), Paris,
1693. Continuation of the Chronique de Guillaume de Nangis, edit. Geraud,
ii. 127, 135 (or in the Spicilegium Dacherianum, xi. 753, 758).

CHAPTER XIII
Antisaceedotal Heresies
Dbllinger, Beitrdge zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters, 2 Bande, Munchen,
1890. H. Lea, A History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages,
3 vols., New York, 1888. A. Hauck, Dogmengeschichte Deutschlands,
4 Bande.
Dueing the Middle Ages the corruption of the clergy and
the abuses of administration caused distress, which often
amounted to indignation, in righteous souls. Numerous
voices were raised to denounce the evil from which the
hierarchy was suffering, to propose remedies, to demand
reforms. Those who uttered the cry of alarm were, it need
not be said, execrated by the clergy ; yet several, supported
by popular favour, succeeded in remaining in the Church.
Others, on the contrary, more violent or less aided by circum
stances, were excommunicated with much noise, and organized
religious societies outside of the official Church. Thus arose
the antisacerdotal heresies of the Cathares, of the agitators of
the twelfth century, of the Albigenses, of Wycliffe, of John
Huss, of Luther, and of his disciples.
The Cathares (pure) 1 appeared in the early years of the
eleventh century. They are to be met with at Orleans in
the year 1022. About the same time their presence was
remarked in Champagne, northern France, Saxony, and the
1 Dbllinger, i. 34-51 ; Lea, i. 89-128 ; Ch. Schmidt, Histoire et doctrine de
la sects des Cathares, 2 vols., especially ii. 252-270, Paris, 1849 ; C. Pifister,
Etudes sur le rigime de Bobert le Pieux, pp. 325-331, Paris, 1885 ; J. Guirand,
"Le consolamentum Cathare," in Bev. des questions historiques, lxxxv. 74-112
(1904) ; A. Molinier, "L'Eglise et la societe Cathares," Rev. historique, xoiv.
225-248, and xcv. 1-22, 263-291.
Ui

446 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
province of Milan. They also invaded Languedoc, where they
were soon named Albigenses. According to a rather pre
valent opinion, the Cathares of France came from Italy ; those
of Italy derived their origin from a Bulgarian pope of the
ninth century named Bogomile, who was himself connected
through one or more intermediaries with the Manichaeans of
the third century. Thus, in order to have the lineage of this
sect, one must pass from Bulgaria and go back to Manichaeism.
Catharism professed dualism, it posited as the origin of things
two principles, one good, the other bad : it is this — besides
several doubtful testimonies — which connects them with the
Manichaeans. Nevertheless it is important not to forget that
dualistic metaphysics were only an accessory element of
Catharism. In fact the Cathares placed metaphysics in the
background, as they were usually ignorant of them, and con
fined themselves to preaching morality, a morality of renuncia
tion, of conflict with sensuality. They forbade the use of
meat, were severe in their sexual relations, and recommended
celibacy to such a degree as to condemn marriage. It was a
purely theoretical condemnation, for in reality most of them
married. Celibacy was required only of the " perfect," those
who had received the rite of consolamentum (imposition of
hands for imparting the spirit of consolation); the simple
" believers " were not required to submit to this. For to be
saved, it was sufficient to receive the consolamentum at the
moment of death, and this was the practice of most believers.
Those who submitted to this rite before the near approach
of death formed an inconsiderable exception. Certain
enthusiasts allowed themselves to die of hunger in order to
shorten their life — a practice which was called the endura.
But the endura was so rare that it does not appear in the
list of crimes imputed to the Cathares by the Catholic con-
troversalists of the period. If the endura, which was a pro
duct of some diseased brains, be excepted, the morality of the
Cathares appears to have been ascetic, a morality of monks.
The abominations of which they were subsequently accused,
are ill-attested and should be regarded as legendary. As the
Catharic movement was really only a moral life, its origin

ANTISACERDOTAL HERESIES 447
should be sought, not in Bulgaria, but in the monasteries.
The Cathares — the leaders — were monks who went through
the world, missionary monks who made proselytes.
They were also anticlerical monks. They detested the
clergy, whose worldly life was so far removed from the
ascetic ideal. They denounced their vices, they accused
them of having failed in their mission, they ridiculed them to
the people. This hostility, which was a consequence of their
rude asceticism, carried with it certain effects. The Cathares,
adversaries of the corrupt clergy, were also adversaries of the
rites which the clergy performed, of the sacraments which
they administered, of the temples where they assembled, and
especially of some of the dogmas which they taught.
Nevertheless, they did not know how far these negations
would lead. In those passionate minds everything was
obscure, excepting two principles: (1) the true disciple of
Christ is he whose life" is poor, pure, and detached ; (2) the
clergy being corrupt, are not the representatives of God, and
the rites which they perform have no value.
Being attacked, the clergy defended themselves. To the
revolutionary preachers they opposed respectful preachers
of the hierarchy. Of such was Bernard, the abbot of Cluny,
who, at the request of Alberic the pontifical legate, preached
the gospel in Languedoc (a.d. 1145). While the preachers
did their task, the councils did theirs, which consisted in
condemning. At Orleans (1022), Reims (1049), Toulouse
(1119), the Lateran (1139), Reims (1148), Tours (1163),
Verona (1184), and elsewhere, councils condemned the
Cathares and banished them from Christian society. Finally,
to these two means of defence the clergy added a third :
they cast discredit on these their enemies. They represented
them to the people as hypocrites, who under the cloak of
virtue concealed infamous morals. They employed against
them the arms which the pagans had formerly used to destroy
the public reputation of the Christians. These clever tactics
did not fail to be effective. Rendered furious by the stories
told to them concerning the Cathares, the multitude attacked
them and executed summary justice. The civil authority,

,448 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
careful to please the multitude, approved this jurisprudence,
and in its turn applied it when occasion demanded it. At
Orleans (1022), thirteen Cathares were burned by the people
in the sight of king Robert. Others were hanged at Goslar
in Saxony (1051). Often fire took the place of hanging.
Fire was in fashion, and resort was had to it. Cathares were
burned at Monteforte, near Asti (about 1034), at Milan
(same period), at Cambrai (1076), at Ravenna (same date),
at Soissons (1114), at Cologne (1145 and 1163), at Reims
(1148 and 1170), and elsewhere. Usually these unfortunates
went to their punishment with courage, and even with en
thusiasm ; and the people, disconcerted at this spectacle, were
disposed to attribute it to divine intervention. But Bernard
reassured their troubled consciences. " It is the devil," he
said, " which has inspired these people with firmness, even as
he inspired Judas with the force to hang himself." l Never
theless the stake had the better of Catharism, and stopped
its development. Yet in Italy, and especially in southern
France, the heresy continued its invasion. In order to
conquer it, extensive measures had to be employed. Rome
did not fail in this ; but this brings us to the heresy of the
Albigenses. Before touching upon it, let us consider some
agitators of the twelfth century.
Account may be taken of five principal agitators : Pierre
de Bruys, Henry of Lausanne, Tanchelm, Arnold of Brescia,
Eon de l'Etoile. We have no information concerning them
save that which comes from Catholic controversialists, who
have blackened their characters and have probably distorted
their doctrines. It has been often asked whether these revolu
tionaries adhered to Catharism, and this question has been
variously answered. They were not Cathares, at least nothing
proves that they were, if by Catharism is especially meant
dualistic metaphysics. But if the heresy of the Cathares be
conceived of as an effort towards the evangelical ideal, accom
panied by a revolt against the Catholic clergy, then these
strolling preachers were representatives of the Catharism of
'¦ Bossuet, Histoire des variations, xi. 147.

ANTISACERDOTAL HERESIES 449
the twelfth century. This having been said, attention may
now be given to them.
Pierre de Bruys,1 of unknown origin, preached the gospel
for twenty years in Aquitania and Provence. According to
Peter the Venerable, who is our only source of information,
Pierre de Bruys taught : (1) that the baptism of infants is
useless ; (2) that churches should not be built, inasmuch as
prayer at an inn is as good as it is before an altar ; (3) that
the cross, an inanimate object, which moreover was the instru
ment of the sufferings of Christ, is not deserving of worship ;
(4) that the sacrifice of the mass does not contain the body
and blood of the Lord ; (5) that prayers for the dead are
useless. One day Pierre burned on the public place at
St. Gilles certain crosses which he had collected. By this
act he enraged the people and he was burned (1125).
Henry of Lausanne 2 was a monk who preached penitence
with captivating eloquence. We learn of him for the first
time at Le Mans, where he preached during Lent in 1101.
He chastized the vices of the clergy with so much vigour
that the priests became objects of contempt and execration
to the people. From Le Mans, Henry went for a time to
Poitiers and Bordeaux : he subsequently settled in Languedoc.
In 1135 he was arrested by the archbishop of Aries and
appeared before the council of Pisa, which imprisoned and
then released him. Having regained his liberty, he resumed
his anti-clerical preaching, and had immense success. At the
request of the pontifical legate, St. Bernard made a tour in
southern France to endeavour to win back to the Roman
Church the population, which seceded in a body (1145). He
preached a great deal, and achieved results which, if we are
to believe his biographers, were marvellous, but which he
thought himself were insufficient; for he made an appeal
to the secular arm. Henry died in prison.
Tanchelm3 began his apostolic career later than Henry
1 Pierre le venerable, Epistola sive tractatus adversus petrobrusianas hcereticos,
Migne, clxxxix. 719 ; Dbllinger, i. 75 ; Lea, i. 68.
2 Dbllinger, i. 75 ; Vacandard, Vie de Saint Bernard, ii. 218-233, Paris, 1895.
3 Dbllinger, i. 104 ; Hauck, iv. 88 ; Lea, i. 64.
29

450 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
of Lausanne, and finished it far sooner. The scene of his
preaching was Flanders. In 1112 he was at Utrecht ; three
years later we find him at Antwerp, then at Bruges. He
denounced the vices of the clergy, and declared to the people
that sacraments administered by the corrupt priests of the
Catholic Church were valueless. The people had a respect
and veneration for him which bordered on idolatry. The
clergy were relieved by the assassination of this formidable
adversary. At a date not precisely known (between 1115
and 1124), Tanchelm was killed by a priest.
Arnold1 was born at Brescia about the year 1100,
entered the order of regular canons, and became prior of his
convent. Like Henry of Lausanne, and like Tanchelm, he
rebelled against the corruption of the clergy. He did not
stop there. Convinced that the source of the evil was in
wealth, he believed that the only means of infusing an evan
gelical spirit into the clerical world was to bring the latter
back to the primitive poverty. Endowed with great eloquence,
which the austerity of his life enhanced, he won the people
to his ideas, but drew upon himself the hatred of the clergy.
Denounced by the bishop of Brescia, he appeared before the
Lateran council (1139), which condemned him to leave Italy,
and forbade him to return without the previous consent of
the Pope. Arnold then went to France and joined Abelard,
but for this reason was pointed out by St. Bernard to Pope
Innocent il, who sought to imprison him in a monastery
(1141). Arnold was not imprisoned, but he was expelled
from France by a royal decree issued against him, at the
instigation of Bernard. He then went to Zurich ; but
pursued by Bernard's hatred he was forced once more into
exile. Received by Cardinal Gui, he remained with this
benefactor until the day when the death of Innocent n.
permitted him to return to Italy (1145). Eugenius m.
obtained from him a promise of obedience, and reconciled
him to the Church. The reconciliation was ephemeral.
One or two years later, Arnold gave a political orientation
to his activity, and endeavoured to found the Roman
1 Lea, i. 72 ; Vacandard, ii. 235-258.

ANTISACERDOTAL HERESIES 451
republic. He paid for his audacious undertaking with his
life (1155).
Eon de l'Etoile1 was a Breton gentleman who thought
he was designated by the liturgical words : " Per eum (Eon)
qui venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos," and from this
concluded that God had chosen him to judge the quick and
the dead. It was an idea which, to-day, could germinate
only in an insane mind, but which at that time, when life
was lived in the miraculous, could be adopted without ex
travagance. He recruited numerous partizans, with whose
assistance he pillaged churches and monasteries ; for his
programme consisted in robbing the clergy of their property.
Arrested with some of his disciples, he appeared before the
council of Reims (1148). His strange answers — perhaps
deliberately strange — caused the belief that he was a madman.
He was treated as such, and put into prison, where he died.
Several of his partizans, notably at Alet of Armorica, remained
obstinately attached to him. They perished at the stake.
The clergy, which did not enjoy prestige in any quarter,
were particularly despised and detested by the people in
southern France. Profiting by the discredit which had fallen
upon the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the heresy of the Cathares
prospered in Gascony, Languedoc, and Provence more than it
did elsewhere. Toulouse was its stronghold, its fortress ; but
later it was thought that this honour, or dishonour, belonged
to Albi. Hence the heresy of the Albigenses. This inexact
expression indicates the view taken of Catharism in southern
France. We have noticed the doctrines of the sect : we have now
to speak of its history.2 It embraces two phases, one anterior
to Innocent in., the other inaugurated by that Pope.
Before Innocent in., the papacy elaborated legislation to
exterminate — or, as it may be said, which exterminated
1 Dbllinger, i. 102 ; Lea, i. 66 ; A. de la Borderie, Histoire de Bretagne,
iii. 210-214, Rennes, 1905.
2 Lea i. 117-208; Luchaire, Innocent III., La Croisade des Albigeois,
Paris, 1905.

452 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
theoretically — the heresy of the Albigenses. It was the council
of Toulouse (1119), at which Pope Calixtus n. presided,
which opened the way. Up to that time ecclesiastical legis
lation was enforced only by means of excommunication, the
rest was the work of the people, or of the civil power desirous
of satisfying the popular instinct. At Toulouse, Calixtus n.,
not content with excommunicating the Cathares, took a bold
initiative and ordered " the secular power to suppress them."
This order was repeated by the Lateran council (1139), at
which Innocent n. presided. Nine years later, Eugenius III.,
in the council of Rome, forbade any one to protect the
heretics of Gascony, Provence, or elsewhere, or " to receive
them upon their lands." Alexander in., at the council of
Tours (1163), denounced in vehement terms "the detestable
heresy of the region of Toulouse," declared that the partizans
of this sect should be deprived of protection, and published
this decision : " Those who may be taken, will be imprisoned
by the Catholic princes, and their property will be confiscated."
The same Pope, in the Lateran council (1179), formulated
the following propositions : (1) The Church does not inflict
bloody executions ; nevertheless it calls to its aid — as St. Leo
enjoined — the laws of Christian princes, because the fear of
corporal punishment often leads men to resort to a spiritual
remedy. (2) Consequently, we pronounce an anathema upon
the heretics scattered in Gascony, the region of Albi, the
region of Toulouse, and elsewhere ; and under pain of
anathema we forbid any one to protect them, to hide them,
to have any relations with them whatever. (3) As to the
Braban, and other brigands who sow desolation around
them, we desire that war should be made upon them, that
they should be imprisoned, and that their property should
be confiscated. To those who fight them, indulgences are
granted proportionate to the duration of service. Those who
die on the expedition will go directly to heaven. Finally,
in the council of Verona (1184), Pope Lucius in. promul
gated a series of decrees of which the following is the sub
stance : (1) Heretics recognized as such shall, subsequently to
the canonical penalties declared against them, be committed

ANTISACERDOTAL HERESIES 453
to the secular power, which will inflict upon them the punish
ment due to their crime (animadversions debita). (2) They
are to be denounced by the faithful ; and the bishops twice
a year are to go in person, or by their delegates through the
dioceses, to receive denunciations. (3) The depositaries of the
secular power (counts, barons, magistrates, etc.) should lend
forcible aid to the bishops, and execute the orders proceeding
from the Church, relating to heretics. Those who are re
fractory will be deprived of office, excommunicated, and an
interdict will fall upon the places under their jurisdiction.
Pursuit of heresy, punishment of heretics, responsible
executors, — everything is provided by the legislation of
Lucius ni., which was only the crowning of the repressive
measures established by the papacy after 1119. From 1184
the machine to crush error was ready to be used. The only
thing remaining was to make it work. But it remained
motionless; it did not work. The depositaries of the secular
power did not accept the role that had been assigned to
them. They did nothing to suppress heresy : they left it in
peace. There were some exceptions. The emperor Frederick
Barbarossa put heretics under the ban of the empire.
Peter n. of Aragon threatened to burn those who, within a
given time, had not left his states. But these two edicts
were almost the only ones which the ordinance of Verona
provoked. And were they seriously executed ? At any rate,
heresy remained triumphant in its most important lair, where
above all there was a desire to attack it, in the country of
Toulouse, in the region which to-day bears the name of
Languedoc. But an energetic Pope arose who was to set in
motion the cruel legislation elaborated by his predecessors.
Innocent in. did not forge new weapons against the
heretics, he did not lengthen the list of penalties enacted
against them. He left as he found it, the penal code of
orthodoxy. But he supervised the application of it. He
made a practical, out of the theoretical condemnation of
heresy. For the regime of complaints he substituted the
regime of realization. It was this which gave peculiar
importance to his pontificate.

454 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Let us observe that he waited a long time for results ;
yet he set to work without delay.1 Scarcely had he ascended
the pontifical throne when, through the medium of the arch
bishop of Auch, he adjured the bishops of southern France to
act vigorously against the enemies of the Church, to expel
them from the country after having previously confiscated
their goods, and, if needful, to resort to the secular arm.2
Then he sent legates charged with stimulating the zeal of the
counts, barons, and city magistrates, invested with full powers
to take all useful measures in the interests of the Church.
The bishops did not move. Some even showed ill-will. The
legates — at first there were two, later three, who were
seconded by preachers — were much disturbed. By means of
entreaties and threats they extorted from certain counts and
magistrates an oath that they would treat heresy with
severity. But the oaths were not observed. Years passed, and
there was no change in the situation. Decidedly the counts
and nobles in the south of France were no better than their
peoples : they therefore deserved a like punishment. But
where could a judge be found strong enough to punish all
these culprits ? There was but one : the king of France.
Innocent in. appealed to him.3 " The time has come," said
he, " when the spiritual and the temporal power should
combine for the defence of the Church, to lend aid to each
other. The secular arm should repress those who are un
willing to obey ecclesiastical discipline. . . . Your duty
commands you to arise, to employ a power which heaven has
confided to you, and if it is impossible for you to march in
person against the evil-doers, to charge your son or some other
powerful personage with this undertaking. You should also
oblige the nobles to confiscate the goods of the heretics, and
if they refuse to do so, you should take possession of their
property for the advantage of your treasury."
1 Ep. , i. 81, 94 ; Potthast, pp. 59, 95 ; Lea, i. 136 ; Luchaire, p. 69 ; Hurter,
Geschichte des Papstes Innocent III., und seiner Zeitgenossen, ii. 276, Hamburg,
1841. 2 Ep., i. 81; Potthast, p. 69: "Etiam si necesse fuerit per principem et
populum eosdem faciat virtute materialis gladii exerceri."
3 Ep., vii. 76, 77, 99 ; Potthast, 2225, 2373, 2404 ; Hurter, ii. 277.

ANTISACERDOTAL HERESIES 455
Philip Augustus was deaf to the voice of the pontiff. In
the course of the year 1205 a second letter was dispatched
to him, and a third: it was in vain. Without being dis
couraged, Innocent III. excommunicated Raymond vi., count
of Toulouse, who covertly protected the heretics : then he
urged the king of France to send an army against the South
(November 1 2 0 7) : x " Our efforts have been useless, threats
are of no avail, kind words have no effect, spiritual penalties
are despised. It now rests with the secular arm to do its
duty." But Philip Augustus still refused to move. Mean
while one of his legates died, another was forced to leave to
attend to his own affairs ; only one, Pierre de Castelnau,
remained in the breach. As for the preachers who
since 1206 had been associated with them, or had
been sent to assist them, one, Diego, bishop of Osma,
died, others became discouraged, Dominic of Guzman alone
pursued his task. The pontifical undertaking made no
advance. So it was until the month of January 1208. At that
time the legate Pierre de Castelnau was assassinated by an
unknown man, who was reputed to be the agent of Count
Raymond.2 This murder changed the face of things.
Innocent III. at once sent monks to preach a crusade against
the heretics. He himself wrote vehement letters to the
king, to the nobles, and to the bishops of France.3 This
time his call was heard, but not by Philip Augustus, who
until the very end refused to embark on this adventure,4 but
by the nobles. Two hundred thousand men, led by the
counts and by the bishops, marched upon Garonne. The
war of the Albigenses had begun (June 1209).
It was not to end until 1229, and it included several
campaigns. The first had the speed of a cyclone, and like
wise had its destructive results. At the outset (18th June
1Ep., x. 149; Potthast, 3223.
1 Luchaire, p. 119 (on the murder of Pierre): "There is but one really
explicit account, and it is the Pope who gives it. . . . All verification here is
impossible." 3 Ep., xi. 26-33 ; Potthast, 3323, 3324, 3353, 3357, 3358.
4 Luchaire, p. 128.

456 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
1209) Count Raymond, knowing that he could not resist,
submitted to the humiliation of public penance — upon the
place of St. Gilles, near Aries — and after promising to serve
the Church in all things, received absolution. Led by him,
the crusaders captured Beziers and massacred the inhabitants,
which act, Arnaud in his report to the Pope described in
these terms : x " Our men have spared neither rank, nor sex,
nor age. About twenty thousand persons have been put to
the edge of the sword. After the slaughter was finished, the
city was first sacked, then burned. The divine vengeance
has been admirably displayed " (22nd July 1209). Three
weeks later (15th August) the turn of Carcassone came ; the
cities was given over to pillage, the inhabitants — at least
those who had survived the horrors of the siege — were
authorized to come out. The rest of the country, stricken
with terror, offered no resistance. Then Simon, the earl of
Montfort, received authority over the conquered territories —
several other counts had refused this gift — and the crusaders,
happy to have won indulgences, returned home. The
campaign was ended (August 1209).
All was soon to begin afresh. After the troops of the
crusaders had dispersed, there was a disturbance in the
regions of Bezier and Carcassone : it became necessary to
suppress the revolt, which gained ground every day.
Raymond of Toulouse, in spite of the proofs of repentance
which he had given, was excommunicated by the legates, who
wished to dispossess him at any price (council of Avignon,
September 1209). And this measure, with which at first
the Pope had shown little sympathy, was confirmed by the
council of Aries (1211). Simon de Montfort thus had two
wars on his hands : one defensive, to maintain himself in the
viscounties of Bezier and Carcassone which were in revolt ;
the other of conquest, to capture the lands of the count of
Toulouse. The second war was particularly terrible, as
Peter il, the count of Aragon, had undertaken the defence
of Raymond. But Simon de Montfort took several of the
rebel castles, burned many heretics, multiplied his pillages
1 Ep., xii. 108.

ANTISACERDOTAL HERESIES 457
and massacres, and gained the brilliant victory of Muret over
Peter of Aragon (1213). Two years sufficed him to crush
the rebels and break the resistance of the count of Toulouse.
The bishops assembled at the council of Montpellier (at the
beginning of the year 1215) juridically sanctioned his
victories, and adjudged the county of Toulouse to him.
Innocent in., it is true, opposed the decision of the bishops.
He endeavoured to maintain Raymond in the possession of his
states. But he yielded to the formidable opposition which
his project encountered at the Lateran council (1215). He
therefore proclaimed the deposition of Raymond.1 He re
signed himself very reluctantly to this measure, and gave
public marks of sympathy to the unhappy count as well as
to his son.
The two Raymonds, father and son, were present at the
Lateran council. Considering the sentence of forfeiture
which had been pronounced against them to be unjust, and
knowing, besides, that it did not correspond to the personal
wishes of the Pope, they refused to submit. Then a third
campaign was forced upon Simon de Montfort, the official
master of Languedoc. It was a campaign of disaster.
Simon had on his side Pope Honorius in., the successor
of Innocent in., and the clergy — especially the bishop of
Toulouse — who zealously endeavoured to collect soldiers for
him. Against him he had the entire South, which the
former conflicts had exasperated and inured to war. Re
sistance is of no avail against a people which is determined
to conquer or die. Simon ravaged the country frightfully,
especially the town of Montauban ; but he met with defeat
at Beaucaire, besieged Toulouse without effect, and was killed
under the walls of that city, leaving his son Amaury to
Bucceed him. Amaury de Montfort found a devoted pro
tector in Honorius in. With indomitable obstinacy this
energetic pontiff harassed the court of France with his
requests, with his promises, even with his threats, in order
to induce it to crush the heresy of Languedoc. In 1218
he asked Philip Augustus 2 to send a " powerful army " to
1 Lea, i. 181 ; Hurter, ii. 567. 2 Raynald, 1218, n. 54 ; Potthast, 5889.

458 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
the South, and to fortify his demand he granted the -king a
half tithe, and the members of the expedition the indulgence
of the crusade. The year following, a fresh demand was
addressed to prince Louis, the son of Philip Augustus.1 A
third attempt was made in 1222. This time the tone was
threatening : 2 " You are not ignorant that the secular
power is obliged to repress rebels with the material sword
when the spiritual power cannot arrest their malice, and
that princes should banish the wicked from their states.
If they are guilty of negligence, they can be rightly con
strained to do this, by the Church." In 1223, Louis viii.,
who had just ascended the throne, also received a reprimand : 3
"Kings and Christian princes are spiritual children of the
Church. As such they are answerable to God for what
they can do in its defence. You, august Prince, are bound
to use the means in your power to repress in your kingdom
the attacks of a sect which wishes to destroy the faith and
to tear in pieces Jesus Christ Himself." The solicitations
of Honorius m. were not wholly ineffective. In obedience
to the appeal by Rome, prince Louis took up arms in 1219,
marched with two thousand men against the partizans of
the two Raymonds, captured Marmande, and besieged Toulouse,
which he could not take. Seven years later (1226), Louis,
having become king of France, once more gave satisfaction
to the warlike pontiff. Followed by fifty thousand men, he
entered Provence and captured Avignon, while his lieu
tenants did successful work in Languedoc. But to what
end was this display of force? In 1219, prince Louis,
after uselessly besieging Toulouse, returned discouraged ; and
the two Raymonds were then so completely masters of the
south that Amaury, their rival, conscious of his impotence,
abdicated in favour of the king of France. In 1226,
Louis viii. was on the point of subduing the Albigensian
party ; but death brusquely arrested the course of his
triumphs (8th November 1226).
At this time the younger Raymond, whose father died in
1 Potthast, 5890. 2 Raynald, 1222, n. 44 ; Potthast, 6828.
3 Raynald, 1223, n. 42 ; Potthast, 7120.

ANTISACERDOTAL HERESIES 459
1222", arose, and held the French armies in check. The
only result achieved by Honorius in., was to sow desolation
in the South, or more exactly to prolong the work of desola
tion wrought by Innocent hi.
In 1228, when Gregory ix. had occupied the pontifical
throne for one year, Languedoc, attacked by France but
defended by Raymond vn., was every day devastated anew.
The papacy at length decided to extinguish the fire that
it had kindled. This was not easy ; for Raymond, who was
not a heretic, and who had in vain asked to be re-established
in the Church, did not intend to be despoiled of his paternal
heritage. On the contrary, France, which had entered
Languedoc in obedience to the respected commands of Rome,
did not wish to leave. But for shrewd diplomacy no
problem is insoluble. The pontifical legate proposed to the
two hostile parties the following arrangement : (1) to leave
Raymond vn. at the head of the county of Toulouse, after ob
taining from him unequivocal proofs of the purity of his faith ;
(2) to marry a daughter of Raymond to a brother of the king
of France; (3) to assure the transmission of the county of
Toulouse to the issue of that marriage, and, in case the
family became extinct, to the crown of France.1 This com
promise, which satisfied everybody, was adopted (Assembly of
Paris, 1229). Thus ended the war of the Albigenses.
Wycliffe,2 or more exactly John of Wycliffe, was born in
the village of that name, near Richmond, about 1320, studied
at Oxford, where he afterwards occupied a professor's chair.
Like his fellow-countrymen he was hostile to the encroach
ments of the Roman Curia, but he manifested his hostility
in a manner which seems for a long time to have been
moderate. In any case, his teaching was well thought of,
and caused no excitement. But in 1376 he attacked the
clergy. He taught that the Church, poor and weak in its
origin, should remain perpetually in the state in which its
1 Raynald, 1228, n. 24 ; Hefele, v. 977 ; Lea, i. 203.
2 Lea, ii. 438 ; W. Capes, History of the English Church in the Fourteenth
and Fifteenth Centuries, London, 1900.

460 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
divine founder had placed it ; that wealth and political power
were incompatible with the vocation of the clergy ; that the
Catholic Church, with its love of lucre and its ambition, was
a caricature of the Church instituted by Christ ; that it stood
in need of radical reform. And he urged the princes to take
possession of ecclesiastical property in order to oblige the
Church to reform itself. He did not forget the papacy.
More and more he assumed a hostile attitude towards it : he
even ended by proclaiming that the Pope was antichrist.
And as one does not take away without replacing, he sub
stituted for the hierarchy the Bible, which he set up as the
rule of faith, and which he even translated into English, in
order to make it accessible to all Christians.
Naturally, Wycliffe became the bite noire of the hierarchy.
The pope and the bishops combined to destroy him. On the
contrary, the nobility, the mendicant monks, and the people
gave an enthusiastic welcome to his theories. Thanks to
numerous and powerful protectors, he was able to escape the
blows which Gregory xi. and the bishop of London sought to
inflict upon him (1377). The peasant revolt of 1381 affected
him most seriously. The uprising had economic causes, but
the bishop of London represented it as the fruit of the
revolutionary preaching of the Oxford professor; and he
succeeded in convincing a part of the nobility, who from that
time made common cause with the episcopate (assembly of
London, 21st May 1382). Nevertheless, Wycliffe could
observe that the defection was not general. Called to appear
before the council of Oxford (18th November 1382), he
presented himself, retracted nothing of what he had written
or taught, and was not the object of any disciplinary measure.
High influence protected him against the rage of his enemies.
Wycliffe died in his parish of Lutterworth on 31st
December 1384, leaving numerous writings designed to spread
his doctrine. Besides, he supplemented his propaganda of the
pen by a propaganda of action, and founded a society of
missionaries which, under the name of the " pauper priests,"
preached the gospel of Wycliffe to the people ; that is to say,
hatred of the papacy and of the clergy, love, and the practice

ANTISACERDOTAL HERESIES 461
of evangelical poverty, and reference to the Bible as the only
doctrinal authority. These disciples of Wycliffe, to whom
the name of Lollards 1 was given, a term which for a century
designated confraternities in the Netherlands, which were
hated by the clergy, lived for some years without being
disturbed. They had the sympathy of the people, and
their number increased day by day. In 1395 they thought
themselves strong enough to ask parliamentary sanction
for their religious programme. Evil overtook them. King
Richard II., exasperated at this audacious effort, threatened
to deal severely with them. The Lollards perceived that
they had gone too far, and surrendered the chimerical hope
of suppressing the Catholic hierarchy in England. Richard n.,
however, did not pass beyond threats. But in 1399 this
pleasure -loving prince was dethroned by Henry iv. The new
king, who took the throne only because he was supported by
the clergy, permitted himself to be led by the bishops. An
era of persecution then began for the Lollards. In 1409, at
the request of the bishops, the edict Be comburendo heretico
was promulgated, which condemned heretics to be burned.
The bishops, especially Thomas Arundel, archbishop of Canter
bury, carefully supervised the execution of this precious law,
and from one end of England to the other, Lollards were
burned. It was difficult to make them disappear ; or rather,
they did not then disappear, for during the fifteenth century,
and later, fires were still kindled. Thus the Lollard heresy
had a prolonged existence. Nevertheless, it soon lost its
expansive force. Its ranks grew gradually thinner ; it only
languished. Its most famous martyr was Lord Cobham,
better known under the name of John Oldcastle, who in
1417 perished in the flames.
John Huss,2 born about 1369 in the Bohemian village of
Husinec, from which his name is derived, was a priest in
1400, dean of the theological faculty at Prague in 1401,
1 Bealencyclopadie, xi. 616.
2 J. Loserth, Has und Wiclif, Prag, 1884 ; F. Palacky, Documenta magistri
Johannis Bus, Prag, 1869 ; Bealencyclopadie, viii. 472.

462 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
and until 1403 was bound by the orthodoxy of his era. In
1403 the works of Wycliffe modified his ideas profoundly.
Huss adopted with enthusiasm the views of the English
innovator concerning the constitution of the Church, and he
propagated them. He was the apostle of Wycliffe in Bohemia,
and had hearers. Being a man of tried austerity, he enjoyed
the consideration of every one. His sermons against the
corruption of the priests gained him new favour with the
people. On the contrary, they stirred up the clergy in
opposition to him. The archbishop of Prague, who at first
supported him, who even appointed him preacher at the
annual synods, shortly afterwards turned against him and de
nounced him at Rome. Huss was excommunicated (December
1409) ; but, protected by the king and by popular favour, he
escaped the penalties which the Church wished to have
inflicted.1 About the end of the year 1411, Pope John xxni.,
threatened by Ladislas, king of Naples, and protector of
Gregory xn. — the schism of the Occident was in its most
intense phase — promised indulgences to all those who with
money or with arms would aid him in repelling his aggressor.
In his youth Huss had been devoted to indulgences ; he had
even carried his zeal so far as to empty his purse in order to
buy one. But in 1411 it was far different. He then de
nounced the undertaking of John xxni. as an odious traffic,
condemned by the principles of the gospel (June 1412).
Forthwith a new sentence of excommunication was issued
against him. It need not be said that he treated it with
contempt, declared it null, and appealed from it to the council
and to God. Moreover, he had the support of the people.
This time once more, notwithstanding the disturbances which
broke out at Prague, Huss was about to escape his enemies.2
But he delivered himself over to them in the following
way.3 At the end of the year 1414, a general council
assembled at Constance, convoked by Sigismund in accord
with John xxni. Sigismund intended that this assembly
1 Loserth, pp. 75, 98. 2 Id., pp. 121, 132.
3 Hefele, vii. 28, 142, 184, 211.

ANTISACERDOTAL HERESIES 463
should especially end the schism which was the desolation of
Christendom. But he also wished to have it serve for
necessary reforms. He therefore invited the Bohemian
agitator to attend, and, to assure him against all possible
dangers, he promised him a safe-conduct. Huss, who had
appealed from the sentence of excommunication to the council,
would have stultified himself if he had declined the invitation
of Sigismund. He accepted it and went to Constance. He
went there of his own accord, convinced that he would be
admitted freely to plead his cause before the council, and
that his words would carry conviction to the minds of its
members. In short, he went to the council as if to victory.
Grave disappointments awaited him when he reached
Constance (2nd November 1414), and some weeks later he
was imprisoned for heresy by John xxiii. He objected that
he could not be treated as a convict before he had been
tried, and that, besides, the safe-conduct guaranteed him
against any attempt at violence. He uttered vehement
protests, in which he was joined by the Bohemians and by
Sigismund himself. It was of no avail. In substance the
reply was that his arrest was canonical ; and that was true.
According to canonical law heretics were deprived of all
rights. The requirements of natural equity were not applic
able. Advantage could not be derived from the fact that
good faith had been sworn. To deceive heretics, to betray
them, to ensnare them — these were pious acts. The procedure
was ecclesiastically regular.1 By placing confidence in his
safeguard, Huss simply showed his ignorance of that law.
Yet the conflict which in the meantime broke out between
the Pope and the council, and which led to the deposition of
the Pope, gave a ray of hope to the friends of Huss, and to
Huss himself. They expected to see the bishops complete
their triumph over John xxiii., by rehabilitating his victim.
They forgot that the agitator of Prague was as dangerous to
the episcopate as he was to the papacy. Moreover, the
illusion did not last long. Having conquered the Pope, the
council hastened to achieve a second victory. The affair was
1 Lea, ii. 468-470.

464 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
bluntly conducted. On 6th July 1415, John Huss was
brought to the cathedral of Constance. There, in the presence
of Sigismund and of the bishops, he was degraded. Upon
his head they placed a paper cap, conical in shape, adorned
with paintings of devils, and bearing this inscription : " Here
is the heresiarch." He was then led to the place of punish
ment. A few hours later he expired in the flames.
John Huss won to his ideas almost the whole of Bohemia.
His death caused an explosion of anticlerical hatred which
was exasperated still more by the violation of plighted faith, —
a violation which was judged by the light of natural equity,
without a suspicion that it was authorized by canon law. In
many places, especially at Prague, the houses occupied by
priests were sacked or even destroyed. The archbishop of
Prague escaped death only by flight. In December 1415, four
hundred and fifty-two barons — almost the entire nobility of
Bohemia — publicly declared themselves to be rebels against
the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and informed the council of
Constance of this decision. After this there was a new
Church in Bohemia : the Hussite Church ; and it took as its
symbol, its flag, as it were, communion under two species, a
liturgical practice which the friends of Huss adopted (1415).
The evil was serious, and required energetic treatment.
The council of Constance and Pope Martin (1418) did not
hesitate to resort to extreme measures. They resolved to
drown the Hussite heresy in blood. From 1416 to 1419
the nobility of Bohemia, Sigismund and Wenceslas, were
called upon to exterminate the enemies of the Church.
These repeated appeals to violence led to nothing so long
as Wenceslas was alive; but that prince died on 15th August
1419, and left the crown of Bohemia to Sigismund. Then
the will of the Pope was accomplished, and the holy war, the
crusade with its accompaniment of indulgences, took place.
It should rather be said " crusades " ; for there were four
of these, which from the year 1420 were preached by the
pontifical legates, and in which some thousands of men took
part, who came from Germany, Poland, and elsewhere ; and
the four were useless. The Hussites, however, lacked cohesion.

ANTISACERDOTAL HERESIES 465
There were some moderates among them : there were some
enthusiasts. The moderates, called Calixtines, made war upon
the enthusiasts, who were called Taborites. The Taborites
were at length obliged to yield (battle of Lipan, 1434). But
in spite of their intestinal strife the Hussites, led by Ziska, then,
after the death of Ziska, by Procopius (1424), won surprising
victories over the troops of the empire led by pontifical legates
(especially the victories of Mise, 1427, and Taus, 1431, where
the imperial forces fled shamefully). Decidedly the papacy,
with the best intentions, was incapable of exterminating the
heresy. What was it to do ?
Perhaps, in any case, it would have continued the struggle ;
but at this juncture it was dethroned, and momentarily the
council of Bale took its place. The fathers of the council
thought that they should abandon the war, which had always
been disastrous, and they showed a disposition to make con
cessions. Negotiations with the Hussites began in 1432 ;
they were laborious and stormy. At length, after a dispute of
four years, they were ended by the signing of the Compactata,
which took place at Iglau (5th July 1436). By this treaty
the Hussites obtained satisfaction on four points which they
most had at heart. Especially they were authorized to receive
the communion under two species, and therefore to make use
of the chalice. Their desires were granted, and they laid
down their arms.
They did not then foresee the disappointment which a
near future reserved for them.1 At the time when it signed
the Compactata, the council of Bale was half-conquered by
the papacy. Some years later, its failure was complete, and
the Church returned to the monarchical regime, personified
by Nicholas v. (1448). The Bohemians assumed relations
with their new master, presented to him the treaty of Iglau,
and asked him to ratify it. But Rome energetically refused to
recognize the act which had been signed by the council of
Bale : it ordered the Bohemians to return to the common law,
and prepared to make them return by force. The attention of
the papacy was temporarily diverted by the grave events
1 Pastor, ii. 165-183 ; 399-410.
3°

466 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
occurring in the East, — the arrival of the Turks, the taking of
Constantinople, and the startling conquests by Mohammed n.
But the affair was merely postponed. In 1462, Pius n.
solemnly annulled the Compactata. Some years later, Paul n.
declared that the king of Bohemia, George Podiebrad, had
forfeited his throne (1466), and in the end even organized
a crusade against him (1468). The crusade took place. At
the call of the Pope, Mathias Corvin took up arms, and
undertook to dispossess Podiebrad. He failed, and when
Podiebrad died (1471), Mathias Corvin found a rival in
Ladislas, son of the king of Poland. For many years Bohemia
was a prey to the ravages of war, or to troubles caused by the
missionaries of Rome. At length, in 1526, when the House
of Austria acquired the throne of Bohemia, its first act was to
promise to its subjects the maintenance of the Compactata.
This was a posthumous revenge of the council of Bale upon
the papacy. Martin Luther * was born at Eisleben, a small town in
Saxony, in 1483, of poor parents, who. sent him to study
successively at Mansfeld, Magdeburgy-Eisenach, and finally at
the university at Erfurt. In 1505 he resolved to become
a monk, and entered the Augustinian convent at Erfurt.
Two years later he became a priest. In 1508, on the recom
mendation of Staupitz, the provincial of the Augustines, he
was called by Frederick the elector of Saxony to be professor
of philosophy at the university of Wittenberg; but soon
afterwards he returned to the university of Erfurt. About
1510 his superiors sent him to Rome to defend the interests
of his order at the Holy See. Thence he returned to the
university of Wittenberg. During the early years of his
life, under the influence of morbid piety, he was the victim of
scruples. When he applied himself to the study of theology
his favourite authors in the dogmatic domain were Gabriel
Biel, Pierre d'Ailly, Occam, Gerson, and St. Augustine;
in mystical questions, St. Bernard and Tauler. Of these
doctors, some were ignorant of the metaphysical structures
1 J. Janssen, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, i. 681-743, Freiburg, 1897.

ANTISACERDOTAL HERESIES 467
which had been reared in the thirteenth century ; others were
pronounced enemies of pontifical supremacy. From their
writings Luther derived an archaic theology, and a latent
hostility to the papacy, which was not diminished by his stay
at Rome, where his eyes were often offended. Moreover, he
did not fear to complete or even to correct the theology of
his masters, by personal theories, among which it is enough
here to mention the doctrine of justification by faith. Yet
he remained submissive to the Catholic hierarchy : he believed
in its divine origin and prerogatives. He was merely a bold
and liberal theologian.
He appeared in another light on the day when, in order
to protest against the traffic in indulgences, he nailed to the
door of the church of the castle of Wittenberg a list of
ninety-fiye theses concerning indulgences (31st October 1517).
He then appeared as an agitator.1 He was a powerful
agitator, for in a short time the theses were circulated in
Germany, causing formidable excitement everywhere, and
forcing Tetzel to suspend his profitable trade. He was also a
dangerous agitator. He respected, it is true, the indulgences,
attacking only the abuse of them. But if he spared the
dogma itself, he disdainfully rejected the received opinions
concerning it ; and, moreover, the abuses which he denounced
were tacitly approved by the papacy, which derived benefit
from them. It should be added that the agitator soon became
a rebel.2 In the month of February 1518 his superiors,
acting under orders from Rome, commanded him to keep
silence. Ordered to be silent, Luther was profuse in pro
testations of humility, justified his conduct, but did not
promise to obey (30th May 1518).
Rome subjected him to the rigour of its laws. In the
early days of 1518 it learned from a report of the arch
bishop of Mayence of Luther's audacious opinions, and kept
a watch upon him. From 30th May 1518 it treated him
as a rebel, and resolved to afford him the hospitality of its
' Ealkoff Forschungen zu Luther's rdmischen Prozess, Rome, 1905 ; K.
Muller in Zeitschrift zur Kirchengeschichte, xxiv. 46-85 ; Pastor, p. 248.
3 Ealkoff, p. 44.

468 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
prisons ; or, if he should remain obstinate, to send him to the
stake. In July 1518, Luther received an order to present
himself in sixty days at the apostolic see — an order which
a month later was changed into one of appearing at Augsburg
before the legate Caietano.1 But then began a long series of
mishaps for the papacy. Luther was under the government
of Frederick the Wise, elector of Saxony. And when Rome
demanded of this prince, who was very devout, the surrender
of the monk of Wittenberg, Frederick declared that he would
obey on the day when the doctrine of Luther should be con
demned by judges who were strangers to the Roman Curia,
but not before.2 To complete the misfortune, the emperor
Maximilian died in the meantime (January 1519), and Leo X.,
who wished to raise Frederick to the throne of the empire,
who in any case needed his support, found himself obliged to
treat him with deference,3 to show him kindness — he sent
him the " Golden Rose " — and above all to permit the affair
of indulgences to slumber. Thus a year was lost. During
this time Luther came into contact with the humanists, and
felt the influence of Hutten,4 who inoculated him with his
profound hatred of the papacy. Every day he became more
aggressive. Every day, too, the circle of his partizans and
admirers was extended. The spark of 31st October 1517
was followed by a vast conflagration.
On 28th June 1519, the German electors put Charles V.,
the grandson of Maximilian, at the head of the empire.
Leo X., who dreaded this selection, and had done everything to
prevent it, accepted the accomplished fact with resignation,
and resumed the prosecution which had been arrested by
political preoccupations.6 The affair was conducted with all
the speed which the cumbrous machinery of the Roman ad
ministration permitted. After several months of deliberation
and tentatives, the Pope was ready to act, and he acted. On
20th May 1520, Frederick of Saxony was called upon, in
threatening terms, to deal severely with* Luther.6 Three
i Muller, pp. 59-68. 2 KalkoEf, p. 54.
3 Pastor, pp. 177, 192, 263. 4 Id., p. 266.
• Id., p. 264. 6 Ealkoff, p. 79.

ANTISACERDOTAL HERESIES '469
weeks later (15th June 1520) the latter was solemnly
denounced in the bull Exsurge Bomine, as an apostle of
error. All those who had his books were commanded to
burn them; he and his partizans were ordered to retract
within sixty days, at the end of which time the penalties
provided by law would be enforced.1 To these vigorous
measures the parties interested gave an unfavourable re
ception. Frederick contemptuously refused to obey the papal
command. As for Luther, in August 1520 he issued the mani
festo To the German Nobilty, in which he sounded a trumpet
against Rome; and some months later (10th December)
he burned the bull Exsurge with great ceremony at the
gate of Wittenberg. Before burning it he consigned it
to public scorn in a pamphlet entitled, Against the Bull of
Antichrist. Everything was permitted him, for public opinion
applauded him. The students of the university ridiculed
the bull, and occasionally tore it in pieces : at Wittenberg,
they counted it an honour to go to see it burned.
It was necessary, however, that authority should have
the last word. Leo X. braved the storm. On 3rd January
1521, he published the bull Becet romanum pontificem, which
executed the threats formulated in the bull Exsurge, excom
municated Luther, and under a like penalty forbade any one
to protect him. He then admonished Charles V. to do his
duty ; to imitate Constantine, Charlemagne, and the Ottos ;
to draw his sword against the heretics, that is to say, to
make war on Frederick, and by armed force to oblige that
prince to surrender the heresiarch of whom he was the
protector. But at this point there was a fresh miscalcula
tion. Charles v., who was sincerely desirous of pleasing the
Pope, could not oppose the will of the German princes ; and
the latter, assembled at the diet of Worms, decided that
Luther should not be condemned before he had been heard,
that he should be invited to appear before the diet, and that
a safeguard should be granted him (19th February 1521).
At the news of this, Leo X. and his nuncio Aleander uttered
indignant protests. They set forth that the civil power was
1 Pastor, p. 274.

470 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
the executor of the orders of the supreme magistrate, and
nothing more ; that its role consisted in applying, and not in
criticizing, ecclesiastical law; that Luther had been condemned
by an authentic judgment of the Holy See ; and that princes
would do a grave injury to the Church should they think of
beginning a fresh action against the heresiarch.1 This was
of no avail. The princes refused to compromise. Armed
with a safe-conduct, Luther presented himself at the diet of
Worms. He spoke and inveighed against the pontifical
tyranny, declared that councils themselves were subject to
error, and he recognized no authority save that of the Bible
(17th and 18th April 1521). Then, protected by the
safe-conduct, he took his departure. Rome was forced to
swallow the affront. It had, indeed, the consolation of seeing
Charles v. publish the famous Edict of Worms, which banished
Luther from the empire, ordered all its subjects to surrender
him to the emperor, and to cast his books into the fire
(26th May 1521). This energetic measure made amends for
the weakness of the princes, and saved the principles — on
paper. Actually, Luther after leaving Worms was arrested
on his way by the soldiers of Frederick his protector, and
was brought to the Wartburg castle. There, concealed under
a borrowed name — he was called the Chevalier George — he
found a temporary refuge.
According to all likelihood, as a refuge the Wartburg
could be only temporary. The mysterious guest whom it
sheltered was bound inevitably, and without delay, to be re
cognized ; and the emperor was about to reclaim his victim,
if necessary, by the force of arms. But it was decreed that
in all these events the most troublesome misadventures
should thwart the best-founded anticipations. Directly after
the diet of Worms, Charles V. had to suppress a revolt in
Spain, he was subsequently engaged in a long war with
Francis i. ; in the meantime the Turks made their appearance
on the Danube. This was more than was needed to occupy
and to preoccupy him. He left the elector of Saxony in
peace, and Luther, quitting the Wartburg, continued under
1 Pastor, pp. 267, 283, 294, 317.

ANTISACERDOTAL HERESIES 471
that prince's protection his work of rebellion against Rome.
Every day he made new conquests ; every day the pamphlets
with which he flooded Germany increased his forces in
numbers. Moreover, in various quarters auxiliaries arose
ready to aid him in his undertaking: Carlostadt and
Melanchthon in Germany, Zwingle and G£colampadius in
Switzerland, and others following the example of their
master, endeavoured to detach the people from Rome. Soon,
indeed, the chief quarrelled with his lieutenants. He was
furious at Carlostadt, who did not seem to him sufficiently
docile. For Zwingle he conceived a mortal hatred, which
was extended to the whole Zwinglian party. Soon, even the
peasants of Swabia, conducting the reformation after their
own fashion, rebelled against all authority and abandoned
themselves to rapine. In the ordinary course of things,
these divisions, these excesses, would have ruined Luther's
undertaking. This was saved by the hatred of which Rome
was the object. All was forgiven to the man who sounded
the charge against the papacy. And of this, Luther could
not be ignorant. In the diets of Niirnberg (1522 and
1524) the princes spoke fair words to the pontifical legates,
Chieregati and Campeggio, who besought them to stifle the
heresy. They promised to do their best to pacify Germany ;
but they did not conceal the fact that, considering the point
at which things had arrived, violent and coercive measures
would aggravate instead of curing the evil. They added
some remarks of which this is the substance : " It is Rome
which by abuses of every sort has inspired the spirit of
revolt; it is for Rome to appease it by reformation. Let
her purify herself, let her correct the abuses under which the
whole Church is groaning ; let a council be called to study
and point out the measures to be taken, and calm will
return." 1
But Rome intended to issue orders, not to receive advice.
At the diet of the year 1522, Chieregati, although he had
i Reichstagsakten, iii. 447, Gotha, 1893 ; Raynald, 1523, 3-12 ; Pallavicini,
ii. 8 ii. 10 (edit. Migne, i. 709, 719) ; Janssen-Pastor, Geschichle des deutschen
Volkes, ii. 296, Freiburg, 1897.

472 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
read the humiliating admissions of Adrian vi., his master,
would not listen to any observations. At the diet, 1524,
the legate Campeggio, speaking in the name of Clement vn.,
was still more arrogant, and declared that the papacy was
not accountable to any one on earth.1 The inevitable
happened. The partizans of Luther becoming every day
more numerous and more powerful, increased their pre
tensions. At the diet of Spire (1526) they demanded and
obtained freedom of conscience — provisionally, that is to
say, until the meeting of the council which they demanded
and which had been promised them. At the diet which was
held in the same town three years later (1529), they declared
that they wished to continue their apostolate, and " pro
tested" — whence the name Protestants — against the arrest
of development which it was sought to impose upon them.
To arrest their progress was truly rather a difficult thing.
Nevertheless, Charles v. wished to do more. In 1530,
being temporarily freed from the cares of war, he desired to
keep his engagements with the papacy, and he paid the debt
at the diet of Augsburg. There the Lutherans, by the pen of
Melanchthon, presented their religious programme entitled
" Confession of Augsburg." The only response made by
Charles V. was to command them to return within a certain
time (15th April 1531) to the old faith, at the expiration
of which time he was determined to drown the heresy in
blood.2 But then occurred the eternal misadventure. The
Turks were approaching, and all the forces of Germany were
not too great to repulse them. Charles v. once more made a
truce in religious disputes; he entered into negotiations with
the partizans of Luther, and at the diet of Niirnberg (1532)
he guaranteed them liberty of conscience until the meeting
of the next general council.
Some years later, incited by Paul m., who dreamed only
of crushing the rebels, he thought the moment to take up
arms had come. This time, again, the Turkish peril, in
creased by the unfortunate tactics of Admiral Doria, brought
1 Reichstagsakten, iv. 468.
2 Hefele-Hergenrbther, ix. 724 ; Pastor, iv. 11, 408, 418.

ANTISACERDOTAL HERESIES 473
everything to a standstill. At Frankfort (1539) the
Protestants obtained a truce which the diet of Spire (1544)
confirmed, and completed, by adding various concessions.
The Pope cried treason, and uttered terrifying threats,1
threats which were not empty ; for the king of France and
the German Catholic princes were only awaiting the word
to march against the empire. Charles v., aware of his
precarious situation, obeyed. He made war upon the
Protestants, a holy war for which the Pope opened the
treasury of his indulgences (1546). And this war succeeded
according to his desires. Conqueror of the Protestants at
Muhlberg (1547), he prepared to make them submit by
force to the decisions of the council which had just as
sembled at Trent. In the meantime he dictated his wishes
(Interim of Augsburg, 1548). A fresh disappointment was
reserved for him. Three years later the Protestants, led
by Maurice of Saxony and aided by Henry n., king of
France, took their revenge (1551). Charles v., being dis
couraged, gave up the struggle; and after several years of
negotiations, the " Religious Peace of Augsburg " was signed
(1555). This treaty guaranteed the disciples of Luther,
or, as was said, the " Confession of Augsburg," the right
of existence throughout the empire. It was not with this
in view that the papacy had so often entreated the emperor
to crush heresy. Paul rv. therefore freely expressed his
complaints,2 but it was useless. The " Religious Peace of
Augsburg " remained in force until the Treaty of Westphalia
abrogated it, only to impose new sacrifices upon Rome (1648).
Yet the wave of revolt raised against Rome by Luther
was not confined within the empire.3 It soon crossed the
German frontiers and invaded different nations of Europe.
Sometimes it was the doctrines themselves of the Wittenberg
1 Pallavicini, v. 6 (Migne, i. 1017) ; St. Ehses, Sanctum concilium Tri-
dentmum, iv. 364, Freiburg, 1904.
2 The Pope talked even of deposing Charles v. and Ferdinand ; see Pastor,
vi. 566-570, especially 569, note 4, which refers to Brewer, Calendar of State
Papers, vii. n. 501.
'Pastor, iv. ii. 403, 518, 524; v. 688.

474 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
monk carried by his disciples, by Cranmer to England, by
Hamilton to Scotland, by Margaret of Valois and Brigonnet
to France, which acted as a ferment. Sometimes it was his
example which was contagious, and which captivated
foreigners, Calvin, for example, or even enemies of the
Lutheran system, Zwingle in Switzerland, Henry vin. in
England. For without the impulse which proceeded from
Wittenberg neither Zwingle, nor Henry vin., nor Calvin
would have affected the multitude. These men were
lieutenants of Luther, who was execrated by two of them ;
they continued the work which he began. Let us then
leave Germany, and pass in review the principal countries
of Europe. In 1526 the duchy of Prussia was detached from Rome.
The author of this defection was himself the ruler of the
duchy. Albert of Brandenburg, grand master of the Teutonic
order, who notwithstanding his vow of chastity, married, and
apostatized. Albert adhered to the ideas of Luther, and in
1530 adopted the Augsburg Confession. In 1527, Sweden
presented the same spectacle as the duchy of Prussia. It
had just shaken off the political yoke of Denmark, and had
constituted itself an independent kingdom. Its first king,
Gustavus Vasa, subjected it to Lutheran doctrine. In this
work he was aided by Olaf Peterson.1
In 1536 it was the turn of Denmark and of Norway
to pass from the Roman to the Lutheran obedience. Switzer
land, in the beginning, initiated in the ideas of religious
reform by Zwingle and QScolampadius, in 1536 began to
undergo the influence of Calvin, who was of French origin —
he was born at Noyon (1509), and (1527) received the
parish of Marteville — and entered into the Lutheran move
ment (about 1529). His arrest was ordered, and he fled
(1533), published his book, Institutes of Christianity (1535),
established himself at Geneva for the first time (1536), was
banished thence, and returned (1541). The apostles in
1 Martin, Gustave Vasa et la reforme en Suide, pp. 250, 303, 416, Paris,
1906 ; J. Weidling, Schwedische Geschichle im ZeUaMer der Reformation, pp. 179,
196, Gotha, 1882.

ANTISACERDOTAL HERESIES 475
Scotland of the new gospel were Patrick Hamilton (1525),
Wishart (1545), and John Knox (1555). Hamilton and
Wishart perished as victims of Beaton, archbishop of St.
Andrews. Knox was persecuted during the reign of Mary
Tudor, and was twice obliged to escape to Geneva. In 1559
he returned to his country, and there practised a successful
apostolate. It is to him that Scotland owes its present religion.
In France1 the Lutheran programme was favoured by
Brigonnet, bishop of Meaux, and by Margaret of Valois, the
sister of Francis I. Under this double patronage, until 1535,
it spread among the nobility. After that date the Institutes
of Christianity had a considerable ascendancy ; Calvin caused
Luther to be forgotten. French opinion, whether Lutheran or
Calvinistic, showed a manifest sympathy with the projects of
reform. But the king, who, thanks to the concordat of 1516,
held the Church of France in his power, could only lose by
a religious revolution. Led by his own interests, Francis I.
— abroad, he supported the Lutherans of Germany, and the
Turks — enforced against the innovators a fierce repression
(1526), which his son Henry n. accentuated still further.
The stake had many victims, among whom it is sufficient
to mention Anne du Bourg, a deacon and counsellor of
parliament. In Provence and in the Comtat Venaissin,
three thousand Waldenses guilty of having aided the
Protestants were exterminated. In spite of the persecutions
which it underwent, Calvinistic doctrine was propagated in
France; and Catherine, by the advice of the chancellor,
Michel de l'Hdpital, thought it her duty to grant a limited
tolerance to Protestant worship, in the edict of January
1562. But a terrible civil war, lasting nearly forty years,
was to neutralize this measure.
England seemed destined to be the consolation of Rome.
In 1521, King Henry vin. wrote a book against Luther,
which won for him from the Pope the title of Befender of the
1 Vic. de Meaux, Les Cultes religieux en France au xvi™ siicle, pp. 23, 56,
Paris, 1879; F. Aubert, "Le Parlement et la reforme," Rev. des questions
historiques, lxxxiii. 91-128 (1908) ; Gairdner, Letters and Papers, viii. n. 33.

476 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Faith. But England was not long to play this r61e of
consolation. In 1526, Henry vm. became enamoured of
Anne Boleyn, a young woman twenty-three years of age, and
wished to make her his concubine.1 Anne, very artfully, feigned
great prudery, pleaded scruples of conscience, and declared
that she was unable to satisfy the desires of the king except
by legitimate marriage ; in short, she gave her royal lover
the alternative of leaving his passion ungratified, or of
divorcing his wife, Catherine of Aragon, to whom he had
been married for seventeen years (1509), and who had borne
to him besides four children, who were dead, a daughter,
still living, who was afterwards to be called Mary Tudor.
His passion was irresistible. Henry decided to procure a
divorce, that is to say, to demand of the ecclesiastical
authority a declaration of the nullity of the marriage; for
according to the ideas of the time, marriage, when it com
bined all the desired conditions, was indissoluble, but when
one of these conditions was lacking, was null. And the
Church alone had the power to establish the nullity. Indeed,
Henry vni. had needed a pontifical dispensation received from
Julius n. to contract a marriage with Catherine, who before
becoming his wife was his sister-in-law, having been married
the first time to Arthur, the eldest son of Henry vn. The
whole problem was to discover faults in the bull of Julius n.
Henry discovered them, pointed them out to Pope Clement vn.,
and asked him to take action accordingly (1527).
The Pope's situation was embarrassing. By refusing the
divorce he would irritate the king of England; by granting
it, he would humiliate and offend the powerful emperor of
Germany, Charles v., of whom Catherine of Aragon was the
aunt. Taken between hammer and anvil, Clement VII.
manoeuvred so as to shield himself. At first he spoke fair
words to Henry, but avoided committing himself : he then
sent a legate to England commissioned apparently to study
the affair, but really with secret orders to procrastinate.2
1 P. Friedmann, Anne Boleyn, i. 58, London, 1884.
2 Id., ib. i. 75, 87; Brewer, Calendar of Letters and Papers, foreign and
domestic, in the reign of Henry VIII., iv. 1916, London, 1862-1892.

ANTISACERDOTAL HERESIES 477
Finally, he reserved to himself the legal inquiry into the
action1 (July 1529), and did not further it.
These clever tactics, under other circumstances, might
have succeeded; in this case, the resolute attitude of his
opponent made them fail. Henry viii. was in haste to
accomplish his object. Seeing that he could obtain nothing
of the Pope, he resolved to do without the assistance of the
latter, and to conduct his own affairs himself. He first
endeavoured to win opinion to his side. And he partially
succeeded; for various universities in England, France, and
Italy, when consulted as to the validity of the marriage of
Catherine, declared — of course, gold played an important
part here — that the union in the sight of God was null2
(1530). He then assured himself of the docility of his
clergy by having himself proclaimed, with certain reserves,
" chief sovereign of the Church and of the clergy of England "
(January 1531). Moreover, the archbishopric of Canterbury
had just become vacant; he gave it to Cranmer, a man
without scruples, from whom he could expect all kinds of
services (December 1532). Then, when all precautions had
been taken, he proceeded to take decisive action. In January
1533 he contracted a secret marriage with Anne Boleyn,
which he had blessed by a monk, and which he gradually
divulged.8 Two months later (March 1533) he promulgated
the " Bill of Appeals," which forbade any appeal to Rome,
and assigned the cognizance of matrimonial causes to the
supreme jurisdiction of the archbishop of Canterbury.4 At
length Cranmer, duly authorized by his king, declared the
marriage of Henry and Catherine to be void (23rd May), and
some days after (28th May) certified that the marriage with
Anne was valid. In the month of June 1533, Anne Boleyn,
solemnly crowned, became queen of England, and Henry
triumphed. Confronted with these acts of defiance, poor Pope
Clement vn., who stood more and more in need of the
support of Charles v., was forced to abandon his tortuous,
1 Brewer, iv. 2591. 2 Id., iv. 2903 ; Friedmann, i. 116, 121.
3 Friedmann, i. 182. * Id., i. 194.

478 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
dilatory policy, and decided to act. He did act, but up to
the end he sought to be considerate. He therefore uttered
against Henry a comminatory sentence which was kept very
secret (July 1533), and it was only on 2nd March 1534
that he promulgated on the matter in litigation a public
sentence, a sentence unfavourable to the king of England ;
for he concluded that the marriage with Catherine was valid.1
To this tardy and timid resistance Henry responded by
revolt During the year 1534 were promulgated the "Act
of Succession " and the " Act of Supremacy." Several
penalties were enacted to assure submission to these edicts,
the first of which guaranteed the succession to the throne
to the children of Anne Boleyn, the second of which declared
Henry to be supreme head of the Church of England. Other
ordinances were promulgated to punish fidelity to the Pope.
It was a terrible legislation, which, however, made few
victims, for all except the chancellor, Thomas More, bishop
Fisher, and some monks obeyed. It was actual schism.
But Rome closed its eyes and refused to see that England
was no longer obedient to it. Pope Paul m., who, in order
to avenge the death of Fisher, was preparing to launch a
sentence of deposition against Henry, at the last moment
paused, and recoiled from an act which might have had fatal
consequences (1535).2 He carried his condescension even
farther. After the death of Catherine (January 1536) he
made overtures of peace to Henry, which he renewed after
the death of Anne Boleyn (May 1536). But all his advances
failed before the attitude of Henry, who confiscated the
property of the abbeys, and was furiously eager to extirpate
popery from England. Then Paul ni. issued the bull which
had been prepared in 1535. He declared that Henry vin.
had forfeited the throne of England, commanded his subjects
to revolt against him, and charged the Christian princes to
make war upon him, to confiscate his goods, and to drive
1 St. Ehses, Bomische Dokumente zur Geschichte der Ehescheidung Heinrichs
VIII., pp. 212, 215, Paderborn, 1893.
2 J. Gairdner, Letters and Papers, viii. 1144, ix. 999, 1007, 1024 ; Raynald,
1535, 10, 18 ; Pastor, v. 681.

ANTISACERDOTAL HERESIES 479
him from his kingdom (1538). But the Christian princes
made no move ; the English people did not rebel ; the clergy
themselves were deaf to the voice of the Pope. Henry vni.
maintained his place upon the throne, and the schism was
consummated. Nevertheless, as yet it was merely schism. Henry, who
wished to free England from the yoke of Rome, did not
intend to deliver it over to heresy. On the contrary, he
persecuted the Lutherans with the same zeal that he had
shown in persecuting the papists. He assumed a kind of
coquetry — especially to give the lie to the Pope, who accused
him of heresy — in rejecting all dogmatic or disciplinary
innovations. Guided by this religious policy, he promulgated
(1539) "The Bill of the Six Articles," which under severe
penalties commanded belief in transubstantiation, imposed
upon the clergy the practice of celibacy, made auricular
confession and communion under a single species obligatory
on the faithful. But Henry vni. died in 1547, leaving as
his successor his son, Edward vi., aged nine years. Under
the reign of this child, Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury,
wielded a preponderating influence. During a journey in
Germany, Cranmer became impregnated with the ideas of
Luther, and afterwards felt the influence of Calvin. He was
a Lutheran dyed in Calvinism. Sure that he could dare
anything with impunity, he zealously endeavoured to destroy
Catholic doctrine in England. In 1547 the marriage of
priests was authorized. The year following, simultaneously
with a Lutheran catechism there appeared The Order of the
Communion, which enjoined on the laity to make their
communion under two species. Then came (1549) The Book
of Common Prayer, an indefinite ritual which three years
later was revised in a clearly Calvinistic sense. Finally
(1553) were promulgated the semi-Lutheran, semi-Calvinistic
Forty-two Articles, which were later to become the Thirty-nine
Articles} At this time heresy was the official doctrine of England.
1 Gairdner, The English Church in the Sixteenth Century, pp. 263, 276, 290,
London, 1 902 ; G. Constant, ' ' La Transformation du culte anglican sous Edouard
VI.," Bev. d'histoire ecclCsiaslique, xii. 38, 242 (1911).

480 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
It was the official doctrine, but not the doctrine de facto.
The great majority of the nation disapproved of the dogmatic
and disciplinary changes which had been imposed upon them.
Popular uprisings took place in fifteen counties. The clergy
displayed more docility. Yet there were some among them
who resisted ; four bishops were deprived of their sees. The
rupture with Rome had caused no difficulty, but the rupture
with the creed and with the Catholic liturgy was painful.
Hence the Catholic reaction wrought by Mary Tudor (1553-
1558) might have gathered about it popular sympathies.
But it passed beyond the limits of moderation, and, futher-
more, it was allied with a Spanish policy — Mary had been
married to Philip n. Thus it had been made odious.1 It
was reserved for Elizabeth to give a definitive religion to
England (1558-1603).
1 R. Ancel, ' ' La Reconciliation de l'Angleterre avec le Saint-Siege sous Marie
Tudor," Rev. d'histoire ecclisiastique, x. 521, 744 (1909).

CHAPTER XIV
The Conflict with Infidelity and Heeesy: Ceusades,
Inquisition, Councils
Collection de Vhistoire des Croisades, published by the Academy of Inscrip
tions, Paris, since 1841 (comprising four parts, the most im
portant of which, bears the title, Historiens occidentaux, 5 vols.);
R. Rbhricht, Geschichte der Rreuzziige im Umriss, Innsbruck, 1898 ;
L. Brehier, " L'Eglise et l'Orient au Moyen Age " ; Les Croisades, Paris,
1907 ; H. Lea, A History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages, 3 vols.,
New York, 1888 ; J. Havet, " L'Heresie et le bras seculier au Moyen
Age," in (Euvres completes, ii. 117-180, Paris, 1896 ; L. Tanon, Histoire
des tribunaux de V Inquisition en France, Paris, 1893 ; P. Hinschius,
System des katholischen Kirchenrechts, iii., Berlin, 1883 ; L. Pastor,
Geschichte der Papste im Zeitalter der Renaissance, 6 vols., Freiburg,
1886-1913.
The conflict with infidelity and heresy had three principal
theatres : fields of battle, tribunals, and councils: Upon fields
of battle the enemies of the Church were dealt with accord
ing to the laws of war ; before the tribunals, the penal code
was applied to them ; in the councils, the procedure against
them was by definitions and regulations. Among the wars
undertaken for the glory of God the crusades occupy a
peculiar place, and the tribunals have their highest expres
sion in the Inquisition. We shall treat successively of the
crusades ; of the Inquisition, in which we shall include wars
waged . by the papacy against its enemies in Europe ; and
lastly of the councils. Ceusades
The crusades were military expeditions undertaken by
the papacy during a period of about two hundred years
(a.d. 1095-1270), to drive the Mussulmans from the Holy
Land. 3i

482 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
It was a pope — Gregory vn., and not, as is often said,
Sylvester n. — who first had the idea of the crusades. Indeed,
Gregory was himself on the point of leading fifty thousand
men " against the enemies of God, even to the tomb of Jesus
Christ'' (1074), but his difficulties with Henry iv. prevented
him from executing this idea.1 It was a pope, Urban il, who
iu 1095 realized the project of Gregory vii. and caused the
departure of the first crusade. It was the popes who took
the initiative in all the crusades, who entreated, who at times
even commanded the princes to march against the Mussul
mans. Thus the crusades were the work of the papacy, and,
as will be seen, it was in spite of the papacy that in 1270,
exhausted Europe gave up the plan of destroying the Mussul
man power. Let us only add that it was the cries of alarm
coming from Constantinople which inspired Gregory vn. with
the plan, and Urban n. with its execution.
Thus inspired by the papacy, the crusades had a religious
object; they were intended to drive the Mussulmans from
the Holy Land, and to recover the tomb of Christ which had
fallen into their hands. Nevertheless, certain qualifications
are necessary here. Jerusalem, which had been taken by the
Persians and given over to pillage (614), and reconquered
by the emperor Heraclius (629), fell into the power of the
Caliph Omar (637), and escaped Arab domination only to pass
under the yoke of the Seljuk Turks, who four centuries later
(1070) made the conquest of Syria. It was then that the
Greek emperors Michael vn. and Alexis Comnenius called on
the papacy for help, not for the tomb of Christ, which had
only changed masters, and with which they were not pre
occupied, but for themselves. They prayed Rome to aid
them to arrest the invading advance of the Turks ; and to
cause their request to be granted they promised to bring to
an end the schism which had been effected by Michael
Caerularius in 1054. Gregory vn., whose dream was to
make the papacy a universal empire, eagerly accepted this
proposal.2 If political circumstances had afforded another
theatre for his immense political activity, he would have
1 Jaffe, 4904 ; see 4789, 4826, 4910. 2 Brehier, pp. 38-54.

THE CONFLICT WITH INFIDELITY AND HERESY 483
gone to Constantinople with fifty thousand men, and would
have annexed the Eastern empire to the domain of St. Peter.
Perhaps he would have ultimately swept the Turks away.
The Napoleon of the eleventh century was capable of any
thing. Urban had not the warlike genius of Gregory. He
was not the man to lead an army. But he knew how to
find magic expressions, " Jerusalem," " the tomb of Christ,"
" remission of sins." 1 For a long time, particularly after the
opening of the eleventh century, many were the faithful
who made the journey to Jerusalem. And these pilgrimages,
the vogue of which was increasing, created, and then developed,
a general sentiment of devotion to the holy places. So Urban
informed Christian Europe that these regions, so much vene
rated, were in the power of pagans who subjected them to
odious profanations. He implored the friends of Christ the
Saviour to go to avenge His honour. As a reward he
promised them the remission of their sins. Such was the
powerful lever which permitted him and his successors to
arouse Christian Europe against the Mussulmans.
Ordinarily eight crusades are counted — a conventional
number which is arrived at only by leaving in the shade
certain expeditions of secondary importance.
First Crysade.2 — In the month of November 1095,
Urban n. went to Clermont, and before an immense multitude
preached the Holy War. The assembly responded to his
appeal by crying with a great clamour, " God wills it." The
Pope caused crosses of red stuff to be delivered to all those
who took an engagement to go to Palestine. Several
thousand men at once received the cross, whence the name
" crusaders," whence also the name " crusades " was given
to the expeditions against the Mussulmans. August 15,
1096, was fixed as the date of departure, and Adhemar de
Monteil, bishop of Puy, was appointed to direct the crusade
as legate of the Holy See.
Enthusiasm was great ; proof will presently be given that
1 0. Gottlob, Kreuzablass und Almosenablass, pp. 63-90, Stuttgart, 1906.
3 H. von Sybel, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges, 2nd edit., Dusseldorf,
1881 ; Brehier, pp. 55-87.

484 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
it was excessive. In fact, at the beginning of the year 1096,
that is to say, several months before the official departure of
the expedition, undisciplined companies travelled towards the
Holy Land, led by certain enthusiasts, by the chevalier
Gautier-sans-Avoir, by the German priest Gottschalk, and
above all by the Picard ascetic Peter the Hermit, whose r61e
was afterwards excessively magnified by legend.1 Thus before
the official crusade there was a popular crusade. Its fate was
lamentable. The throng which composed it perished miser
ably before arriving at Jerusalem. The regular expedition had
a better lot. Yet even it suffered misfortunes which it would
have escaped if it had been better organized. Unity of
leadership was lacking, and this capital defect brought on pain
ful consequences. Four armies departing from different points
in Europe, between the months of August and September
1096, went to Constantinople by different roads and with
out previous agreement. From Constantinople they entered
Asia (spring of 1097). Divisions, rivalries, personal com
petitions had free course. Yet bravery redeemed all their
faults. The crusaders drove the Turks from Nicaea; they
cut them to pieces on the plain of Dorylaeum (1097); they
captured Antioch ; while Baudouin, separating himself from
the main army, founded the county of Edessa (1098). They
arrived at last before Jerusalem (June 1099). After a
month's siege the city was taken by assault, and they pro
ceeded forthwith to the massacre of the inhabitants (15th July
1099). When this action was ended the conquerors were
occupied with organizing what they had conquered. Count
Godefroy of Bouillon was elected leader. He modestly called
himself the " attorney " of the Holy Sepulchre ; but his
brother Baudouin, who succeeded him, took the title of king.
The resultof the first crusadewas the Latinkingdom of Jerusalem.
Second Crusade.2 — This kingdom had only an ephemeral
1 H. Hagenmeyer, Peter der Eremite, Leipzig, 1879 ; Raynaud, Le Vrai et
lefaux sur Pierre VErmite (trans, from the book of Hagenmeyer, Paris, 1883).
2G. Huffer, "Die Anfange des zweiten Kreuzzuges," in Historisches Jahr-
buch, viii. 391 (1887) ; E. Vacandard, Vie de St. Bernard, ii. 276, Paris, 1897 ;
Brehier, pp. 103-108.

THE CONFLICT WITH INFIDELITY AND HERESY 485
destiny. In 1144, less than half a century after its foundation,
it was cut off from the county of Edessa, which the Turks
had conquered. Upon hearing the news, Louis vn., king of
France — either to expiate the crime of which he had been
guilty, or for quite another motive — resolved to go to the
help of the Christian East. Pope Eugenius in., to whom
he declared his idea, approved of the plan, and decreed the
expedition. This was the second crusade. St. Bernard
preached it at Vezelay (March 1146), and then in Germany.
His success was extraordinary. French and Germans in a
body responded to his appeal. Italy, England, and Bohemia
furnished men. Two armies, one led by Louis vn., the other
by Conrad III., king of Germany, began the journey to the
Holy Land. Cruel disappointments awaited them. Conrad
sustained a bloody defeat at Dorylaeum. The French
allowed themselves to be drawn into an ambuscade, where
many were massacred. Weakened by these disasters, the
two Christian armies could no more dream of conquering the
county of Edessa. They marched against Damascus ; and
this time they were again defeated (1148). Conrad and
Louis vn. successively returned to Europe. Much blood,
shed to no purpose — this was the record of the second crusade.
Third Crusade.1 — The third crusade, although not so
unfortunate, had only mediocre results. It may be said
that its cause was the invasion of Palestine by Saladin,
the sultan of Egypt, who having destroyed the Christian
army at Tiberiad, captured Jerusalem (1187). This catas
trophe brought desolation to Christendom. Immediately
Gregory vm., and then Clement ill., called the faithful to
the Holy War. For the third time a wave of enthusiasm
swept across the whole of Europe ; and the kings of the
three most powerful nations, Frederick Barbarossa, Philip
Augustus, and Richard Cceur de Leon, took up arms.
Frederick took his departure in the spring of 1189, and
went by land. He captured Iconium, but was drowned in
the Selef (June 1190). His death caused dismay in the
1 Brehier, pp. 117-143.

486 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
German army, which had been already decimated by battle
and exhaustion. Some thousands of men, scarcely able to
advance, continued, and entered Palestine, where they perished
miserably. The remnant returned to Europe. In short, the
German crusade ended in nothing.
Far less hurried than Frederick, Philip and Richard began
the campaign only in the month of June 1190. The former
left Genoa, the latter Marseilles, and they met at Messina,
where for six months they remained inactive. It was not
until the spring of 1191 that they set sail for the Holy
Land. For two years Guy de Lusignan, formerly king of
Jerusalem, had been engaged in besieging St. Jean d'Acre.
Philip and Richard lent him their strong support, and captured
the city (13th July 1191). It was a victory which would
have been followed by other victories if only the Christian
army had been united and disciplined. But disorder reigned
among the leaders. Philip Augustus, thinking that his right
had not been respected, returned to France with his army.
Richard, remaining alone, performed prodigies of valour ; but
his prowess could not compensate for the small number of
his soldiers. In the autumn of 1192 he made his way back
to England, where he arrived only after a painful captivity
in the states of the duke of Austria. Thus ended the third
crusade. Its only result was the taking of St. Jean d'Acre.
Fourth Crusade.1 — Meanwhile Jerusalem was in the
power of the Mussulmans. Innocent in., at the beginning
of his pontificate (1198), wished to put an end to this
humiliation, and instituted a new crusade. The preparations
for this expedition were laborious. In France, Philip
Augustus, on account of his divorce, had incurred the
punishment of excommunication. In Germany, two rivals
were deputing the empire. In England the situation was
no better. For lack of a king it was the barons who
1 Villehardouin, La Conquete de Constantinople (edit. Natalis de Wailly),
Paris, 1872 ; W. Norden, Das Papsttum und Byzanz, p. 133, Berlin, 1903 ;
A. Luchaire, Innocent III., La Question d'Orient, pp. 77-142, Paris, 1907 ;
Brehier, pp. 144-176.

THE CONFLICT WITH INFIDELITY AND HERESY 487
responded to the pontifical appeal, and set out in the month
of June 1202. According to a treaty concluded in 1201,
the Venetians agreed, in consideration of payment, to transport
them in their vessels, and to bring them to Egypt, where
they were to stab the Mussulman power to the heart. But
when the moment to set sail arrived, the Venetians, from
whom Hungary had captured Zara on the Dalmatian coast,
demanded imperiously that the crusaders should aid them to
repair their loss. The crusaders obeyed, and went to conquer
Zara, to the great displeasure of the Pope, who excommuni
cated the conquerors ; but afterwards granted them absolution
(November 1202). Shortly afterwards, Innocent ni. had
another disappointment. From Zara, instead of going to
Egypt in agreement with the treaty of the year 1201, the
Christian army set sail for Constantinople (May 1203).
Their object was to dethrone the usurper, Alexis in., who had
overthrown Isaac Angelus, and to place upon the throne
Alexis the Younger. The usurper was dethroned, but the
logic of events took its course. Alexis the Younger could
not maintain himself in power. A revolution broke out.
The crusaders took advantage of this, captured Constantinople,
and pillaged it. By this blow, having become masters of the
capital, they assumed possession of the Byzantine empire,
and set up the Latin empire of Constantinople. The result
was brilliant, but did not last, for the Latin empire was to
fall in 1261. Thus the fourth crusade achieved brilliant
success. But from beginning to end it departed from its
programme, from beginning to end it transgressed the
pontifical instructions, from beginning to end it was devoid
of any religious character.
Fifth Crusade1 — Innocent, however, was not discouraged.
The crusade of 1202 had proudly rejected the pontifical
1 Jacques de Vitry, Historia orientalis seu hierosolymitana, i. 1047 (edit.
Bongars), Hannover, 1612 ; R. Rbhricht, "Der Kinderkreuzzug," in Historische
Zeitschrift, xxxvi., 1876; Des Essarts, La Croisade des enfants, Paris, 1875;
Rbhricht, Quinti belli sacri scriptores minores, Paris, 1879 ; Id., Testimonia
minora de quinto bello sacro, Paris, 1882 ; Id., Studien zur Geschichte desfUnften
Kreuzzuges, Innsbruck, 1S91 ; Brehier, pp. 183-197.

488 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
instructions ; another would doubtless prove more docile. He
proclaimed the crusade; but the enthusiasm which had
formerly aroused the masses of the people had vanished, or
rather, slain in the souls of adults, it had found a refuge
with the children. The latter with naive confidence dreamed
of conquering the Holy Land. And of that candid faith,
alas ! they gave lamentable proof. In Germany, thirty
thousand, in France, a thousand children set out for
Jerusalem, and perished miserably, some in Italy, others
on the coast of Africa (1212). Men were not so eager
to go. For several years Innocent III. laboured in vain to
obtain enlistments. At length in the Lateran council (1215)
he solemnly announced that a new expedition to the Holy
Land would set out on 1st June 1217. It set out, indeed.
It was the fifth crusade, in which— except at the end — ¦
Hungary, the duchy of Austria, Norway, Pomerania, and
Brabant took part. The Christian army first established its
headquarters at St. Jean d'Acre, from whence it made ex
cursions to different parts of Palestine. After some months
of fruitless warfare, Jean de Brienne, the commander-in-chief
— the king of Hungary had already gone home — resolved
to transfer hostilities to Egypt. At first the undertaking
was a success, which was crowned by the capture of Damietta
(November 1219). But after this the Christian army lost
valuable time by inaction. When it resumed hostilities it
was defeated at El Mansourah (July 1221), and was sur
rounded. It was even on the point of being drowned, for
the sultan opened the sluices of the Nile and flooded the
plain. To save the lives of his soldiers Jean de Brienne
was forced to surrender Damietta. At the end of four
years of effort, made to no purpose, the survivors of the
Christian army returned to Europe, discouraged.
Sixth Crusade1 — There was one man who was not dis
couraged, and that man was the Pope. Honorius m. — this
1 Gontinuateurs de Guillaume de Tyr, xxxiii. ; Richard de San Germano,
Chronicon, in Monumenta Germanics, Scriptores, xix. 323 ; Huillard-Breliolles,
Historia diplomatica Frederici secundi, iii. ; Brehier, pp. 197-206.

THE CONFLICT WITH INFIDELITY AND HERESY 489
was the name of the Pope at that time — remarked that the
emperor Frederick n., who in 1215 agreed to go to the Holy
Land, had not yet moved. He therefore urged him to fulfil
his vow. He received fair words and believed that he would
support a sixth crusade, the crusade of Frederick n. The
dream of the pontiff was realized. Frederick led an army to
Jerusalem, and his expedition had tangible results ; but they
were results which went beyond what he had foreseen. The
sixth crusade of Frederick II. resembled none of the others.
For one thing, it was awaited for an exceedingly long time.
The crafty Hohenstufen for several years diverted Honorius
in. by repeated and vain promises; and he did not decide
to depart until the time when the successor of Honorius,
Gregory IX., who did not let himself be paid in words,
threatened him with excommunication. Let us see how he
acted. He left Brindisi on 8th September 1227 ; then after
a three days' sail he put back into the port of Otranto under
the pretext that his army was decimated by a contagious
epidemic (11th September). The terrible Gregory at once
excommunicated the man who had trifled in such a fashion.
Then Frederick again set sail, and landed at St. Jean d'Acre
in September 1228. But Gregory ix., far from yielding on
account of so tardy a submission, ordered the clergy and
monks in the Holy Land to refuse obedience to this German
Caesar and to publish the excommunication pronounced against
him. In its first phase, as imposed by the Pope, the crusade
of Frederick had lasted three days ; now that it entered the
realm of reality it was interdicted by the Pope. Without
being arrested by the pontifical pensure, the German emperor
pursued his undertaking. But here again he made an in
novation. Instead of fighting battles he engaged in negotia
tions ; for brute force he submitted diplomacy. The diplo
macy was successful. By the treaty of Jaffa (1229) the
sultan of Egypt ceded to him Jerusalem, Bethlehem,
Nazareth, and the routes and hamlets which connected these
towns with St. Jean d'Acre — with this reservation, that the
Mussulmans should enjoy the free exercise of their religion.
When all these negotiations were ended Frederick returned

490 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
to Europe, and the Pope, who had done everything to hinder
his conquest, accepted it when it was accomplished. He
withdrew his excommunication and ratified the treaty of
Jaffa (1230). Thanks to an excommunicated emperor,
Jerusalem was again in the power of the Christians.
Seventh Crusade} — In 1244, Turcoman bands coming
from Kharisma captured Jerusalem and defeated the Chris
tians at Gaza. Since the treaty of Jaffa hardly fifteen
years had passed, and of the work of Frederick n. nothing
whatever remained. At this time the chair of St. Peter
was occupied by Innocent iv. This Pope followed the example
of his predecessors; in the council of Lyons (1245) he pro
claimed the crusade, and charged his legates to go and call
the Christian nations to the Holy War. But Europe at that
time had other cares. France alone listened to the voice of
the legates ; and France would have remained deaf had not
her leader been that mystical prince whom history calls St.
Louis. St. Louis resolved to go to war for the glory of
Christ. He took this resolution in spite of his council, and
made his barons follow him. Inspired like the other crusades
by the papacy, the seventh crusade was supported by the
French, who were joined by some of the English. It was the
work of St. Louis.
Its theatres of action were two in number : Egypt and
Syria. Leaving Paris in June 1248, St. Louis embarked at
Aigues-Mortes, went to winter on the island of Cyprus, left
the island in March 1249, and sailed for Damietta. This
was taken without resistance (June 1249). But the Mussul
man army was firmly entrenched ten leagues farther on at
El Mansourah. St. Louis went to meet it. The attack,
if it had been well led, would have been victorious, but the
rashness of Robert d'Artois, brother of the king, spoiled it all.
Without listening to advice this fiery prince attacked the
Saracens. His haste, which cost him his life as well as the
1 Joinville, Histoire de Saint Louis, xxv-cxxx (edit, by de Wailly), Paris,
1867 ; Guillaume de Nangis, "Gesta Ludovici regis" (Historiens des Gaules et
de la France, xx. 312) ; Brehier, pp. 215-227.

THE CONFLICT WITH INFIDELITY AND HERESY 491
lives of his little troop, placed the whole Christian army in
a precarious situation (December 1249). Nevertheless for
some months St. Louis resisted the enemy. Finally, in April
1250, threatened with famine, he retreated to Damietta. But
with most of his chevaliers he was made a prisoner. To re
cover his freedom and that of . his companions he was obliged
to evacuate Damietta and to pay 800,000 pieces of gold.
The expedition to Egypt resulted only in a very heavy debt.
After being freed St. Louis went to Palestine. There he
remained four years (1250—1254), four years during which
he awaited help from Europe which did not come. Only
some enthusiastic peasants to the number of 100,000, organ
ized the crusade called the crusade of the " shepherd boys,"
who excited the hatred of the people and were massacred
by them. These were four years during which his piety and
virtue awakened the admiration of all who approached him.
He decided to return to France only when be learned of the
death of his mother, Blanche of Castile, to whom he had con
fided the regency. Like several of those which preceded it
the seventh crusade encountered complete failure.
Eighth Crusade.1 — Such was also the fate of the eighth
and last crusade. For a time there was some question of
directing it against Constantinople, which since 1261 had
again come under the sway of the Greek schismatics. Pope
Urban rv., indeed, in 1262 invited certain princes, and
especially St. Louis, to restore the Latin empire established
on the Bosphorus in 1204. But the new emperor, Michael
Palsologus knew how to avert the storm, by feigning to
plan the reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches. Moreover,
sinister news arrived in the meantime from Palestine, where
some towns previously occupied by Christians fell one after
another into the power of the Mussulmans. From this time the
crusade of Constantinople gave place to the crusade of the holy
places in the thought of the papacy. In 1266, Clement iv.
addressed an appeal with this purpose in view to St. Louis
'Joinville, cxliv-cxlvi ; Guillaume de Nangis, xx. 438; Brehier, pp.
33-238.

492 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
and to the French barons. A second time St. Louis made
the crusade, and accompanied by his sons embarked with his
army at Aigues-Mortes (July 1270). Being informed that
the Sultan of Tunis was disposed to become a Christian, he
set sail for that town and landed at the ruins of Carthage.
The information was false ; the Mussulmaus were hostile and
the Christian army was forced to entrench itself in camp.
But soon the plague broke out. It seized the pontifical
legate, many of the nobles, and Tristan, the younger son of
the king of France. Then St. Louis himself was attacked
by the terrible scourge, and on 25th August 1270 he died.
The French princes returned to France : only Edward, the
future king of England, who had just arrived at Tunis, wished
to carry the war into Palestine, from whence he soon departed,
discouraged. Gregory x. in the council of Lyons (1274), Clement v.
in the council of Vienne (1311), exhorted the Christian
princes to take arms for the deliverance of Palestine; they
obtained promises which did not even begin to be fulfilled. An
attempt of Nicholas iv. (about 1291) had still less importance,
Urban V. (1363), Boniface ix. (1396), Eugenius rv. (1439),
Calixtus m. (1455), Pius n. (1459), Sixtus rv. (1472 and
1481), Innocent vin. (1485), Alexander vi. (1500), and
Leo x. (1516) also preached the Holy War. Aid, when
they obtained it, was always insufficient, and resulted only
in defeat like that of Nicopolis (1396), or in success which
had no morrow like that gained by John Hunyade (1442-
145 6).1 Moreover, after 1291 the Turks, being masters of
St. Jean d'Acre, possessed the whole of Palestine. In the
middle of the fourteenth century they overflowed into
Europe, and after Urban v. the expeditions that the papacy
succeeded in organizing against them were purely defensive.
1 J. Delaville le Roulx, La France en Orient au xiv™ siecle, Paris, 1885 ;
N. Jorga, Philippe de Mezieres et la croisade au xiv"" siicle, Paris, 1896 ;
J. Gay, Le Pape Clement VI. et les affaires d' Orient, Paris, 1904 ; H. Vast, Le
Cardinal Bessarion, Paris, 1878 ; Pastor, i. 244, 513, 585, ii. 241-288, 561-
571, iii. 218-234, 461-473.

THE CONFLICT WITH INFIDELITY AND HERESY 493
The authentic crusades, those which were directed for the
conquest of the Holy Sepulchre, ceased after St. Louis.
They disappeared before they had achieved their object,
since at the close of the thirteenth century the Mussulmans
were established more firmly than ever in Palestine. In
return, the crusades weakened considerably the power of
the nobles, whom they separated from their estates, and
who were thus placed in a position where their authority
could not be exercised. In like manner the crusades en
couraged the emancipation of the communes and of the
serfs; and as the communes solicited the protection of
royalty, which made them pay for the help afforded, the
crusades, while weakening feudalism, contributed powerfully
to develop the royal authority ; that is to say, they played
an important part in the formation of nationalities. That
was not all. By requiring long naval expeditions of people
of the West, who had hitherto not dared to leave their own
shores, the crusades gave a vigorous impulse to shipping.
And in revealing to these peoples the richness of the East,
they gave birth to desires which demanded satisfaction, and
could be satisfied only by commerce. The crusades, therefore,
gave rise to commercial exchanges between the East and the
West. The result of these exchanges was the importation
into Europe of certain products, some natural (plants like
maize and apricots), others industrial (stuffs, glass ware,
windmills), of which the East up to that time had had a
monopoly. Finally, the crusades contributed to indulgences
so great an impetus that there is little exaggeration in saying
that they created the latter. On the whole, the crusades,
which did not indeed achieve their object, had unlooked-for
results. They were a factor of the first order — although
unconsciously a factor — in the political, the social, the
economical, and even the theological evolution of the Middle
Ages. Let us revert to the disappearance of the crusades
in order to seek an explanation of it.
The popes frequently appealed to the Christian peoples
to take arms against the infidels of Europe, against heretics,

494 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
or the enemies of the papacy. In other words, parallel to
the Holy War waged for the conquest of Palestine numerous
holy wars were preached, for which from the thirteenth
century indulgences were granted, the indulgences of the
crusade, or, as they were called, the indulgences of the Holy
Land. By these tactics the popes diverted a part of the
enthusiasm which they themselves had directed towards
Palestine. They provoked a dangerous rival to the crusades ;
they contributed involuntarily to the prevention of these
undertakings. Peoples and kings, in proportion as they
became conscious of their existence and of their destinies,
were more and more inspired by material interests, and more
and more set terrestrial claims above the claims of heaven.
The formation of nationalities had a much more dissolving
action upon the crusades than had the popes. Hence it
follows that the crusades dug their own grave, since to them
is due the evoking of nationalities. Inquisition
The suppression of heresy passed through two principal
periods. At first it was effected by the bishops and princes
without any papal supervision. That was the first period,
which extended to the council of Toulouse (1119). — At the
council of Reims (1049), Pope Leo IX. occupied himself
only incidentally with heretics, and issued against them
a sentence of excommunication which probably had no
practical significance. — The papacy then substituted its own
initiative for that of the bishops and princes, and itself gave
advice as to the measures which were to be taken to assure
the maintenance of orthodoxy. That was the second period.
Under the first system the repression of heresy was,
at the outset, very moderate, as is shown by the fate of
Gottschalk. That rebellious monk was condemned to be
scourged and imprisoned. In relation to the morals of the
time, this punishment was not excessive. But in the
eleventh century the horrible punishment by fire made its
appearance. Heretics were condemned to perish in the

THE CONFLICT WITH INFIDELITY AND HERESY 495
flames. Without doubt these executions were at times the
work of furious mobs; but more often they had a legal
character which could not be disputed. That was the case,
for example, with the scene which occurred at Orleans in
1022.1 Ten canons and some laymen accused of heresy
were arrested by order of King Robert, and led to the church
of Sainte-Croix to be judged. The king, surrounded by
bishops and clergy, himself directed the debates, which lasted
about five hours. During all this time Queen Constance
stood at the door of the church with a truncheon in her
hand and kept order by holding back the crowd which
sought to force their way in. The accused were declared
guilty. It was announced to them that if they persisted
in their heresy they would be punished by fire, and they
were urged to retract. They remained unshaken, were led
out of the city, and were delivered to the flames. King
Robert and his bishops took manifest care to conduct this
affair according to the rules of law. Besides this, the Salic
Law and the law of the Visigoths, agreeing in this respect
with the Roman legislation, punished by fire certain crimes
of exceptional gravity. In order to obtain their juris
diction the bishops and princes of the eleventh century
needed only to adapt to the morals of the period the edicts of
Theodosius the Great, of Theodosius IL, and of Valentinian n.,
edicts contained in the codes which were preserved and
known. It was with Pope Calixtus n. in the council of Toulouse
(1119) that the papacy first charged itself with the sup
pression of heresy. At this time, especially in the south
of France, heretics were the object of a tolerance which
often amounted almost to sympathy. Calixtus being alarmed
at this situation, preoccupied himself in enveloping heresy
in an atmosphere of intolerance. Such was the preoccupation
of his successors. When the popes undertook to direct the
conflict against the enemies of orthodoxy, it was less to enact
new laws against them than to apply those already in
existence. It was to assuring this application, in other
1 Mansi, xix. 376.

496 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
words to establishing and developing a regime of intolerance,
that all their efforts tended. The measures were numerous,
but they may be reduced to three principal ones.
The first consisted in entrusting to the princes by an
imperative mandate the task of acting as police to the
Church. We find it explicitly stated by the council of Toulouse
(1119, canon 3): "We order that they [the heretics who
reject the sacraments] be punished by the temporal power.
We inflict the same penalty on their partisans, until they
shall reform."1 The Lateran council (1139) presided over
by Innocent II. condemned heretics to be "imprisoned by
the Catholic princes," and their goods to be confiscated ;2 and
in the Lateran council (1179) Pope Alexander in. again
authorized princes to imprison heretics, and again submitted
the goods of these men to confiscation. He added that the
subjects of a heretic should refuse him obedience and respect.3
This ¦ repeated and comminatory appeal to the secular arm
should theoretically have extirpated heresy. Experience
shows that it was insufficient. The princes and nobles,
especially in the south of France, turned a deaf ear to the
injunctions given them, and subjects remained submissive
to heretical princes. It was necessary to seek something
more efficacious. The papacy sought and found an institution
for ever famous, which represented and incarnated the sup
pression of heresy — the Inquisition.
By the term Inquisition is meant a tribunal which was
devoted to the search for heresy and its suppression. The
tribunal was instituted in the council of Verona (1184) by
Pope Lucius in., in concert with the emperor Frederick
Barbarossa. The following is the pontifical text : " All
the archbishops and bishops shall visit once or twice
a year in person, or by their archdeacons, or by other
honourable persons, the places in their dioceses where the
1 "Per potestates exteras coercere praacipimus."
2 "Per catholicos principes custodise mancipati omnium bonorum amissions
mulctentur." 8 "Relaxatos autem se noverint a debito fidelitatis et hominii ac totius
obsequii. "

THE CONFLICT WITH INFIDELITY AND HERESY 497
presence of heretics may be indicated by popular rumour.
Upon arriving there they shall apply to three or four men
of good reputation, or, if it appears necessary, to all the
inhabitants of the place, and shall command them to engage
themselves by oath (si expedire videhir jurare compellat) to
denounce after diligent search those whom they know to be
heretics, those who frequent secret meetings, those whose
manner of life is peculiar. The bishops or their archdeacons
shall cause the accused to appear, who shall be punished if
they fail to exculpate themselves." '
Founded by Lucius in. and Barbarossa, the Inquisition
passed through two or even three stages before reaching
a definite status. In its primitive form it was in the hands
of the bishops. In the constitution just cited it is the
bishops or their delegates who receive the mission to inspect
the places contaminated by heresy : it is they who judge
the guilty, and cause them previously to be denounced.
Lucius in. thus founded the " episcopal inquisition." Let it
at once be said that this institution did not respond to the
hopes which were placed upon it. In their hunt for heretics
the bishops were indolent, and ordinarily did not hunt them
at all. Hence in the Lateran council (1215) Innocent in.
promulgated again the decretal of Lucius in., and threatened
to depose the prelates who neglected to execute it.2 This
was in vain. The same Pope, and his successors Honorius in.
and Gregory ix., also appealed to the papal legates. The
latter convoked councils at Avignon (1209), Montpellier
(1215), Toulouse (1225), and proclaimed the pontifical
legislation. At times they even substituted themselves for
the bishops, as for example the legates did who (in 119 8)
were sent into Languedoc for some time parallel to the
episcopal inquisition, in order to supplement it — what was
called the " legatine inquisition." s It exercised a powerful
1 Decretale Ad abolendam (Decret. Gregor. v. tit. vii. 9) ; see Lea, i. 313.
2 "Si quis enim episcopus super expurgando de sua diascesi hsereticae
pravitatis fermento negligens fuerit vel remissus . . . ab episcopali officio
deponatur." 8 Lea, i. 315-317.
32

498 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
influence upon the princes, especially in the war of the
Albigenses. It also had the effect of making the bishops
publish formidable decisions — on paper — notably in the
council of Narbonne (1227), where the bishops, seeing the
legate arrive among them escorted by a French army,
decreed the institution in every parish of "synodical wit
nesses," charged to discover and denounce heretics. But the
legates could not be everywhere at the same time ; so, every
where heresy was disseminated. In order to combat it
efficaciously, nothing less than an army was needed.
This was understood by Gregory IX., who at first enlisted
energetic men in his service, among whom should here be
mentioned Conrad of Marburg.1 He then turned to the
Dominicans. This order, which had just been founded,
was fighting heresy with the weapons of the preacher;
Gregory put other weapons into its hands. He confided to
it the mission which the bishops refused to discharge, which
the legates, in spite of their good intentions, discharged so
imperfectly. He imposed upon it the task of searching for
heretics, and punishing them. In other words, for the
episcopal inquisition and the legatine inquisition, he sub
stituted the " monastic inquisition." 2 It may be remarked that
he did not appreciate the significance of his act. He did not
propose to establish new legislation : the measure which he
took, he thought was temporary, or it may be said he was
trying an experiment. It was therefore unwittingly that he
founded the monastic inquisition ; nevertheless he founded
it in 1231, and the motive which he obeyed on this occasion
is manifest in his letter (13th April 1235) to the bishops, in
which he says : " Seeing that you [the bishops] are drawn into
a whirlwind of cares, and that you can scarcely breathe under
the weight of the preoccupations that overwhelm you, we think
it expedient to divide your burden in order that it may more
easily be borne. Consequently we have decided to send friar
preachers [Dominicans] against the heretics of France and
of your provinces, and we beseech and exhort you, for the
1 Lea, ii. 325-332 ; Potthast, 7931 ; Fredericq, i. 71.
2 Lea, i. 374 ; Tanon, 173.

THE CONFLICT WITH INFIDELITY AND HERESY 499
sake of the veneration which you feel for the Holy See, to
receive them amicably, to treat them well, to aid them with
your benevolence, your counsels, and your support, to the
end that they may be able efficaciously to perform their
task."1 The Inquisition, which since Lucius in. had been in
course of evolution, was thus definitely established by
Gregory ix. in 1231. What, then, became of the old
principle of appeal to the secular arm ? It occupied a place
of honour in the new institution, and was indeed one of the
most important parts of its machinery. In the same decree
which ordered the bishops to hunt the heretics, Lucius in.
said : " Counts, barons, rectors, and consuls of cities or other
places shall be ordered by the bishops to bind themselves
by an oath to afford the Church, whenever required to, a
devoted and efficient co-operation, in all good faith, and
according to their means. If they refuse this co-operation,
they will be deprived of their places, without compensation,
and their lands will be put under an interdict."
In 1198, Innocent III. asked the "princes and the
people " to oppose heresy with the " material sword " ; and
in the Lateran council (1215) he re-edited the orders of
Lucius III., and even aggravated them, for he added : " The
excommunicated prince [for his refusal to intervene against
heretics] shall at the end of a year be denounced by
the Sovereign Pontiff, who shall free his subjects from their
oath of fidelity, and deliver his country to the invasion of
Catholics." 2
For several years the princes turned a deaf ear to these
threatening commands ; but one after another they sub-
1 Potthast, 9143. The first monument of this institution is the Roman
"statute" which Gregory drew up in A.D. 1231, and which the Roman senator
published by his order (Reg. 540): "hsereticos qui fuerunt in Urbe reperti
praesertim per inquisitores, datos ab Ecclesia vel alios viros catholicos senator
capere teneatur." See Douais, L' Inquisition, ses origines, sa procedure, p. 131,
Paris, 1906 ; but observe that the theories of this author conflict with the best
established facts.
2 "Si satisfacere contempserit infra annum, significetur hoc summo pontifici
nt extunc ipse vasallos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet absolutos et terram exponat
catholicis occupandam."

500 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
mitted. Raymond v., count of Toulouse, promulgated (be
fore 1194) a law against all heretics in his dominions. In
1197, Pierre II. of Aragon subjected his states to an
analogous regime, " in order to obey the canons of the Holy
Roman Church."1 In 1184 the German emperor, Frederick
Barbarossa, introduced the edict of Lucius in. into civil
legislation : it should be remarked, however, that he allowed
it to remain a dead letter. Frederick n., on ascending the
throne (1213), engaged himself to lend aid to the papacy
against heresy. In 1220, from Rome, whither he had gone
for his coronation, he issued against heretics a constitution,
the terms of which he borrowed from the Lateran council
(1215), and which he applied to the whole empire. In
1224 there was a new constitution by the same emperor,
designed for Lombardy. Then came the constitutions of
1232, 1238, and 1239.2 In 1226 the king of France,
Louis viii., issued an analogous decree, which Blanche of
Castile completed in the name of her son, Louis ix. (St.
Louis).3 The following is an extract from the edict of
1228: "We order our barons, bailiffs, and other subjects,
both present and future, to purge our dominions of heresy, to
search out the heretics, to deliver them over without delay
to the ecclesiastical authority, in order that, according to its
judgment, they may be dealt with as they ought to be dealt
with." Raymond VI., count of Toulouse, did not display
the same docility to the pontifical injunctions. It has been
elsewhere noticed that he paid dearly for his disobedience.4
It need not be said that the civil power, whenever it
legislated against heretics, supported its commands with
severe sanctions. Frederick Barbarossa condemned heretics
to exile, and confiscated their goods. Pierre of Aragon pro
nounced against them the penalty of fire. Before him,
Raymond v. of Toulouse decreed the same punishment.
1 Lea, i. 81 ; Hefele, v. 767 ; Tanon, p. 447.
2 Monumenta Germanix, Leges, sect. iv. ii. 57, 107, 127 ; Lea, i. 221, 231.
3 De Lauriere, Ordonnances des rois de France de la troisieme race, i. 50,
Paris, 1723.
4 See above, "Anti-sacerdotal Heresies.''

THE CONFLICT WITH INFIDELITY AND HERESY 501
Frederick in., in 1221, limited the penalties to exile and the
confiscation of goods, but in 1224 he decreed the punish
ment by fire; and in later edicts he extended to all the
empire the penalty which in 1224 applied only to Lom
bardy. The ordinances of Louis vin. and of St. Louis
were expressed in vague, laconic terms (animadversione debita
puniantur, faciant quod debebunt), in which there is a general
agreement to recognize punishment by fire, or at least punish
ment by death.1
To sum up the matter, the papacy, under the most severe
penalties, commanded the civil power to rid it of heresies, and
the civil power acquitted itself of the task by executing the
heretics, most often by fire. In order to express this col
laboration, the papacy in its official texts (decretal of Lucius
in. ; ordinance of the Lateran council, 1215), employed the
following formula with details which varied : " Condemned
by the Church, they [the heretics] will be abandoned to the
secular tribunal to receive the punishment which is due to
them." It was a circumspect formula, concerned more with
avoiding than with assuming responsibility. The explanation
is easy. The ancient canons forbade the clergy to shed
blood. It was necessary to be in conformity to these laws
of another age ; it was necessary to appear not to shed blood
even when the civil power was forced to take violent
measures. It was to solve this difficult problem that the
above-said locution was intended, and this is the solution :
The Church " abandons " the heretic to the secular arm ; its
r61e is limited to proving the heresy ; the rest is beyond its
competence, and does not concern it.
When the secular arm left the heretic at liberty, the
Church could call him to order, and in so doing, it did not
think that it was going beyond its own domain. It might
equally well have prevented the civil power from putting
heretics to death by fire or otherwise, if the penalty of death
seemed to it excessive. It therefore approved the punish
ment which it was aware of, which it could prevent, which
it did not prevent. It provoked it the rather, by " abandon-
1 Tanon, p. 461 ; Havet, ii. 169.

502 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
ing" the heretic to the civil power, which without this
previous " abandonment " could have done nothing. And
its pretended incompetence with reference to punishments
inflicted on heresy, was only a fiction.
Moreover, the fiction was only temporary. If at first
the Church was shut up to it, it was not long in freeing
itself. The canonists set the example in the eleventh century,
by teaching that heresy should be punished with death.
Emboldened by the language of the canonists, Innocent in.
declared that the "material sword" should come to the
assistance of ecclesiastical censures, that in case of necessity,
exile should take the place of " more severe punishment."
And not content with this allusion to the penalty of death,
it set forth that heresy is a greater crime than high treason,
which is punished with death. In 1227, Honorius m.
obliged the Lombards to embody in their municipal statutes
the ecclesiastical and imperial constitutions against heresy,
notably those of Frederick n. In the register of pontifical
letters, Gregory ix. inserted the imperial constitution of
1224, which inflicted upon heretics punishment by fire.
In the month of February 1231 he published a constitution
which condemned repentant heretics to imprisonment for
life, and appointed for refractory heretics an unspecified
punishment, which could only have been the pain of death.
Furthermore, he at once ordered Annibaldo, a Roman senator,
to enforce this constitution ; and the result of this injunction
is described in the text of a contemporary chronicler : " In
this month of February certain heretics were discovered in
Rome. Those who refused to retract, were burned ; the rest
were sent to Mount Cassin and to Cava to do penance."
In the spring of 1231, Gregory sent to all the archbishops
and bishops his constitution and the decree drawn up under
his direction by the senator Annibaldo, ordering them to
conform their conduct to it ; and in a letter to the archbishop of
Sens (1 234) he frankly declared that " the Apostolic See should
shed blood " in order to prevent Christians from being corrupted
by contact with heretics. The very decisive acts of Gregory
IX, his plain words, made clumsy circumlocutions and captious

THE CONFLICT WITH INFIDELITY AND HERESY 503
phrases useless. St. Thomas understood this; he avowed
most frankly that the Church condemns to death heretics
who have relapsed. His only concern was to reconcile this
severity with the precept of Christian charity. He solved
the problem by a series of arguments which may be summed
up as follows : Inasmuch as heresy is the greatest of all sins,
those who are guilty of heresy deserve forthwith to be put
to death. The Church permits those to live who are not
obstinate and who do not relapse, and thus shows them
charity. When heretics are obstinate, or have relapsed, the
Church is opposed to the continuance of their lives. In this
respect it has in view the spiritual welfare of the faithful,
to whom contact with hardened heretics would be dangerous.
In the first instance, the Church exercises charity in the
interests of the guilty ; in the second, it acts for the benefit
of the faithful. In either case it performs an act of
charity.1 We cannot pause here to describe the workings of the
Inquisition : we shall confine ourselves to a brief outline.
The inquisitors belonged sometimes to the order of St.
Dominic, sometimes to the order of St. Francis.
Whoever was denounced as a heretic by two witnesses
was found guilty of heresy. Criminals, who, by the common
law, were not to act as witnesses, were admitted to denounce
heretics ; and their denunciations were believed. The accused
learned from his judges what charges were brought against
him ; he knew them only incompletely through a garbled report.
Moreover, he was not brought face to face with his accusers ;
their names were kept secret. He was authorized merely to
give a list of his mortal enemies ; and the testimony of any
denouncers whose names were on this list was rejected. He
was obliged to defend himself, and could not commit his
cause to any advocate. At length, from the time of Innocent
iv. (Constitution Ad extirpanda, 1252), he was subjected to
1 E. Jordan, "La ResponsabiliU de 1'lSglise dans la repression de l'heresie au
Moyen Age," in Annates de philosophic chritienne, 4" serie, iv. 245 (1907),
vi. 4-30 (1908) ; St. Thomas, Summ. Theol., ii. 2, xi. 3, 4 ; Lea, i. 536 ;
Vacandard, I' Inquisition, p. 212, Paris, 1905.

504 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
torture to oblige him to admit his guilt. When the victim,
overcome by suffering, made his avowals, he was led into a
neighbouring room and there declared that he admitted his
guilt, " of his own full accord, without having been con
strained." During the first years following its establishment,
the infliction of torture was a task reserved for the laity.
But Popes Alexander iv. (1260) and Urban iv. (1262)
authorized ecclesiastics to fill the r61e of torturers. Let us
add that torture was to be inflicted but once, and that it
was not to be renewed : only the stance could be suspended,
and then, after an interval more or less long, the work could
be resumed. This was called continuing the torture; and
the continuation was in conformity to the law.1
The Inquisition did not everywhere meet with the same
reception. There were even certain countries where, as will
be seen, it never penetrated. From 1231 it was conducted
in Germany under the direction of the secular priest, Conrad
of Marburg, whose exploits the Dominican, Conrad Tors,
sought to imitate. But these two men, veritable monsters,
committed such excesses that the native population rebelled
against the system which they inaugurated. Popes Innocent
vi. and Urban v., who after 1353 endeavoured again to
introduce it in this country, achieved only meagre results.
In 1484, Innocent viii. was more fortunate. At that time
an epidemic of sorcery raged on the borders of the Rhine.
Innocent vin. charged the inquisitors Institoris and Sprengel
to arrest the evil by juridical methods. His orders were
executed, and a number of sorceresses perished at the
stake.2 The south of France was submitted to the regime of the
Inquisition from the pontificate of Innocent ni. The north
was subjected to it after 1229. Some of the inquisitors paid
for their terrible mission with their lives. In 1208 the
pontifical legate, Pierre de Castelnau, was assassinated in the
region of Toulouse. In 1242 two inquisitors, as well as the
assessors who accompanied them, were killed at Avignonet :
1 Tanon, p. 396 ; Lea, i. chaps, viii. -xiv. ; Vacandard, pp. 190-218.
2 Lea, ii. chap, vi., iii. 540-547, iii. 356-373.

THE CONFLICT WITH INFIDELITY AND HERESY 505
and the Dominican Robert le Bougre, who terrorized
Champagne, Flanders, and Burgundy, was condemned (1239)
to prison for life. In spite of these incidents, the Inqui
sition remained in force in the kingdom of France. For two
centuries it burned heretics ; sometimes, to please the civil
power, it even consented to condemn for the crime of heresy
persons who were not heretics at all, as may be seen
from the action against the Templars, in which the Inquisition
was the docile instrument of the covetousness of Philip le
Bel; also from the process of Jeanne d'Arc (1431), in which
the debates were directed by the bishop Cauchon, with the
assistance of the pontifical inquisitor, Pierre le Maitre. The
Pragmatic Sanction of 1438, which placed the Church of
France beyond the attacks of pontifical influence, struck a
blow at the Inquisition from which it did not recover even
when the Pragmatic Sanction was abolished.1 We may
remark, however, that heresy gained nothing by that loss.
During a part of the sixteenth century the king of France,
urged by parliament, persecuted the Protestants in his states
with a violence worthy of the inquisitors. After the death
of Henry n.,2 the cardinal de Lorraine endeavoured to re
establish the Inquisition, but the chancellor Michael de
l'Hopital caused the plan to fail (1560).
Introduced in Spain by Gregory ix. (1233), the Inqui
sition remained for a long time confined to the north of
that country, notably to the kingdom of Aragon. In 1481,
Pope Sixtus IV. and king Ferdinand the Catholic changed
this state of things, and extended the Inquisition to the whole
of Spain. It was then that the famous Torquemada appeared,
who alone caused thousands to perish ; and Pierre Arbues,
who, after sacrificing numerous victims, was himself assassin
ated. The Inquisition which was conducted after Sixtus iv.
was a pontifical, not a royal, institution, as Hefele, followed
1 Already, in 1373, Pope Gregory xi. complained to Charles v.: "Some
of your officials [in Dauphiny], far from supporting the inquisitors as they
should, put obstacles in their way" (Raynald, 1373, n. 19 and 20).
2 Edict of Romorantin, which granted bishops the right to take cognizance
of heresy, independently of the Roman inquisition ; Guettee, Histoire de I'iglise
de France, viii. 374, Paris, 1857.

506 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
by several historians, affirms. It is proved that the in
quisitors derived their powers from the Pope.1
By order of Clement v. the king of England, Edward n.,
authorized pontifical inquisitors to come into his kingdom to
conduct the trial of the Templars (1309). After long hesita
tion, and at the lively instance of the Pope, he even per
mitted the unfortunate knights to be put to torture (1311).
Up to that time England did not know the Inquisition,
and after the affair of the Templars had been regulated it
knew the Inquisition no more. In short, it was scarcely
touched by the pontifical inquisition, and the other countries
of northern Europe were in a like situation. But at
times its rulers put themselves in the place of the Pope,
and persecuted heresy in their kingdom. In 1166, Henry
n. caused to be scourged, branded with a red-hot iron,
and expelled, thirty Flemings who held the opinions of the
Cathares. Three centuries later, Henry iv., urged by his
bishops, organized a cruel persecution against the Lollards or
disciples of Wycliffe, of which mention has been made else
where. The reaction which the Lutheran tempest had in
Great Britain has also been noticed.2
The Popes after Lucius in. worked energetically to make
heresy disappear from Italy. They encountered serious re
sistance. In 1252 several inquisitors — among whom was
the famous Peter of Verona, called Peter Martyr — were mass
acred. Yet, little by little, the people accepted the inevitable.
The Inquisition was acclimatized in the whole of Italy ; at
Venice it even became a state institution, and as such it was
conducted independently of the papacy.8 In 1542, Pope
Paul in., at the request of cardinal Caraffa, who was after
wards Paul IV., reformed the Inquisition by the bull Licet
ab initio, and gave it a centralization, the effects of which
were especially felt in Italy.* Under Paul iv. the Inquisition
became an instrument of terror, and displayed a severity
which cardinal Seripando himself qualified as inhuman.6
1 Lea, ii. chap. iii. ; Pastor, ii. 624-630. 2 Lea, iii. 299, i. 352.
8 Id., ii. 207, 220, 249. * Pastor, v. 709.
6 Id., vi. 507, which refutes the assertion of Moroni.

THE CONFLICT WITH INFIDELITY AND HERESY 507
Special mention should here be made of the Waldenses,
the origin of whom has been explained elsewhere. From the
end of the twelfth century these heretics were the object of
a persecution which was relaxed during the first half of the
fifteenth century, but which raged with particular violence
during the pontificates of Gregory xi. (1370-1378) and Inno
cent vm. (1484-1492). Gregory xi. earnestly urged the king
of France, Charles v., and the counts of Savoy to aid the
Inquisition ; and his exhortations were not in vain. Supported
by the secular power, the inquisitor Francis Borel laboured
actively for a quarter of a century in Dauphiny and Savoy,
as well as in Piedmont. In 1393 he burned in a single
day one hundred and fifty heretics at Grenoble. Some years
later, at the head of an army, he entered the small town of
Pragelato, slew a part of the inhabitants, and dispersed the
remnant, who perished with hunger. Innocent vm. organized
a crusade. By his order the pontifical nuncio raised an
army, and entrusted the leadership to Hugues de la Palu,
who conscientiously massacred the heretics. In order to
escape these attacks the inhabitants of Val-Louise took
refuge in the cave of Aile-Froide, which they supposed to be
inaccessible. Hugues succeeded in reaching them, and lighted
fire at the entrance of the cave, which suffocated them (1489).1
The Inquisition could attack only individuals, or, at most,
small groups. In order to strike a blow at princes and
peoples an army was necessary, war was necessary. War
formed the third of the measures to which the papacy resorted
in order to arrest the progress of heresy. Having no troops
in its pay, it applied to the kings and barons. It enjoined
upon them to march and to make their men march against
the enemies of the faith. Innocent ni. first set the example
by organizing the war of the Albigenses. Later, Martin v.
sent Sigismund against the Hussites. Then came Paul IL,
who dispatched Mathias Corvin against Podiebrad, king of
Bohemia. Next it was the turn of Innocent vnx, who
1 Lea, ii. 152-160 ; Chabrand, Vaudois et Protestants des Alpes, p. 36, Paris,
1886 ; Tanon, p. 103 ; H. Pissard, La Guerre sainte en pays Chretien, p. 145,
Paris,' 1912.

508 • THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
endeavoured to exterminate the Waldenses. Finally, Leo x.
and his successors urged Charles v. to take arms against the
Protestants. Wars were therefore undertaken by order of
the Popes. And these wars, which have been explained
elsewhere, and need only be alluded to here, were, with the
exception of the last, holy wars — crusades to which the
papacy granted the same spiritual favours as were granted
to the expeditions to the Holy Land.1
Here we must notice the numerous wars which the
popes, following the example set by Gregory vn., waged
against kings or states against whom they thought they had
a grievance. They were the wars waged by Innocent in.
against John Lackland (1212), then against the English
barons (1215); by the same pope against Philip of Swabia
(1201), against Otto iv. (1211); by Gregory ix. against
Frederick n. (1228 and 1239); by Innocent iv. against the
same emperor (1246 and 1248); against Conrad IV., by the
same Pope (1248 and 1251), who offered the crown of Sicily
to Richard, count of Cornouailles, then to prince Edmund,
son of Henry in. of England ; against Manfred, by Alexander
iv. (1255), who urged Henry III. to take arms, and march to
the conquest of Sicily; against the same Manfred, by Urban rv.,
who — when the preceding project failed — gave the crown of
Sicily to Charles of Anjou, the brother of St. Louis (1264);
against Conradin, by Clement rv. (1267); against Pierre in.
of Aragon, beneficiary of the Sicilian Vespers, by Martin
IV., who invited Philip the Bold, king of France, to make the
conquest of Aragon for his son Charles of Valois (1283);
against Louis of Bavaria, by John xxii. (1328); against
France, by Urban vi., who wished by this means to stifle the
Great Schism at its beginning (1383); again against France,
by Julius IL, who in 1510 urged the kings to make the
conquest of that country, and in 1512 was disposed to offer
the throne of France to Henry vm. of England ; against
Venice, by Clement v. (1309); against the same republic, by
Julius II. (1509); against Florence, by Sixtus iv. ; against
the Visconti of Milan, by John xxn. (1321 and 1324)
1 Piseard, chaps, iii.— vi.

THE CONFLICT WITH INFIDELITY AND HERESY 509
by Urban v. (1363); against the Colonna, by Boniface vm. ;
by several popes against different Italian cities (Viterba,
Ferrare); against the despot Eggelin. Of these warlike
undertakings several had only a beginning; such was the
expedition against John Lackland, the result of which has
been noticed elsewhere. Others, for example, the attempt
of Urban VI. against France, and that of Martin iv. against
Aragon, failed miserably. Finally, others were wholly suc
cessful. To the last category belong the wars against
Manfred and Conradin, the war of Clement V. against the
Venetians. But until the council of Constance all the popes
likened their enemies to heretics or to Saracens ; all promised
remission of sins to those who took arms against those
heretics, against those Saracens ; they all transformed into
crusades the expeditions designed to safeguard their authority
or their temporal possessions. Besides these crusades against
the Mussulmans and the heretics, there were political crusades,
that is to say, crusades directed against the political enemies
of the papacy.1 Councils
Seventeen general councils were held between the sixth
century and the sixteenth. These councils may be classified as
imperial councils ; pontifical councils of the Middle Ages ;
reform councils of the fifteenth century; pontifical councils
of modern times.
I. Imperial Councils. To this class belong: (1) the
Council of Constantinople (553), called the fifth council,
which condemned the Three Chapters, and temporarily ex
communicated Pope Vigilius ; (2) the Council of Constanti
nople (680), called the sixth council, which condemned
Monothelism; (3) the third Council of Nicaea (787), which
condemned the iconoclasts ; (4) the Council of Constantinople
(872), which deposed Photius and replaced Ignatius as
patriarch of Constantinople. All these councils were con
voked by emperors ; the emperors, or their commissioners, pre-
1 Most of the facts here stated have been explained elsewhere. For the
threats of Julius n. against France, see Pissard, p. 157.

510 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
sided at almost all ; and when the civil power did not direct
the debates, it at least took an important part in them.
That is why these councils are called imperial.1
II. The Pontifical Councils of the Middle Ages are seven
in number, four of which were held at the Lateran, two at
Lyons, and one at Vienne. (1) The First Lateran Council
(1123) was convoked by Calixtus n. to ratify the concordat
of Worms, and to promulgate disciplinary rules. It met
from 18th March until 6th April; three hundred bishops and
more than six hundred abbots were present. (2) The Second
Lateran Council (1139) was convoked by Innocent il, to
condemn the opponents of his election, to promulgate rules
of discipline, and rigorously to punish Arnold of Brescia. A
thousand bishops, abbots, and priors of monasteries attended
it. (3) The Third Lateran Council (1179) was convoked by
Alexander in. after his victory over Frederick Barbarossa, to
make rules for the pontifical election and to promulgate
measures for the suppression of heresy. It met from 5th
March until 19 th March. Three hundred and two bishops
attended, of whom one hundred and sixty-one came from
Italy, four from England, and one from Scotland. (4) The
Fourth Lateran Council (1215) was convoked by Innocent III.
to organize a new crusade, repress the heresy of the Albi
genses, and promulgate disciplinary rules. It met from 11th
November until 30 th November. Two patriarchs, seventy-
one primates or metropolitans, four hundred and twelve
bishops, eight hundred abbots or priors, certain princes and
ambassadors, in all two thousand two hundred and eighty-
three persons were present. Among its disciplinary regula
tions was that prescribing confession and annual communion.
(5) The First Council of Lyons (1245) was convoked by Inno
cent IV. to depose Frederick il, to proclaim a new crusade, and
to suppress heresy. It was held from 28th June until 17th
July. About one hundred and fifty archbishops and bishops
F. Funk, "Die Berufung der bkumenischen Synoden des Alterthums," in
Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen, i. 39-86, Paderborn,
1897 ; Id., "Die piipstliche Bestatigung der acht ersten allgemeinen Synoden,"
ib. pp. 87-121 ; Hinschius, iii. 333-349 ; for details, ses Hefele.

THE CONFLICT WITH INFIDELITY AND HERESY 511
were present. (6) The Second Council of Lyons (1274) was
convoked by Gregory x. to proclaim the union of the Greek
with the Latin Church, to decree a new crusade, to make
rules for the pontifical election (institution of the conclave),
to promulgate disciplinary regulations. It met from 7th May
until 17th July. Five hundred bishops, seventy abbots, and
a thousand other dignitaries (priors, deans, delegates of
chapters, etc.). (7) The Council of Vienne (1311) was con
voked by Clement v. to settle the affair of the Templars,
to decree a new crusade, and to promulgate disciplinary
rules. It was held from 16th October 1311 to 6th April
1312. Three hundred bishops attended it.1 All these
councils were convoked by popes, and were presided over by
them.2 Theoretically, the bishops had a deliberative voice,
and the inferior prelates a consultative voice. Practically,
the bishops — except in rare and incidental affairs — had no
r61e other than that of informing the Pope when he asked
their advice. And this advice was asked, not of all, but of
some for whom the Pope had a special respect, whom he
deigned to consult either in private conversation or in semi-
public assemblies, analogous to those which to-day are called
commissions. These seven councils, then, were " chambers of
registration," that is to say, assemblies designed to register
the will of the Pope and to assure its execution in the whole
Church.8 Thus the Pope had over the whole Church, and
consequently over the general council, a superiority of which
no one — except certain theologians of the fourteenth century —
disputed the legitimacy, and the advantage of which only the
sin of heresy could make him lose. Were the Pope to become a
heretic he should be judged and condemned by the Church.
So long as he was not a heretic he gave his commands to
1 Hinschius, pp. 349-356.
2 Hinschius, pp. 362, 361. Barbarossa endeavoured to oonvoke a general
council, but failed. His attempt was not renewed. Frederick II. did not
dispute the exclusive right of the popes to convoke general councils ; he only
reproached them with abusing the right. He appealed from the council of
Lyons, which according to him was not general, to a general council ; but he
did not try to convoke it. See Hinschius, pp. 352, 354.
• Hinschius, p. 361.

512 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
the Church and to the councils. But to this so powerful
papacy, two misadventures occurred : (1) it did not know
how to preserve the Church nor itself from abuses ; (2) it
was itself the occasion of a schism, and was incompetent to
apply a remedy. Hence the reform councils.
III. The Reform Councils of the fifteenth century are three
in number. They were held at Pisa, Constance, and Bale.1
(1) The Council of Pisa (1409) was convoked by the
cardinals of the two rival popes, to put an end to the schism
and to effect a reform in the Church, " in its head, and in its
members.'' It met from 25th March until 7th August.
Twenty-two cardinals, four patriarchs, eighty bishops, one
hundred and two procurators of absent bishops, eighty-seven
abbots, two hundred procurators of absent abbots, were in
attendance. The two rival popes were deposed on 5 th June,
and Alexander V. was elected on 25 th June. Up to this
date the presiding officer was a cardinal; then, from 25th
June, Alexander v. The reform was postponed until the
meeting of a later council, fixed for the year 1412 (which in
fact was convoked at Rome by John xxm., the successor of
Alexander v., but failed because the number of members was
not sufficient). Moreover, the schism itself did not disappear ;
for the cardinals before deposing the rival popes had not taken
the precaution of coming to a previous understanding with
the princes, who — several of them, at least — considered the
decisions of Pisa as null, and continued to support their
respective popes.2
(2) The Council of Constance (1414) was convoked
by Sigismund and John xxm., to bring to a successful
result the two tasks which Pisa had unsuccessfully under
taken. It was held from 5th November 1414 until 22nd
April 1418. There were present twenty -nine cardinals,
three patriarchs, thirty-three archbishops, one hundred and
fifty bishops, more than five thousand monks, numerous
doctors and ambassadors, and lastly Sigismund and John xxm.
It brought the schism to an end by depriving the three popes
1 Hinschius, pp. 362-417. . >
2 Noel Valois, La France et le grand schisme d'Occident, Paris, 1902.

THE CONFLICT WITH INFIDELITY AND HERESY 513
of office, and in their place electing Martin v. (11th Novem
ber 1417); but it entrusted the work of reform to Martin,
who confined himself to making some concessions to the
" nations " by concordats, and continued in the old ways. In
short, the reform was hardly outlined.1 It is true that the
Council of Constance before dispersing ordered the Pope to
convoke the Council of Pavia in the year 1423 ; but Martin v.,
after convoking the said council, transferred it to Sienna,
then pronounced the dissolution of the Council of Sienna, and
bound himself to call a council at Bale in the year 143 1.2
(3) The Council of Bale (1431) was convoked by Martin v.,
who resigned himself to this measure because of the engage
ment he had made in 1423. The opening, which should have
taken place in March, was, for lack of members, adjourned
until 23rd July. The first session was not held until 14th
December. Supported by Sigismund, the council debated
successfully for two years with Pope Eugenius rv., who after
having pronounced its dissolution (18th December 1431) was
forced to annul this decision (15th December 1433). But
the Pope resumed hostilities in June 1436, and this time, for
reasons which have been noticed elsewhere, he gained the
victory. The council persisted in a fruitless resistance, which
it prolonged until the year 1449. Even in the days of its
prosperity it had counted only a small number of bishops ;
its force came from the support given to it by the princes
and by the university of Paris.8
IV. The Pontifical Councils of Modern Times are three
in number, and were held at Florence, Rome, and Trent*
(1) The Council of Florence (1439) was convoked by
Eugenius iv. to seal the reunion of the Greek with the Latin
Church. It met successively at Florence, at Ferrara, and at
Rome. It was at Florence that the most important negotiations
took place which, beginning on 26th February 1439, were
ended on 1 5th July of the same year. Latin and Greek bishops
1 Noel Valois, iv. 227-407 ; Pastor, i. 141-152.
1 Noel Valois, La crise religieuse du xv™ siicle, i. 1-94, Paris, 1909.
» Id., ib. i. 95-398, ii. 1-322 ; Pastor, i. 217-248.
• Hinschius, iii. 417-448.
33

514 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
attended it, the number of whom, which varied, rose at times
as high as two hundred. The Greek bishops, excepting Mark
of Ephesus, consented to accept the primacy of the Pope and
the Latin theology. But on their return home they were
disavowed by the people and by the monks, who refused to
permit themselves to be " latinized." The union decreed at
Florence was therefore ephemeral.1
(2) The Fifth Lateran Council (1512) was convoked by
Julius il to effect the reform which for a century had been de
manded, and which the schismatic council assembled at Pisa
(1511) by certain cardinals, under the patronage of the
emperor and of the king of France, had proposed to carry out.
Julius IL, who took no interest in the reform, feigned an interest
when he saw that a schismatic council intended to take it up.
Begun by Julius n.with seventy-nine bishops almost all Italians,
the fifth Lateran council (May 1512) was continued by Leo x.
with the participation of some French bishops, and ended on
16th March 1517. It condemned the Gallican maxims,
ratified the French concordat, but neglected, almost wholly,
the work of reform.2
(3) The Council of Trent (1545-1563) was convoked under
the following circumstances. At the Niirnberg diet (1522)
the German Catholic princes, witnessing the sympathy en
countered by the revolutionary preaching of Luther, and
convinced that the abuses of tihe Roman court were the
preponderating causes of this success, concluded that an
immediate reform of the pontifical administration was the
only way to paralyze the influence of the Saxon monk. They
also concluded that a council, independent of the papacy, was
alone capable of effecting this reform, which for more than a
century all had been demanding of the papacy which for
more than a century had been making insincere promises.
The diet of Niirnberg (1522) therefore demanded that a free
council should be convoked, without delay, in a town easily
accessible to the Germans ; and this demand, repeated in
certain other diets, was supported by Charles v., who himself
1 Noel Valois, ii. 109-124, 172-181 ; Pastor, i. 236.
2 Pastor, iii. 708-740 ; Hefele- Hergeni other, viii. 507, 521, 558.

THE CONFLICT WITH INFIDELITY AND HERESY 515
attributed the success of the Lutheran revolt to the abuses
of the papacy, and in a free council saw the only remedy for
these abuses. At first the papacy simply refused to call a
council, and commanded the princes to drown the Lutheran
heresy in blood. Those were its first tactics. At the end of
some years, obliged to take another attitude, it pretended to
be disposed to assemble a council, but imagined different
pretexts to postpone its convocation. For some time it con
tinued to exhort the princes to crush the heresy. At length,
when all subterfuges had been exhausted and it could not
avoid the council, it took all necessary measures to make it
dependent, that is to say, to prevent a repetition of Constance
or of Bale.1 Such is the explanation of the origin of the
Council of Trent. Such also is the explanation of its troubled
history ; for the papacy displaced and suspended it whenever
it feared that it could not direct the council according to its
own wishes. Suspended twice, it passed through three phases.
In the first period, which extends from 1545 to 1549, it
was convoked by Paul in. at Trent, a small town in the
Tyrol, was opened on 13th December 1545, was transferred
by order of the same Pope to Bologna on 11th March 1547,
and was again suspended by Paul rv. on 1 7th September
1549. During its stay at Trent, eight sessions were held, of
which the first three and the eighth were merely for display.
The number of bishops present scarcely exceeded fifty, and at
times fell below twenty-five ; for example, the fifth session,
at which was fixed the Catholic doctrine of original sin,
counted four cardinals, nine archbishops, and eight bishops.
Two-thirds of these prelates were Italians, the rest, with the
exception of one French bishop, were Spaniards : there was
no German bishop.2 The transference to Bologna, effected
ostensibly for hygienic reasons, was in reality dictated by a
desire to remove the council from the influence of Charles v.,
who, dissatisfied with the tortuous diplomacy of the Pope,
commanded the Spanish bishops to remain at Trent. Paul m.,
1 Janssen-Pastor, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, ii. 296, iii. 153 ; Pastor,
iv. 2, 406. 412, 415, 420, v. 460, 531.
s Pallavicini, Histoire du concile de Trente, vi. 5, 5, vi. 17, 13, vii. 13, 1.

516 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
notwithstanding his obstinacy, did not dare to make the
assembly at Bologna pass for an oecumenical council, at which
there were present only Italian bishops, and two prelates in
partibus pensioned by the Roman Curia — the French bishop
was absent — and he submitted to the dissolution of the
assembly, which during its stay of two and a half years at
Bologna held two sessions, which were merely for display
(sessions ix. and x.).
In the second period the council was convoked by
Julius in. under pressure from Charles v. It was opened on
1st March 1551, and was suspended because of the war on
28th April 1552. Six sessions were held at that time, four
of which, the XI., xii., xv., and xvi., were purely for display.
Henry il, king of France, forbade his bishops to attend this
assembly, at which indeed no German bishop was present.1
In the third period the council was convoked by Pius IV.
It was opened on 18 th January 1561, and ended on
4th December 1563. Nine sessions were held, and the
number of bishops at times exceeded two hundred. Among
these were twenty from France.2
1 Pallavicini, xi. 13 ; Pastor, vi. 74-96. 2 Pallavicini, xiv. 12.

CHAPTER XV
Ecclesiastical Studies
Feom the sixth to the sixteenth century the intellectual life
of the Latin Church passed through a period of decadence,
followed by a revival, the principal stages of which are the
Carolingian restoration, the philosophical advance of the
twelfth century, and the Renaissance. DECADENCE
Decadence prevailed everywhere, but not everywhere at
one time. Ireland had no acquaintance with it until the
middle of the ninth century. Up to that time the Irish
monks read the Latin authors, cultivated poetry, had a
smattering of Greek, and copied manuscripts. For some
time they were not the only possessors of literary culture.
Across the channel, the Celtic monks of Great Britain,
according to Gildas, also had literary tastes. But even then
the superiority of Ireland was not disputed. In the sixth
century the Gallic monk Cadoc went to Lismore (to-day,
Waterford, in the south of Ireland) to seek what his
biographer called " the perfection of the knowledge of the
West." 1 But at this time the Anglo-Saxon invasion began
the destructive work which it was gradually to complete.
In the seventh century the Celtic monks of Great Britain,
driven into Wales, had not the necessary leisure to devote
themselves to study. Thus the Irish monks had a monopoly
of intellectual culture. Furthermore, when the Anglo-
1 " Vita S. Cadoci," 7, in W. Rees, Lives of Cambro-British Saints, p. 36,
Llandovery, 1853.

518 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Saxons, having been converted to ¦ Christianity, wished to
pursue their literary education, they addressed themselves to
Ireland. Aldhelm depicts them to us " sailing in a body "
for Ireland.1 Bede testified that " many of the English," in
the seventh century, went to Ireland to seek knowledge of
the Scripture and of asceticism.2 Ireland received them
kindly. It gave them books ; it gave them masters. " All
was given gratuitously," says Bede, who adds that this
generosity provided them even with nourishment.8 It was
therefore from the Irish monks that the Anglo-Saxon Church
took the torch of science, which it carried in its turn to
the Continent, before the dawn of the ninth century, when
darkness reigned.
At the end of the fifth century this darkness had begun
to spread over Gaul and over Italy ; we shall presently refer
to Spain. Sidonius Apollinaris, Faustus of Riez, Claudian
Mamertius, Venantius Fortunatus, Bcethius, Cassiodorus,
Ennodius, Pomerius, who, of different degrees of merit, were
the last representatives of intellectual life. After them, the
sacred fire was extinguished. The study of authors was
neglected, — more than this, it was abhorred. Caesarius,
the future bishop of Aries, read the pagan writers with
pleasure. But one day he became convinced that this
reading was leading him to hell, and he cast away profane
books.4 His contemporary Ennodius, the brilliant rhetorician,
the elegant poet, felt the same scruples ; after recovering
from an illness he forsook the pursuit of literature as if
it were a sin.6 Three-quarters of a century later, Pope
St. Gregory, learning that the bishop of Vienne was
" teaching grammar," wrote to him : 6 "I feel ashamed
at reporting this news ; this conduct in a bishop is so
execrable, that the matter should be seriously explained.
If the investigation shows that this rumour is false, and
that you are not studying the frivolous literature of the
1 Aldhelm, Ep. iii. ; Migne, lxxxix. 94.
2 Bede, H.E., iii. 27. 8 Id., ib.
4 Vita, i. 9 ; Migne, lxvii. 1005.
5 Ep. ix. 9 ; Migne, lxiii. 152. 6 Jaffe, 1824.

ECCLESIASTICAL STUDIES 519
age, we shall thank God that he has not let your soul be
polluted." The ecclesiastical law was positive : it is to be
found concisely stated in the Statuta Ecclesice antiqua1 which
regulated the conduct of the clergy : " The bishop ought not
to indulge in the reading of pagan books."
Thus profane authors were accursed, and attention
was limited to the professional duties of the priesthood
and of the monastic state. Fortunately the performance
of these duties required some rudiments of instruction. To be
a priest, or even to be in the lowest rank of the clergy, it was
necessary to be able to read the liturgical offices. To be a
monk it was necessary unceasingly to acquire a provision of
edifying thoughts, and to seek these thoughts where they
were to be found, that is to say, in the Bible, in the lives
of saints, in the instructions of spiritual masters : it was
necessary to read. A virtue was made of necessity. Caesarius
ordered the monks and nuns to devote two hours each day
to reading.2 He saw the obstacle that women would en
counter in observing this rule ; he required the nuns to learn
to read. In his Statuta is the following order relating to the
clergy:8 "All the clergy capable of work, shall practise a
trade, and shall learn to read." The rule of St. Benedict, like
that of Csesarius, also required the monks to devote several
hours every day to reading.4 The council of Orleans (a.d. 533)
prescribed that the priest and the deacon should know how
to read, and should know the baptismal liturgy.6 Four
years previously, the council of Vaison (529) advised every
priest in a monastery to do what, it said, was done in Italy ;
that is, to take a child under his care, to teach him the Psalter,
liturgical functions, and Christian morals, — in short, to put
him in the way to succeed him.8
It is often supposed that this council transformed the
clergy into a corps of public teachers charged with imparting
1 Statuta, 16 ; Migne, Ivi. 882.
*Begula, i. 14, ii. 17 ; Migne, Ixvii. 1100, 1109.
» Statuta, 45, 79 ; Migne, Ivi. 884, 886.
1 Cap. 48, inWcelfflin, Benedicti regula, p. 46, Leipzig, 1895.
* Can. 16, M. G., Concilia csvi meroving., p. 63.
* Can. 1, ib., p. 56.

520 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
primary instruction to the children of Gaul ; and the in
stitution of presbyterial schools has been pompously attributed
to it. In reality, the bishops assembled at Vaison, so far
from intending to establish public instruction, had not even
an idea of such a thing. Their far simpler object was to
assure the recruitment for the priesthood. Nevertheless, the
assertion may be admitted, provided its meaning be made
plain. During the Merovingian period there were here and
there presbyterial schools, but they were intended only to
provide for the needs of worship, and they were like the
inferior choir of our churches. There were also episcopal
schools — Gregory of Tours1 mentions the school of Tours,
the school of Bourges, and the school of Paris — which were
the forerunners of the choir schools (psalettes) of modern
cathedrals. These establishments were the expression of
religious, not of intellectual, preoccupations. It is needless
to dwell here upon the famous " School of the Palace " which,
as is known to-day, had an exclusively military and ad
ministrative character.2 In order to find an analogue to our
institutions of learning we must turn to the monks. In
certain monasteries, few in Dumber, reading, writing, and the
Psalter were taught to children, to those who were to return
to the world, as well as to those who were oblates. In other
words, there were monastic schools in which the children of
the nobility — the others were only admitted as oblates —
received rudimentary instruction.3 Let us now return to the
clergy. Priests and deacons were trained sometimes in the
presbyterial, sometimes in the episcopal schools, where the
latter existed. The bishops at times came upon the same
surroundings ; others were taken by the king from the school
of the palace; others had passed their childhood in the
monastic schools, but this did not exclude them from subse
quently entering the school of the palace. Whatever their
past might have been, bishops and priests had a poor educa-
1 Hist. Franc, x. 26 ; Vitcepatrum, 9 ; Miracula S. Martini, i. 7.
1 Vacandard, Revue des questions historiques, lxi. 490, lxii. 656 (1897).
3 Ozanam, (Euvres, iv. 459, Paris, 1849.

ECCLESIASTICAL STUDIES 521
tion. In nearly all his writings Gregory of Tours declares
that he is ignorant of the laws of language, that he never
studied the profane authors.1 And he was the first bishop
of the Gallican Church. Elsewhere the conditions were the
same. Virgilius, bishop of Salzburg, an Irishman, was con
sidered a heretic because he knew of the antipodes ; 2 and in
608, Pope Agathon admitted to the emperor that the
Western clergy, forced to earn their living by manual labour,
were lacking in knowledge.3 When the Liber Pontificalis
praises a pope of this period, it mentions his fine voice,
his zeal for religion, his charity to the poor. Yet in Italy
there appeared at intervals men whose minds were open
to learning. These anomalous intellectuals committed to
one another some portions of the heritage left by Boethius
and Cassiodorus; as, for example, about the end of the
eighth century the Lombard Warnefried (who was afterwards
known as Paul the Deacon) and Paulinus, who taught
grammar at Aquileia.
This is the place to mention Spain. The council of
Toledo (633) ordered the priests to study the Scripture;4
that of 653 remarked that certain of the clergy were ignorant
of the most ordinary liturgical functions.6 To remedy this
evil it prescribed that only those who knew the entire
Psalter, the hymns, and the rites of baptism should be
admitted to orders. The council of 675 commanded the
bishops to require study on the part of those priests whose
1 Hist. Fr. Prolog. : " Veniara a legentibus precor si aut in literis aut in
syllabis grammaticam artem excessero de qua adplene non sum imbutus " ; De
gloria confessmum, praef.: "Sum sine literis et arte grammatica." See also
Hist. Fr., x. 19,30; Vitas patrum, ii. 1, viii. 2, ix. 1; Demiraculis S. Juliani,
4 ; De miraculis S. Martini, praef.
2 Boniface, Ep. lxxx., in M. G., Epist., iii. 360; Herm. Erabbo, "Bischof
Virgil," in Mittheilungen des Institute fur oesterr Geschichte, xxiv. 1-28 (1903).
! Mansi, xi. 286 ; Migne, lxxxvii. 1220 : " Si ad elbquentiam saecularem non
sestimamus quemquam temporibus nostris repereri posse qui de summitate
scientise glorietur . . . de labore corporis victus est."
4 Can. 25, Mansi, x. 612 ; see also Can. 24, which orders the education of
the younger clergy in a house, in common, under the direction of a magister
doctrines. 8 Can. 8, Mansi, xi. 23.

522 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
knowledge was deficient ; it asked the metropolitans to submit
to the same regime the bishops of their provinces, in case
they were found incapable.1 On the contrary, Martin of
Bragua learned Greek and read Seneca; Isidore of Seville
was an indefatigable compiler, who knew nothing profoundly,
but had general ideas about everything; Eugene of Toledo
cultivated poetry, Hildefonso and Julian, his successors,
cultivated theology.2 In short, Spain had some episcopal
schools which, like those of France, were inspired by religious
preoccupations ; its clergy were generally ignorant, which
proves that the results of the episcopal schools were poor.
It may be added that Spain possessed some monastic schools.8
Intellectually inferior to Ireland and to England, it seems
to have been slightly superior to Italy and Gaul. But in
712 the Arab invasion took place and the Visigoth culture
disappeared, although not completely. About the end of the
eighth century the Spaniard Theodulf was an ardent patron
of belles lettres. CAROLINGIAN RESTORATION
At the end of the eighth century a movement of in
tellectual renaissance began in the Frankish kingdom, and
the author of this movement was the powerful Frankish
monarch Charlemagne. Ignorant, like all his contemporaries,
Charlemagne had a profound respect for belles lettres, and
resolved to labour for the civilization of his people. To
succeed in this arduous undertaking he enlisted in his service
the few heirs of ancient culture: the Lombard Paulinus
of Aquileia, the Spaniard Theodulf, the Lombard Warnefried
(Paul the Deacon), some Irishmen, and, above all, Alcuin,
who was both professor and minister of public instruction.4
With the assistance of Alcuin, Charlemagne transformed the
school of the palace into an academy, where princes, prin
cesses, and the young nobility studied grammar and were
1 Can. 2, Mansi. xi. 130. 2 See next chapter.
8 H. Leclercq, L'Espagne chrStienne, p. 348, Paris, 1906.
* Hauck, ii. 123-163; W. Turner, " Irish Teachers," in the Catholic University
Bulletin, xiii. 382 and 562 (1907).

ECCLESIASTICAL STUDIES 523
taught to speak well. Then, after having given the example,
he sought to have imitators. In 787 he wrote to Baugulf,
abbot of Fulda : 1 "Of late years several monasteries have
written to inform us that the friars were praying for us. But
most of these missives expressed excellent sentiments in an
uncultivated style. The awkward language could not give
outward expression to that which piety directed from within.
The cause of this is insufficient study. We fear that this
weakness in the art of composition may be followed by
weakness in the knowledge of Holy Scripture. . . . For this
reason we exhort you not to neglect the study of letters ; to
cultivate them, on the contrary, with the humility which is
agreeable to God, in order to penetrate more easily into the
mysteries of divine Scriptures. ... Do not forget to send
copies of this letter to the bishops, your colleagues, and to
all the monasteries, if you wish to enjoy our favour."
This letter to Baugulf was, as it were, a preface to the
legislation which, in the council of Aix-la-Chapelle (789),
was promulgated in these terms : 2' " Let schools be built to
teach children to read. In all the monasteries, and in all
the episcopal churches, psalms, hymns, singing, arithmetic,
and grammar shall be taught."
Charlemagne therefore desired schools. He desired
them in every bishopric, in every monastery. He desired
them, not in order to establish primary instruction in his
kingdom, which would have been chimerical, but in order
to have priests and monks capable of understanding the
Scripture, of reading the office correctly, of performing
liturgical functions exactly and intelligently.8 He desired
it for religious and theological reasons. What became of
his plan ?
Certain bishops did their best to realize it. Such an
one was Theodulf of Orleans,4 who, not content with carrying
out the orders of his master, urged the country priests of his
diocese to teach children to read when their parents would
1 Capitula regum franc, in M. G., Leges, sect. n. i. 75.
2 Capitula, ib. i. 65. * Leclercq, in Diet. arch. iii. 710.
* Capitula, 20, Migne, cv. 196.

524 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
consent. Such an one was Leidrade of Lyons,1 who, in his
official report, boasted of having established flourishing courses
of liturgical chanting, of reading, and of biblical exegesis.
Several abbeys likewise hastened to raise their educational
standard. In the year 802 we find the young monk Raban
coming from Fulda to Tours in order to gain from Alcuin
knowledge, which he in his turn was to impart to the German
monks.2 In 826, Walafrid Strabo went to Fulda to seek
instruction, from which his abbey at Reichenau was after
wards to profit.3 The Carolingian renaissance raised high
hopes. Unfortunately, the sons of Louis the Debonnair
made war upon their father and upon each other. Then
came the Normans. The undertaking of Charlemagne was
arrested in its course ; it might have been thought that it
had been destroyed for ever. But no, inscribed in the
Capitula of the great emperor, it remained as an ideal set
up before all eyes, awaiting better days. And better days
came. In the first years of the tenth century social up
heavals came to an end ; order — relative order — reappeared ;
the monastic life personified by Cluny made an incomparable
advance ; dioceses were reorganized. Then, in every direction,
serious attempts were made to realize the programme of
Charlemagne. There were monastic schools, episcopal schools,
and without doubt here and there presbyterial schools in
conformity to the wish of Theodulf, approved by the council
of Mayence (813).4 Postponed by the calamities of the
ninth century, the Carolingian renaissance expanded in the
following century — that tenth century which for the papacy,
but for it alone, was the age of iron.
It need not be said that the progress was modest. The
presbyterial schools, where they were carried on, were confined
to teaching children the Apostles' Creed and the Lord's
Prayer. The council of Mayence did not assign them any
other object ; their courses were catechumenal. The epis
copal and monastic schools were rather mediocre, and occupied
1 Ep. i., M. xcix. 871. * Hauck, ii. 620.
2 A. Kncepfler, Wal. Strabonis, liber de exordiis, p. xii, Munchen, 1899.
* Can. 45, in M. G., Concilia, ii. 271.

ECCLESIASTICAL STUDIES 525
the liturgical field. But some abbeys, followed by some
bishoprics, entered resolutely upon the path of progress, and
in the programme of their studies inserted " the seven liberal
arts." The seven liberal arts comprised grammar, rhetoric,
dialectic, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music. This
list, composed in the middle of the fifth century by the
rhetorician Martianus Capella, included all the ancient science,
the science which until the close of the fifth century was
taught in the schools.1 Boethius and Cassiodorus still
possessed this sum of human knowledge ; but after them the
Irish and Anglo-Saxon monasteries had a monopoly of it.
In Spain and in Italy, at the utmost, certain rare privileged
men were to be met with — an Isidore of Seville, a Paulinus of
Aquileia, a Paul the Deacon — who knew what the rest of the
world did not know. Gregory of Tours, on the last page of
his History of the Franks, mentions the book of Martianus
Capella, but makes it plain that he never studied it. It was
only with the Carolingian renaissance that conditions were to
change. Then the seven liberal arts — the first three grouped
under the name of the trivium, the four others under the
name of the quadrivium — penetrated gradually into the
monastic and episcopal schools. From this point of view
the abbeys of Fulda, of Reichenau, of Fleury-sur-Loire,
acquired in the tenth century a reputation which was shared
by the Abbey du Bee in Normandy, and Westminster Abbey
in England. At the end of the tenth century the most
famous episcopal schools were those of Reims and Chartres.
At the beginning of the twelfth century the episcopal school
of Paris, directed by William of Champeaux, attracted many
students. But we have now reached a new stage of intellectual
culture. THE TWELFTH CENTURY
The Carolingian restoration marks the first stage in the
history of the intellectual progress of the Middle Ages, in
which the human mind repaired the losses which invasions
1 L. Grasberger, Erziehung und Unterricht im klassischen Alterthum, p. 236,
Wiirzburg, 1875.

526 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
had caused it to undergo, and resumed contact with ancient
culture. The stage which was opened by the twelfth century
was not merely a restoration ; it constituted a step in advance,
a conquest which was characterized by scholasticism and the
universities. Scholasticism. — Scholasticism is a philosophico-theological
system which professes to contain the science of dogmas. It
may be said to be a certain science of Christian dogmas.
Whence was this science derived ? The Fathers furnished
most of the materials of which it made use, but the syste
matic elaboration of these materials did not come from them ;
and as this elaboration is the chief element of scholasticism,
it must be said that scholasticism was not derived from the
Fathers. Whence did it come ? It had several partial
sources. One of these sources was what at the beginning of the
twelfth century was called the course in " divinity," " sacred
reading " x (sacra lectio), or the gloss (glossandi opus), what we
call now the paraphrase of Scripture. The practice of glossing
the Scripture, that is, of reading by paraphrase, can probably
be traced to the ninth century. Nevertheless for a long time
these glosses seem to have had no place in the regular courses.
When the contemporaries of Fulbert of Chartres eulogized
him, they praised his teaching of the liberal arts, but did not
mention his glosses. Yet Fulbert lived at the beginning of
the eleventh century. Some years later Berenger, master
of the episcopal school of Tours, interpreted Scripture with a
talent which provoked the admiration of Drogon, archdeacon
of Paris. But this science was foreign to his professional
occupations, which were confined to the teaching of the liberal
arts.2 One must come down to the end of the eleventh
century to find this situation changed. At this time Anselm
of Laon read the text of the Bible, commented on it, with
1 Abelard, Ep. i. 4, 5, Migne, clxxviii. 125.
2 J. Schnitzer, Berengar von Tours, p. 9, Miinchen, 1890 ; Guibert of Nogent
studied the Scripture at Flavigny, without any guide except the Morals of
St. Gregory (Vila, i. 17, Migne, clvi. 874).

ECCLESIASTICAL STUDIES 527
the aid of the Fathers, from whom he cited extracts ; and
his pupils, delighted at the novelty of this teaching, gathered
from every direction around his chair. Abelard, already a
master of dialectics, came to Laon to pursue in the school of
Anselm his " studies in divinity." l We here see a course
which was superimposed on the liberal arts in order to
complete them. This course of " divinity " was the first
form that theological instruction assumed. It would be
exaggerating its significance to present it as the germ of
scholasticism. It was not the germ, but only one of the
factors which contributed to its power, the most humble of
these factors, the most modest of the sources by which the
river was fed.
The second source was the dialectic. On several occasions,
and in several forms, the dialectic flowed into Christian
dogmatics. It was introduced for the first time by St.
Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury (about 1070). Under
the direction of this philosophical genius the dialectic under
took to convert revelation into a philosophy, or one may say
into a geometry, the theorems of which might be deduced
from one another.2 A quarter of a century later it appeared,
directed by Roscelin. This time its programme was less am
bitious.8 Entrenched in the " universals," it prepared to solve
by this logical form the mystery of the Trinity. The study of
universals occupied the minds of philosophers for about half
a century, raised violent storms, then fell into oblivion, not,
however, without having previously left an indelible imprint
upon the dogma of the Trinity. Far more vast and far more
profound was the influence of Anselm of Canterbury. Not
that this bold theorist failed to awaken distrust ; his deduc
tions generally appeared to be too absolute. It was thought
that he should have attenuated his doctrines, should have
introduced alleviations ; but when the necessary reserves had
been made they were accepted. Anselm gave a new orienta-
1 Ep. i. 2: "Reversus sum in Franciam maxime ut dedivinitateaddiscerem."
2 See next chapter.
• B. Haureau, Hist, de la phil. scholastique, i. 174, Paris, 1880 ; C. Prantl,
Gesch. der Logik, ii. 78, Leipzig, 1855-1870.

528 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
tion to the theological mind ; he accustomed it to transl ite
dogmas into rational concepts connected with one another by
more or less vigorous bonds. From Abelard until the reaction
effected by Occam, the doctors felt in different degrees the
influence of Anselm.
To the course of divinity and the dialectic there was
added in the first half of the twelfth century a method of
exposition. This was the third constitutive element of
scholasticism. Here Abelard played a principal part.1 He
collected all the Christian dogmas, arranged them, and made
them enter into the construction of an edifice which was the
first theological synthesis. Then taking each dogma singly
he submitted it to a contradictory inquiry. Like the judge
who causes the witnesses for the prosecution and for the
defence to speak successively, Abelard presented a list of
texts unfavourable to the belief of the Church, and to these
he opposed texts that were favourable. Synthesis and con
tradictory inquiry remained; the first was to undergo altera
tion, the second to undergo development. Abelard gave to
scholasticism its method of exposition, a method which seemed
to be critical, and which gradually became so in reality.2
It remains for us now to mention the fourth source' of
scholasticism, which was the metaphysics of Aristotle.
Throughout the eleventh century the only work of this
philosopher which was known was his logical treatise, the
Organon. This treatise itself was not completely known
until after 1150. Up to that time the first part alone was
extant. At the beginning of the thirteenth century all the
works of Aristotle, translated into Latin, arrived from Spain,
commented on by the Jewish and Arabian philosophers, by
Avicenna and, above all, by Averroes. They were at once en
thusiastically received. The metaphysic of Aristotle reigned as
mistress of the schools, it penetrated into the sanctuary of
1 H. Denifle, "Die Sentenzen Abaelards," in Archiv filr Literatur und
Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters, i. 628, Berlin, 1885.
2 V. Cousin, Ouvrages intdits d' Abelard, p. liii, Paris, 1836 ; Ch. Jourdain,
Recherches critiques sur I'dge et V origins des traductions latines a" Aristote, pp. 29,
58, Paris, 1843 ; Prantl, ii. 98 ; P. Mandonnet, Siger de Brabant et Vaverroisme
latin au xiii™ Steele, xxvi, Paris, 1899.

ECCLESIASTICAL STUDIES 529
theology, and did not fear to leave its imprint upon dogmas.
Aristotle was to become the chancellor of Christ, the inter
preter of his oracles.
Thus, at least, the intellectuals understood him ; but the
hierarchy was on its guard. Alarmed at the danger with
which dogmas were threatened, it undertook to save them by
energetic measures. The council of Paris (1210) passed the
following decree.1 " Under the penalty of excommunication,
we forbid the teaching at Paris, either publicly or privately,
of the books of Aristotle concerning natural philosophy, and
commentaries on those books."2 Five years later, the
pontifical legate, Robert de Courgon, repeated this measure.
The official Church decided to check the intellectuals. The
latter, according to their custom, bowed their heads, to raise
them again when the storm had passed. At the end of some
years, the prohibitions of the years 1210 and 1215 were
forgotten, and Aristotle resumed his place of honour in
education. Again the hierarchy was obliged to intervene.
In 1228, Pope Gregory ix. stigmatized the theologians who,
" swollen like leather bottles with the spirit of vanity," ask
of philosophy the explanation of revealed truth ; and " to put
an end to this madness " he commanded them thenceforth to
teach theology without any mixture of profane science, and
not to alter the Word of God by the lucubrations of philo
sophers.3 Three years later (1231), in the famous bull
Parens scientiarum, there were like prohibitions: "Let the
teachers and students of theology . . . not seek to be
philosophers, but let them devote all their care to becoming
theologians. . . . Let them not discuss any question which
cannot be solved by theological books, and by writings of the
Fathers."4 And not content with banishing Aristotle from
1 Dpnifle-Chatelain, Chartularium universitatis parisiensis, i. 70, Paris,
1889: "Nee libri Aristotelis . . . legantur." The verb "legere" signifies
"teach"; see Denifle, Bevue thomiste, ii. 149 (1894). The interdict not
attacking the teaching of logic.
2 Denifle-Chatelain, i. 78 ; Jourdain, p. 187 ; Mandonnet, xxix.
» Denifle-Chatelain, i. 114-116 ; Haureau, ii. 1, 108, 119.
4 Denifle-Chatelain, i. 138 ; Denifle, Die Universitatcn des Miltelalters,
pp. 72, 759, Berlin, 1885.
34

530 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
the faculty of theology, the Pope banished him from the
faculty of arts itself, promising to reverse this measure only
when the writings of Aristotle should have been expurgated.1
For some time the faculty of arts obeyed the pontifical in
junctions; but from 125 5, 2 it resumed the study of Aristotle
— who was never expurgated — and in spite of the opposition
of Urban iv. it did not give him up.3 More than this,
the theologians themselves were emancipated ; the greatest
doctors of the thirteenth century — Albert the Great, Alexander
of Hales, and St. Thomas Aquinas — invoked the authority of
Aristotle and of his commentators.4 The papacy, being
vanquished, relinquished the struggle and tolerated what it
could not prevent. From the middle of the thirteenth
century scholasticism was united by an indissoluble bond
to the Aristotelian philosophy.
The Universities. — From Paris and Bologna proceeded the
movement which gave birth to universities in the Middle
Ages. If one would know the origin of universities, one
must look to Paris and Bologna, particularly to Paris.
At the beginning of the twelfth century, as has been
said, the episcopal school of Paris attained a certain reputa
tion which it owed to its director, William of Champeaux.
About 1115 it gained a new lustre from Abelard, who for
some time gave lectures in the Isle (to-day l'He Saint
Louis) under the jurisdiction of the chancellor of Notre-
Dame. About 1136 the situation changed, when Abelard
opened a school on Mount St. Genevieve, which was then
outside the walls of Paris and beyond the jurisdiction of
the chancellor of Notre-Dame. Students left the Isle and
went to hear the famous professor who taught at St.
Genevieve. After Abelard there arose other professors who
inherited his methods, and to some extent his prestige.
They were dangerous rivals to the episcopal school.6 Fortun-
1 Denifle-Chatelain, i. 143. 2 Id., ib. 278. a Id., ib. 428.
* Id., ib. 385; B. Reichert, Monumenta ordinis Fratrum Prcedicatorum,
iii. 1, 25, Rome, 1898 ; Hilar, de Lucerne, Hist, des eludes dans I'ordre de Saint
Francois, p. 470, Paris, 1908.
• Denifle, Die Universitdten, pp. 661-663, 674, 694.

ECCLESIASTICAL STUDIES 531
ately for the latter, in 1147, St. Genevieve was occupied
by the Clunists and Victorines.1 Then the successors of
Abelard departed, settled in the Isle, found themselves under
the jurisdiction of the chancellor of Notre-Dame; and
although they gave their lectures at home, they were a part
of the episcopal school, which in this way acquired an
importance that it had never had. Paris became an in
tellectual centre, to which many students came from all parts
of Europe, who were attracted by teachers initiated in the
methods of Abelard, subject to the jurisdiction of the
chancellor of Notre-Dame. Towards the close of the twelfth
century these teachers founded a corporation designed to
protect their common interests. Thus was born the Uni
versity of Paris. It came from an intellectual centre created
by Abelard : it was originally a corporation of professors —
corpus eollegii sive universitatis2 says the letter of 1254.
In the year 1200 this corporation had an opportunity
to assert itself. The students engaged in battle with the
citizens of Paris, in the course of which several of them were
killed. At once the teachers took the part of the students
and demanded justice. Philip Augustus, who, says the
chronicler, feared to see them leave Paris, gave them satis
faction by deciding that in the future students should be
exempt from civil justice, and subject to ecclesiastical justice.
Emboldened by this first success, the corporation of Paris
professors dreamed of other victories ; it endeavoured to
shake off the yoke of the chancellor of Notre-Dame and of
the bishop of Paris. The undertaking would have been
futile had not the Pope supported it. Even favoured by
Rome, which showed the masters great benevolence, it was
difficult and it was long ; but it succeeded. The chancellor
saw his prerogatives, one after another, disappear. About
1210, Innocent III. authorized the masters to elect a pro
curator to be their interpreter and spokesman. In 1212
the same Pope advised the chancellor to take the advice of
the masters before granting a licence to teach.3 From the
year 1222 the masters, whom the chancellor kept forcibly
1 Denifle, p. 656. 2 Id., pp. 68, 693. 8 Id., pp. 70, 86, 686-688.

532 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
confined in the Isle, were authorized by Honorius in. to settle
in the domains of St. Genevieve and St. Victor. The bull
Super specula of the same Pope relieved students of theology
from residence, and permitted them to enjoy their benefices.
In 1229 a repetition of the disturbance of 1200 took place.
The police fell upon the students and killed several of them.
As in 1200, the masters took the part of the students, and
demanded satisfaction. The regent, Blanche of Castile, re
fused their petition. The masters and students then left
Paris and dispersed. William, bishop of Paris, was not
sorry to see this corporation depart, which was animated by
a spirit of revolt : for fifteen or twenty years the students
had been affiliated with the masters. Without losing any
time he appealed to the Dominicans, and with their assist
ance he formed a plan to found a school, wholly subject to
episcopal authority. The university — for ten years this term
was used to designate the assembly of masters and students
— seemed to have been destroyed. But Gregory ix. inter
vened. He induced the regent and the bishop of Paris to
compromise, and give guarantees to the masters, who, ac
companied by their pupils, returned to Paris. Moreover, by
the bull Parens scientiarum, he granted them a statute which
regulated their situation and their studies (1231). Gregory
ix. was the saviour and the organizer of the University of
Paris.1 Nevertheless, he kept it under the jurisdiction of
the chancellor of Notre-Dame. This subordination did not
disappear until the university obtained the right of the seal ;
that is to say, the right to make contracts in its own name,
and to ratify them with its own seal. In 1225 it had
claimed the right, but had been forced to relinquish it.
Under Innocent iv. it was more fortunate.2 That Pope, in
1246, granted it the right of the seal for a period of seven
years; in 1252 he renewed it for a period of ten years,
which was prolonged indefinitely. The university, favoured
by Innocent in. and Honorius in., saved and organized by
Gregory ix., was freed by Innocent iv. from the control of
the bishop of Paris and of the chancellor of Notre-Dame.
» Denifle, pp. 72, 112. 2 Id., pp. 78, 690.

ECCLESIASTICAL STUDIES 533
It was then subject only to the papacy. But this last yoke
at length seemed heavy, and the university shook it off. In
1334, it reformed respectfully but victoriously the theology
of John xxn. When the Great Schism came, it was the
soul of the councils of Constance and Bale; it "directed
European opinion."
A word may be said as to its organization. Of the pro
fessors who at the close of the twelfth century turned it into
a corporation, some taught theology, others law, others the
liberal arts, and still others medicine. The students who
were admitted to the corporation of professors, for their
part, belonged to different nations. Among professors of the
same discipline, as among students of the same nation,
there existed common interests which led them to form
groups. In addition to the university there were divisional
associations founded on community of studies, and of origin.
These latter were called " nations." The former received the
name of " faculties " — a word which was primarily applied
to the different branches of science, and was gradually ex
tended to the corporations grouped around these disciplines.
Within the university, four faculties and also four nations
made their appearance. At the head of each faculty was a
dean ; at the head of each nation, a procurator. The dean
of the faculty of arts was called the rector. About the end
of the thirteenth century the rector began to be the repre
sentative of the university in its official acts. His authority,
however, was temporary, as he was elected for only three
months. While the faculties and the nations were being organized
within the university, and even before they had made their
appearance, charitable souls were engaged in assuring food
and lodging to the poorer students. Such was the origin of
colleges ; they were the work of private charity. The first in
point of time was the college of the Eighteen founded at the
accession of Philip Augustus. Then came the colleges of
Poor Scholars of St. Andrew (1209), St. Thomas-du-Louvre,
(about 1217), the Sorbonne (founded by Robert of Sorbon,
1257), and others. At the end of the fourteenth century

534 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
these houses numbered more than fifty. At the beginning,
the colleges pretended only to give nourishment and lodging
to the students who went to the city to attend the lectures
of the professors. Then gradually the professors went to
lecture in the colleges — at least in the more important ones
— which thus became educational houses. The Sorbonne,
thanks to the wise organization received from its fouuder,
came by degrees to personify in great part the faculty of
theology. The university of Bologna1 was, like that of Paris,
founded at the end of the twelfth century. It too, like the
university of Paris, began as a school, in which prior to 1150
the jurists Irnerius and Gratian had been professors, and
which from the time of these illustrious teachers was almost
wholly occupied with the teaching of , law. But the evolu
tion was different. At Paris the university owed its birth
to the initiative of the professors ; at Bologna, it was the
students — the foreign students — who formed the university
corporation, or rather corporations; for until the sixteenth
century they were not unified. Up to that time there were
two universities, that of the Ultramontanes (natives of
countries north of the Alps) and that of the Citramontanes.
Each had its own rector. This double-headed organization
was itself an advance towards the unity effected about 1250.
Before that time the corporations were multiple, and there
was a plurality of rectors. These rectors were students, and
at Bologna the students paid their teachers and gave them
their orders ; the administration of the university was in
their hands. In the beginning, Pope Honorius in. protected
them against certain demands made by the municipality of
Bologna (1217 and 1220); later, Clement V. and his
successors bestowed new marks of benevolence upon them.
Mention should also be made of the constitution Habita,
promulgated in 1148 by the Emperor Frederick, and intended
to place the students of imperial Italy under the protection
of the emperor. This document, which was addressed to all
the schools, was of special service to the school of Bologna.
1 Denifle, pp. 155, 161, 198, 209.

ECCLESIASTICAL STUDIES 535
Success generates imitation. In all parts of Europe
there gradually arose copies of Paris and of Bologna — copies
made partly by transformation, partly by creation. In one
place a school might have been in existence for a greater or
less period of time : it was then modelled after the pattern of
Paris or of Bologna, it adopted certain of their rules, and
obtained some of their privileges; that was simple trans
formation. In another place, on the contrary, there had been
nothing, when one day a school was founded which pro
duced in miniature the features of Paris or of Bologna ; that
was creation. In both cases the initiative came from the
cities or from the popes — from the school itself or from
its friends when there was only a question of transformation ;
most often from kings, who, however, usually employed the
powerful influence of the popes.
Being unable to notice all the universities, we shall
classify them according to their affinities. First of all there
were the universities of Oxford and Salerno, with which may
be associated Cambridge. In the ninth century, and perhaps
even earlier, Salerno had a school of medicine which became
celebrated in the eleventh century. In 1231 this school
received privileges from Frederick il, which Conrad extended
in 1252. Throughout the thirteenth century Salerno had a
monopoly of medical education in Italy. The university of
Oxford began, not, as is generally supposed, in the time of
Alfred the Great, but in the twelfth century.1 Broken up
in 1209, after a conflict with the citizens, it was re-established
in 1214. Robert Grosseteste, its chancellor, then made it
prosperous, and this prosperity was greatly increased by the
arrival at Oxford of Dominicans and Franciscans. When
he became bishop of Lincoln, Grosseteste recommended the
theologians of Oxford to conform their teaching to that of
the theologians of Paris. In 1246, Innocent IV. subjected
the appointment of Professors at Oxford to the regulations
which were in force at Paris. Eight years later, the same
Pope confirmed the privileges and customs which were in force
at the university of Oxford. In 1264, Oxford was provided
1 Denifle, pp. 242-251.

536 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
with a college, Merton, to which were afterwards added Balliol,
Exeter, and Oriel. The school of Cambridge, which until
1209 was obscure, at this time profited by the dispersion of
the university of Oxford.1 Twenty years later it seems to
have derived advantage from the exodus of teachers and
students from Paris (1229). During this period, at any rate,
it was directed by a chancellor ; and Henry in., who took it
under his protection, treated it as a university. In 1318,
Pope John xxn., at the request of king Edward il, granted
to Cambridge the privileges enjoyed by other universities.
The university of Toulouse, planned in 1217 by
Honorius ill., was founded in complete form in 1229 by
the pontifical legate, and in 1233 was authorized by
Gregory ix. to enjoy the privileges granted to Paris. Thus
it owed its origin exclusively to the papacy. On the con
trary, it was to royalty that the following universities owed
their existence : the university of Valencia, founded about
1212 by Alfonso ix. of Castile; the university of Naples,
founded in 1224 by Frederick il; the university of Salamanca,
founded in 1243 by Ferdinand III., after the unfortunate
attempt of Alfonso ix. of Leone. These princes were inspired
by the constitution of Frederick Barbarossa.
Montpellier, Angers, and Orleans present another type.
Here we have to do with schools which after long existence
asked the papacy for more or less important privileges. At
Angers there was a school of law which in 1229 profited by
the exodus from the university of Paris ; and afterwards it
prospered. In 1363 its members obtained from Urban v.
the right to reap the fruits of their benefices, even during
their absence. At Orleans there was another school of law,
the members of which received from Clement v. (1306) the
rights inherent in corporations. Montpellier had a school of
medicine the prosperity of which was assured by the regula
tions and by the monopoly which it received from the pontifical
legates in 1220 and in 1239. It possessed a school of law,
which did not prosper until a bull of Nicholas iv. (1289)
assimilated it to the universities. It possessed a school of
1 Denifle, p. 368.

ECCLESIASTICAL STUDIES 537
theology which a bull of Martin v. (1421) raised to the rank
of university faculties of theology.
Finally there was another type : universities founded by
princes, but with the aid of the papacy. That was the
case with the university of Prague, founded in 1347 by
Charles rv., king of Bohemia, with the assistance of
Clement vi. ; the university of Vienna, founded in 1365 by
the duke Rudolph rv., with the help of Urban v. ; with the
university of Heidelberg, founded in 1386 by the elector
Ruprecht, with the help of Urban vi.
In the fourteenth century there were forty-five
universities.1 The Intellectual State of the Clergy. — The prosperity of
the universities should not make us forget that the greater
part of the secular clergy were not affected by university
influence. The question is thus raised : What was the
culture of all those country priests, and of those many city
priests who did not come to the university centres ?
Theoretically, they should have gone to study grammar at
the cathedral church, which was required by the Lateran
council (1179) to provide a school for the instruction of
the clergy.2 They were to go afterwards to the metropolitan
church, which by the Lateran council (1215) was obliged
to have a chair of theology.3 This was the theory; what
was the reality? St. Thomas informs us that about 1255
the decree of the council of 1215 was still a dead letter.
The metropolitan churches — at least many of them — had
no chairs of theology for lack of men capable of filling them.
This saint declares that "very few" are the priests who
have studied Holy Scripture, and that in certain countries
many priests do not even know Latin. Roger Bacon
affirmed that the country priests did not know enough Latin
to understand the breviary. About 1230 the Church of
1 Denifle, p. 219. 2 Can. 18 ; Denifle, i. 10 ; Mansi, xxii. 227.
8 Can. 11 : "... sane metropolitana ecclesia theologum nihilominus habeat
qui sacerdotes et alios in sacra pagina doceat et in his prsesertim informet quss
ad curam animarum spectare nascuntur," Denifle-Chatelain, i. 82 ; Mansi,
xxii. 986.

538 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Barcelona did not have a single school of grammar, and
the Journal of Eudes Rigaut proves that in the diocese of
Rouen the country clergy had the most rudimentary
education.1 The State of Literature. — Here we are obliged to point
out a deficiency much to be regretted in the culture of the
twelfth century. No place was found for literature. Not
that literary productions were lacking. It was the period
when Dante composed the Bivina Commedia, the period of
the Chanson de Roland, of the Tales of the Round Table,
of the Roman du Renard, of the Roman de la Rose, of the
Mysteries. It was the period when the liturgy was enriched
with the Lauda Sion, the Bies Irce, and the Stabat Mater.
Finally, it was the period when Villehardouin wrote the
Conquite de Constantinople, and Joinville composed his
M&moires. Lyric poetry, epopy, history, comedy, were
cultivated, and at times reached a high degree of perfection.
But all this literary activity was the work of individual
genius; it owed nothing to instruction. Students went to
the university of Paris to learn theology, to the university
of Bologna to learn law, to the universities of Montpellier
and Salerno to learn medicine ; but the cultivation of
literature was not to be found in any university. The
ostracism with which literary instruction was assailed dates
from the time when scholasticism made its entry into the
schools. All the liberal arts were eclipsed by this new
queen — all save one, the dialectic, which was the docile
servant of scholasticism. The dialectic became a power.
The varieties of the syllogism were thoroughly studied in
order to acquire capacity in reasoning about dogmas. John
of Salisbury, Gerald of Barry, Baudry de Bourgueil, Pierre
de Blois, and others, wrote arguments in favour of literary
'St. Thomas, Contra impugnantes Dei cultum et religionem : "Cum etiam
propter litteratorum inopiam nee adhuc per seculares potuerit observari statutum
lateranensis concilii . . . ostendit imperitia multorum sacerdotum qui in
aliquibus partibus adeo ignorantes inveniuntur ut nee etiam loqui latinum
sciant " ; Roger Bacon, Compendium sludii philosophici, 413, London, 1869 ;
Th. Bonnin, Journal des visites pastorales d'Eude Rigaud, archeveque de Rouen,
mai 1253 ; fevrier 1259, Rouen, 1847.

ECCLESIASTICAL STUDIES 539
studies, and denounced the abuses of the dialectic. Their
voices were last in the general indifference. A little later,
Roger Bacon recommended that for the verbal discussions
of the dialectic should be substituted the reading of the
ancient authors, the study of languages, the study of
mathematics, instruction derived from experiment, but no
one listened to him. Later still, the council of Vienne
(1312), at the instance of Raymond Lullius — who was think
ing only of preparing missionaries — directed the principal
universities to teach the Oriental languages.1 This order,
which the council of Bale renewed, remained almost a dead
letter. Scholasticism, with the help of the dialectic, retained
the monopoly of intellectual culture. But the hour had
struck when it was about to pay dearly for its long
tyranny. THE RENAISSANCE
The Renaissance, which marks the third stage in
the history of the human mind in the Middle Ages,
was above all a literary movement, which was closely
followed by an artistic and by a scientific movement.
It proposed to restore to literature the place which
scholasticism had taken from it, to fill the serious gap in
university education ; in a word, it was a reaction against
the exclusiveness of scholasticism. Moreover, it very quickly
enlarged its programme, and attacked scholasticism itself,
the subtleties, verbal distinctions, and barbarous formulas
of which were exposed to view and held up to ridicule.
But it was difficult to strike at scholasticism without, by
the same blow, attacking the dogmas upon which scholasticism
had at times left its imprint. And then how could literature
and art be cultivated without seeking the models where they
were to be found, that is to say, in pagan antiquity ? And
how live in a pagan atmosphere without being impregnated
with pagan maxims ? Some humanists — this was the name
given to the representatives of the Renaissance — overcame
1 Denifle, p. 758 ; Hilarin, pp. 425-432, 525 ; M. Andre, Le Cienheureux
Raymond Lulle, p. 197, Paris, 1900.

540 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
these difficulties ; but their number was small. Most of
them rejected Christian dogma, wholly or in part, and more
or less consciously preached the rules of pagan morality.
Purely literary at the outset, then anti-scholastic, the
Renaissance ended by being anti-Christian.
The Renaissance had a prodigious success. Several
causes contributed to this. Foremost among them was
the seduction inherent in literary beauty. The first
humanists published manuscripts of Latin writers which they
had unearthed from monastic libraries. Endowed with great
literary talents themselves, they composed writings which
they also published. Formerly, in the sixth century, certain
monks cursed literature, which appeared to them to be a
snare of the devil. But the men of the fourteenth century,
clergy as well as laity, monks as well as clergy, no longer
had the ardent and narrow faith of a St. Caesarius of Aries
or of a St. Gregory. They allowed themselves to be
captivated by the charms of literary beauty, and their
sympathies were gained for the Renaissance movement.
To this fundamental cause of success must be added
several secondary causes. In the first place was the
distrust which scholasticism was beginning to inspire.
Occam had just denounced the impotence and sterility of
demonstrations founded on the dialectic. Then he had
gathered around him disciples who, like himself, believed
that scholasticism was a failure. This scepticism was a
state of mind eminently favourable to a literary reaction.
Thus the Renaissance profited by the disaffection from which
the study of theology was suffering. In the second place,
it profited by political circumstances. The Turks penetrated
into eastern Europe and threatened Constantinople. Many
Greeks fled before the invasion, and came to seek an asylum
in Italy. Among these refugees were some men of letters.
They brought with them the manuscripts of Greek writers.
Left to themselves, the first humanists would have been
able to read to their contemporaries only pages of Cicero
and of Virgil. The Greek refugees read the poems of
Homer and the Bialogues of Plato : they revealed to the

ECCLESIASTICAL STUDIES 541
Italians the genius of ancient Greece, and this revelation
awakened enthusiastic sympathies. Unintentionally and
unwittingly the Turks furnished the humanists with valuable
auxiliaries, and served the cause of the Renaissance. Finally,
mention must be made of printing. Discovered at Mayence
about 1436, printing was made known about 1462, and there
after it spread rapidly throughout Europe. The Renaissance
found in it a wonderful instrument of popularization. We
know the causes of the success of the movement; let us
now say something of the movement itself.
The fathers of the Renaissance were Petrarch, Boccaccio,
and Salutato.1 It would be almost sufficient to name only
Petrarch, so immense was his ascendancy over his era. Never
theless, Boccacio and Salutato displayed so much zeal in
research, in the transcription and correction of manuscripts,
that their names deserve to be joined to the name of Petrarch.
These three Italians received important aid from two Greeks,
Bernard Barlaam and Leontius Pilatus, who about the middle
of the fourteenth century came to the West, and widened the
horizon of the humanists by initiating them into Greek
literature. Salutato was the secretary of Popes Urban v. and
Gregory XL at Avignon. Later he acted as chancellor in the
republic of Florence. At his instance Emmanuel Chrysoloras,
ambassador of the emperor Manuel Palaeologus, settled at
Florence, and for eighteen years taught Greek to his disciples,
among whom it is sufficient to mention Poggio, Leonardo
Aretino, and Traversari. A little later Gemistus Plethon
came into the same city to teach the Platonic philosophy,
and had as his disciple Cosmo de Medici himself. Thus at
its beginning the Renaissance found at Florence a support the
tradition of which the Medicis continued from the middle of
the fifteenth century.2
The Renaissance had another protector, as devoted as
Florence, and more powerful — the papacy.8 Before being
1 E. Miintz, La Renaissance en Italic et en France d Vepoque de Charles VIII. ,
pp. 78-118.
2 Miintz, p. 376.
' Pastor, i. 130, 229, 385, ii. 655, iii. 7, 103, 745.

542 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
chancellor at Florence, Salutato, as has been said, was
secretary to the last two popes at Avignon. Innocent vn.
had as his secretary Leonardo Aretino, a disciple of Emmanuel
Chrysoloras. Another humanist of great renown, Poggio,
secretary of Boniface ix., kept this position through six
successive pontificates. At an early day the Roman Curia
showed hospitality to the Renaissance. As time passed, this
sympathy increased. Eugenius IV. took the humanists into
his service. Nicholas v. distributed among them a profusion
of money and of honours, and founded the Vatican library, in
which he deposited about a thousand manuscripts, which cost
a fortune in gold. Under the pontificate of Paul n. the
humanists were in disgrace, which in the case of two of them,
Platina and Pomponius Lsetus, involved imprisonment. But
under Sixtus iv. they had their revenge. Platina was set at
the head of the Vatican library, and was commissioned to
write the lives of the popes. Pomponius Laetus, who was a
professor, reopened his courses. At this time the Renaissance
exercised sovereign power at Rome.
This power was fatal to the Christian spirit. In truth,
for a long time the Christian spirit had been dying out at the
Roman Curia. The famous Poggio was imbued with pagan
maxims, which he did his best to spread around him. And
this despiser of the gospel pursued for forty years his work
of dechristianization. After Poggio came Marsuppini, Valla,
Beccadelli, and others, all enemies of Christian morals, all in
the service of the papacy. Sixtus iv. showed great kindness
to these apostles of paganism ; and it was not in vain. At
the time of his death the pagan spirit reigned at the Roman
Curia. It bore fruit in the succeeding pontificates, under
Innocent viii., and still more under Alexander vi., Julius n.,
and Leo x. Cardinals, priests, and laity went over to paganism,
and the papacy led the cortege. Unfortunately, a Saxon
monk troubled the feast. Luther caused dismay at the
Roman Curia. At the end of several years, events assumed
tragic form because of his attack. In 1527, Rome suffered
from one of the most terrible pillages that history has
recorded. It was a decisive time. After the disaster, the

ECCLESIASTICAL STUDIES 543
Roman Curia recovered. It did not give up the pagan spirit,
but restrained it, and entrenched it in the realm of art.
Wherever artistic prepossessions were not in question, it put
at the head of its programme the defence and propagation of
the Gospel. From Italy the Renaissance passed into Germany, England,
and France. Germany was initiated, during the last decades of
the fifteenth century.1 Then arose a galaxy of humanists,
most of whom were likewise eminent teachers: Agricola,
Hegius, Dalberg, Langen, Murinellius, Wimpheling, Reuchlin,
and Erasmus.
A man of genius, Erasmus easily eclipsed all the other
humanists. He was the Petrarch of Germany, or rather the
Petrarch of his age ; and all nations, all princes, wished to claim
him. But Erasmus was the enemy of the monks, the enemy
of scholasticism, the enemy of dogmas. He made war on the
institutions of the Church, on the beliefs of Christian people.
His example was contagious. Many disciples — let us name
only the two most famous, the canon Mutian and Ulrich von
Hutten — were eager to walk in the footsteps of the master.
At the beginning of the sixteenth century the Renaissance
became in Germany what for fifty years it had been in Italy
— it became anti-Christian. When Luther revolted against
the papacy, the humanists supported him warmly. This
alliance was fatal to them. The Church, which had permitted
the Renaissance to invade it, gathered all its energies to crush
Protestantism. The humanists for an instant endeavoured
to be in both camps at the same time ; but they were soon
obliged to give up this policy and to take a side. Erasmus,
who had not the temperament of a martyr, remained in the
Roman Church; Reuchlin imitated him. Others went over
to Protestantism. During this time Germany was subjected
to fire and sword. The Renaissance was stifled.
In England it was scarcely better served by political
circumstances.* Yet in that country it made a promising
1 Janssen-Pastor, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, ii. 1 et seq. ; L. Geiger,
Renaissance und Humanismus in ltalien und Deulschland, Berlin, 1882.
» The Cambridge History of English Literature, iii. 1-19, Cambridge, 1909.

544 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
beginning. Its first apostles were Grocyn, Linacre, and Colet.
These three men went to Florence, where they followed the
courses of the humanists. Upon their return to England
they introduced the new methods at the university of Oxford.
About 1492 Thomas More, a young man full of talent, finished
his Oxford studies. A pupil of Linacre, he did honour to his
master, and soon showed himself a brilliant humanist. Some
years later (1497) Erasmus made his first visit to England.
Colet, with whom he came into contact, turned his attention
to religious science ; at the same time he imparted to him a
conception of the Christian religion, which put morality into
the foreground, and left dogma in the shade. Erasmus owed
much to that eminent man. In return he exercised consider
able influence upon Thomas More, who became his friend.
It was in the house of More, during a subsequent visit to
England (1509), that he composed the Encomium of Folly.
At this date English humanism was powerfully protected by
Fisher, bishop of Rochester, and Warham, archbishop of
Canterbury. It soon had a more powerful protector in
Thomas More, who gradually rose to the highest offices in
the kingdom. But then occurred the divorce of Henry vm.
Thomas More and Fisher were beheaded. It was the begin
ning of a persecution which was to be prolonged through
several reigns.
It was France which, except in the realm of art, was pre
paring the most brilliant destiny for the Renaissance.1 Yet it
was rather late before it felt the influence of the literary move
ment of Petrarch. In 1492, Lefevre d'Etaples went to Italy
to attend the school of the humanists ; then, returning to
Paris, he educated pupils, among whom were Budseus,
Vatable, Farel, Briconnet, the future bishop of Meaux,
and Poncher, afterwards bishop of Paris. In 1508 the
Italian Aleandra came to Paris, and for five years taught
Greek there. It was thus that the Renaissance — leaving out
of account an ephemeral manifestation during the period of
1 H. Hauser, "De l'humanisme et de la Reforme en France, 1512-1552," in
Rev. Hist., lxiv. 258-297 (1897) ; F. Buisson, Sebastien Castellion, sa vie et ses
auvres, i. 49-55, Paris, 1892.

ECCLESIASTICAL STUDIES 545
the popes at Avignon — came into France. In the beginning
it was persecuted by the theologians, who saw in the teaching
of Greek a grave danger coming from the side of heresy.
But the friends of Greek victoriously pleaded its cause with
Francis I. ; and this king, who is called " the father of letters,"
in 1530, under the influence of Budaeus, founded the College
de France, which was designed to give instruction in Latin,
Greek, and Hebrew. After this time, although persecuted
by theologians, the Renaissance was saved ; or rather one of
its schools was sacrificed, but the other saved. For two
schools arose in the midst of it ; one was religious, the other
was literary. The first was directed by Lefevre d'Etaples
and Briconnet. It hoped— before the appearance of Pro
testantism — for a reform of the Church, felt for Luther's
undertaking a certain amount of sympathy which caused it
some annoyances, and did not survive the first members,
almost all of whom died in the communion of the Church.
The second school, supported by public opinion, had a free
career; it could even, by employing some circumspection,
attack dogmas. To it belonged Rabelais, Marot, Bonaventura
des P^riers ; to it belonged the future.

CHAPTEE XVI
Ecclesiastical Writers
sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries
St. Gregory, born at Rome about a.d. 540, was the son of
Gordion, the deacon of the region, a great-grandson of Pope
Felix in., and a great-nephew of St. Benedict. His brilliancy
as a student and his talents attracted the attention of the
Constantinople court, and about 570 he was appointed prefect
of Rome by the emperor Justinian. But his ascetic tendencies
soon gave him a disgust for men of the world. He gave up
his office, built six monasteries in Sicily, and a seventh in
Rome — the monastery of St. Andrew — and entered it as a
monk (575). In 577 he was taken from his contemplative
life by Pope Benedict L, who ordained him deacon and
entrusted to him one of the ecclesiastical districts of Rome.
Two years later (579) he was sent by Pope Pelagius n. as
an advocate to the court of Constantinople, there to defend
the interests of the papacy. Returning to Rome about 585,
he resumedh is life as a monk at St. Andrew's, without being
able, however, wholly to escape administrative cares. In 590
he was elected to succeed Pope Pelagius il, who had just
died. The situation was terrible. Rome, ravaged by the
plague and a prey to famine, had also to resist the
Lombards, who were threatening it. To avoid formidable
responsibilities, Gregory then wrote secretly to the emperor
Maurice, and besought him not to ratify the election. But
shortly afterwards, learning that his letter had been inter
cepted by the prefect of Rome, he left the city, concealed in
a basket, and sought to hide in the country. At the end
£46

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 547
of three days he was discovered, brought back in triumph,
and consecrated at St. Peter's (3rd September 590).
During his pontificate, Gregory undertook to convert the
Anglo-Saxons to the Christian faith, and entrusted the
execution of this plan to the monk Augustine, whose mission
was completely successful. While he respected the authority
of the Byzantine emperor, he made an effort to direct his
religious policy. He protested, uselessly, however, against
the manoeuvres of the archbishop of Constantinople, who
was endeavouring to establish his own primacy in the
Church. He also expended almost fruitless efforts to make
the conquest of the Frankish Church, to break its autonomy,
to bring it under the yoke of the papacy, in a word, to
accomplish the work which a century and a half later was
to be realized by the monk Boniface. All these facts,
together with others, have been set forth elsewhere; it is
enough to allude to them here.
Writings. — (1) The Commentary on Job, which is ordin
arily called Morals. This work, begun at Constantinople
by request of Leander, bishop of Seville, comprises thirty-
five books. It was finished during Gregory's pontificate.
Without any exegetical value, it presents, on every page,
morals and ascetic counsels. It was the book most read
in the Benedictine monasteries at the beginning of the
Middle Ages. (2) The Pastoral (Regular pastoralis liber)
sets forth the obligations of the episcopate in four books,
which treat of the promotion of the bishop, of his life,
of his teaching, of the virtues necessary to his position.
This book, written by Gregory at the beginning of his
pontificate to justify his conduct at the time of his election,
was in 602 translated into Greek by order of the emperor
Maurice. In the ninth century Alfred the Great translated
it into Anglo-Saxon. In the year 813 the Frankish Church
obliged its bishops to study the Pastoral, and to take it as
a guide. (3) Bialogues, a collection of miraculous narratives,
were composed about 593, that is to say, during his pontifi
cate. The puerile thaumaturgy which this book displays,
was the delight of the Middle Ages. (4) Homilies ; of these,

548 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
twenty-two are on Ezekiel, and forty on the Gospels.
(5) Letters ; of these, there are eight hundred and fifty-
three. (6) Liturgical works and biblical commentaries. The
Gregorian origin of these is disputed.1
The Venerable Bede 2 was born (673) in Northumberland
near the abbey which Benedict Biscop had founded at
Wearmouth. At the age of seven his parents confided him
to Benedict Biscop, who received him into the abbey and
began his education. A short time afterwards (682) a
company detached itself from Wearmouth and founded a
new monastery at Yarrow. Bede was one of this colony.
At the age of nineteen he received the diaconate ; at thirty
he was ordained priest. These are the only dates in his
life that history has recorded. Having gone to Yarrow
(682), Bede did not leave it. He tells us this himself in
the autobiographical notice at the end of the fifth book of
his history : " I have passed my whole life in this monastery,
where I have surrendered myself to meditation on the
Scriptures, the observation of discipline, and daily singing
in the church. My joy has always been to learn, to teach,
or to write." He died on 26th May 735.
Writings. — Bede himself arranged the catalogue of his
writings in the autobiographical notice just mentioned, which
he drew up in 731. They were forty-five in number, and
had an encyclopaedic character. The most famous of them
all is the Ecclesiastical History of England (Historia ecclesiastica
1 Bede, Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, i. 23-33, ii. 1, 3, v. 25 ;
"Vita," by Paul Diacre, in Migne, lxxv. 41 ; "Vita," by Jean Diacre, in Migne,
lxxv. 63; Writings, in Migne, lxxv.-lxxix. ; "Letters," in Monumenta
Germanics, Ep., i. and ii., Berlin, 1891 ; L. Pingaud, La Politique de Saint
Grigoire le Grand, Paris, 1872 ; F. W. Keller, Pope Gregory the Great and his
Relations with Gaul, London, 1889 ; A. Gray, The Origin and Early History
of Christianity in Britain, London, 1897 ; W. Bright, Chapters on Early
English Church History, Oxford, 1897 ; F. Homes Dudden, Gregory the Great,
his Place in History and Thought, 2 vols., London, 1905.
2 Writings, in Migne, xc.-xcv. ; Ch. Plummer, Ven. Bedae historia ec
clesiastica, 2 vols., Oxford, 1896; Ch. Gross, The Sources and Literature of
English History, No. 1255, London, 1900; G. Marin, "Le Recueil primitif
des homelies de Bede sur l'Evangile," in Bevue binidictine, ix. 316 (1892);
M. Quentin, " Bede le Venerable," in Dictionnaire d'archiologie chritienne et de
liturgie, iii. 362.

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 549
gentis Anglorum), which relates the story of that country
from the time of Caesar to 731. From the origins to the
conversion of England (596), the recital is only a compilation
borrowed from Paul Orosius, Gildas, Prosper of Aquitania,
and from the Vita sancti Germani. But from the time of
the mission of Augustine, Bede gives us a personal work
derived sometimes from written sources — through his friend
Nothelm he procured numerous documents from the Roman
archives; others were furnished by monasteries — sometimes
from oral information. From whatever quarter they have
come, he makes use of them with remarkable impartiality,
and while he is not sufficiently master of his subject, he at
least has the merit of expressing himself in a clear and
elegant style. Translated into Anglo-Saxon by king Alfred
the Great, the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum was the
national book of the English. It is justly that the author
has been called the father of the history of England.
Other writings in the domain of history or chronology
were : (1) The Life of St. Cuthbert, abbot of Lindisfarne ; The
Lives of the first Abbots of Wearmouth and Yarrow ; The Life
of St. Felix of Note, according to a poem of St. Paulinus;
(2) a Martyrologg, which has often been revised, but which
is preserved in its original state in certain manuscripts ;
(3) Be ratione temporum, a manual of chronology; (4) Be
temporibus, which is the germ of the preceding book ; and
(5) a Chronicle, which ends at the year 727.
In the domain of theology, fifty homilies for a long time
mingled with unauthentic documents, and the sifting of which,
begun by Mabillon, was completed by Morin ; and comment
aries on the Bible, several of which are lost. Some penitential
rituals are ascribed to Bede by the manuscripts, but it seems
necessary to reject these attributions.
Of an encyclopaedic character are Be natura rerum,
which is a course of geography and cosmography ; Be ortho
graphic, Be metrica arte, Be schematibus sive tropis, which
teach respectively grammar, poetry, and rhetoric. Other
dissertations of his have less importance ; among them it
is enough to mention Be locis sacris, which gives, concerning

550 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
the topography and archaeology of Palestine, information
taken from similar books by Adamnan, Eucher, and
Hegesippus. We have sixteen of Bede's letters, the most important
of which, from an historical point of view, is one addressed to
Egbert, archbishop of York.
Other Writers: Italy. — Boethius,1 of the famous family
of the Anicii, was born at Rome about 480, and went to
Athens to study, where he acquired all the science of his
age. Upon his return to Rome he attracted the notice of
the Gothic king Theodorich. A consul in 510, he was
raised in 522 to be Master of the Palace. But soon after
wards Theodorich accused him of having secret relations
with the court of Constantinople ; he was cast into prison,
was condemned, and died amid horrible tortures.
Writings. — (1) The Consolation of Philosophy (Be eon-
solatione philosophic?). This book, written by Boethius in
his prison, was translated in the early Middle Ages into
almost all the languages of Europe, and was admired by
many generations of readers. (2) Translations from Aristotle
and from Porphyry, a commentary on the Categories of
Aristotle, and upon the Topics of Cicero; philosophical
treatises, and treatises on music and arithmetic. (3) Theo
logical treatises on the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Boethius was an encyclopaedic genius. As his book Be
consolatione makes no mention of Christ, of the Apostles, or
of the books of the Bible, the question has been asked in our
day whether he was a Christian. The negative answer
generally accepted in the middle of the last century, implying
as a consequence that the theological treatises are not
authentic, is to-day generally rejected. Boethius was a
Christian, and was the author of the books which bear his
name. 1 Writings, in Migne, lxiii.-lxiv. ; R. Peiper, Boetii philosophies consola-
tionis libri quinque, Lipsise, 1871 ; G. Boissier, "Le Christianisme de Boece,"
in Journal des Savants, p. 451, 1889 ; G. Pfeilschifter, Der Ostgothenkonig
Theodorich der Qrosse, pp. 169-184, Miinster, 1896.

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 551
CASSIODORUS j was born at Squillace in Calabria about 480,
of a family which for three generations had furnished high
officials for the state. At twenty years of age he was
quaestor, then successively prefect of the praetorium, patrician,
consul, and for forty years was adviser to Gothic kings.
At the verge of old age, about 540, he gave up his dignities
and went to Calabria to found the monastery of Viviers, which
he made a house of prayer, manual labour, and study. He
died (573) at the age of ninety-three.
Writings. — (1) The Tripartite History (Historia ecclesi
astica tripartita), which sets forth the ecclesiastical history of
the early centuries, with the aid of extracts from Socrates,
Sozomenus, and Theodoret. The monks of the Middle Ages
knew scarcely anything of the first centuries of the Church,
except by means of this book. (2) The Institutions (In-
stitutiones). The first part of these is an introduction to the
study of the sacred sciences ; and the second part, a manual of
the seven liberal arts. (3) Varice. This is a collection of
the ordinances drawn up by Cassiodorus at the time when
he was in the administration. These ordinances served as a
model to the chancellories. (4) The Be Anima is a philo
sophical treatise. (5) Of his history of the Goths, we have
only an outline. (6) Commentaries on the Bible.
Ennodius 2 was born in the south of Gaul, passed into
Italy, became bishop of Pavia, and died in 521. We have
his letters, some poems, panegyrics, and dissertations, all
written in an obscure and turgid style.
Paul the Deacon s (Paul Warnefried) was of Lombard
origin, and was monk at Mount Cassin about 774. At first
he was an enemy of France, but circumstances obliged him
'Writings, in Migne, lxix.-lxx. ; Mommsen, "Cassiodori senatoris varies,"
in M. G., Auctores antiquissimi, xii., Berlin, 1894; Th. Hodgkin, The Letters
of Cassiodorus, being a condensed translation of the Varice, London, 1886.
2 Fr. Vogel, " Magni Felicis Ennodii Opera," in M. G., Auct. antiq., vii. 1885.
See also Migne, lxiii., and G. Hartel, in Corpus scriptorum Ecclesice latinos, vi.,
Vienna, 1882 ; B. Hasenstab, Studien zur Ennodius, Munchen, 1890.
' Fr. Wiegand, Das Homiliarium Karls des Grossen auf seine urspriingliche
Gcstalt hin untersucht, Leipzig, 1897 ; F. Cabrol, " Charlemagne et la liturgie,"
in Diet, d'archiol. chretienne etde liturg, iv. 814. Writings, inM. G., Auctores
antiquissimi, ii. ; Foetae latini cevi Carolini, i. ; Ep., iv.

552 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
to enter into relations with Charlemagne, who took him into
his service. He died in 799. He wrote (1) The Homilarium,
a collection of liturgical lessons for matins, composed by order
of Charlemagne ; (2) Life of Pope St. Gregory ; (3) History
of the Lombards.
Liber Pontificalis x is a collection of the lives of Popes
since St. Peter. The first edition of this anonymous book
dates from about 530, after the pontificate of Felix iv.
Gaul. — Sidonius Apollinaris,2 a noble Gallo-Roman,
born at Lyons about 430, was elected — not without opposition
— bishop of Clermont (about 470), gave up the life of pagan
luxury which he had formerly led; died about 482. His
letters remain, which give us an idea of the morals of that period.
Gennadius 3 was a priest of Marseilles, and a contemporary
of Pope Gelasius. He wrote a commentary on the Apocalypse,
and polemical books which have disappeared. We have only
his Be ecclesiasticis dogmatibus. He died after 492.
St. Avitus,4 bishop of Vienne at the end of the fifth
century, vainly endeavoured to lead the Gothic king
Gondebrand to the Catholic faith, and renewed the same
attempt with Sigismund, the son of Gondebrand, with success.
From him we have : (1) Letters written in a very obscure
style ; (2) Biblical poems (on the Creation, the fall of Adam,
the expulsion from Paradise, and others), in which critics
have discovered some literary merit ; (3) Homilies, which are
almost all in a fragmentary state. He died in 518.
St. Cesarius of Arles 6 was born in 470, in the region of
1 L. Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis, 2 vols., Paris, 1886-1892 ; H. Grisar,
"Liber Pontificalis," in Zeitschrift fur kathol. Theol., xi. 417 (1887).
2 Migne, lviii. ; Ch. Luetjohann, "Cai Solii Apollinaris Sidonii epistolae et
carmina," in M. G. , Auctores antiq. , viii. ; G. Kaufmann, Die Werke des C.S.A.
Sidonius als eine Quelle fur die Geschichle seiner Zeit, Gbttingen, 1864 ; Dr. R.
Holland, Studia sidoniana, Leipzig, 1905.
8 Migne, lviii. ; Br. Czapla, Gennadius als Litterarhistoriker, Miinster, 1898.
4 Migne, lix. ; R. Peiper, " Alcimi Ecdicii Aviti Opera," in M. G., Auctores
antiq., vi. 2 ; U. Chevalier, GSuvres completes de Saint Avit, Lyon, 1890.
6 Migne, lxvii. and xxxix. ; A. Malnory, Saint Cisaire ivique a" Aries, Paris,
1894 ; 0. F. Arnold, Ccesarius von Arelate und die gaUische Kirche seiner Zeit,
Leipzig, 1894 ; P. Lejay, Le Rdle thiologique de Saint Cisaire a" Aries, Paris,
1905 (taken from the Bevue d'histoire et de litt. religieuse).

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 553
Chalon-sur-Sa&ne, of a Gallo-Roman family. At the age
of eighteen he entered the clergy of Chalon, which he left at
the expiration of two years to go to Levins, where he became
a monk. Appointed bishop of Aries (503), he ruled his
church for forty years. The relations which he had with
Rome, and the place which he occupied in the church of
Gaul, have been noticed elsewhere. It is sufficient to note
here that he presided over numerous councils, the most
important of which were those of Agde (506), Aries (524),
Orange (529), Vaison (529).
Writings. — (1) Sermons, the majority of which are to be
found following sermons of St. Augustine, with which they
are mingled : (2) Statuta ecclesioz antiqua, disciplinary regula
tions which for a long time were attributed to the fourth
council of Carthage ; (3) Monastic Rules, which have been
mentioned elsewhere ; (4) Edition of the Acts of the councils
over which he presided.
GiLDAS,1 a native of Great Britain, was driven out by the
Anglo-Saxon invasion. He took refuge in Armorique, and
founded a monastery at Rhuis, near Vannes. He wrote Be
excidio Britannce.
St. Gregory of Tours 2 was born in Auvergne, of a sena-
torical family (538). In 563 he went on a pilgrimage to
the tomb of St. Martin at Tours to ask to be cured of a
disease from which he was suffering. He returned cured.
Ten years later he was elected bishop of Tours. He was a
subject of Chilperic, with whom he had difficulties ; and of
Childebert, with whom he obtained great favour. He
governed his church for twenty years. He died on 17th
November 593.
Writings. — (1) History of the Franks (Histories Francorum)
is a work of the first order, not on account of literary talent
— in that respect it is nothing — but on account of the im-
1 Migne, lxix. ; Mommsen, in M. G. , Auctores antiq. , xiii. 3 (Chronica minora) ;
Th. H. Hardy, in Monumenta historiea britannica, i., 1848 ; A. W. Haddan and
W. Stubbs, Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents, i., Oxford, 1869 ; H. Zimmer,
Nennius vindicatus, Berlin, 1893.
2 Migne, lxxi. ; W. Arndt and Br. Krusch, in M. G., Scriptores rerum mer-
oving., i., Berlin, 1884.

554 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
portant information which it gives, which gained for Gregory
the title, the " father of the history of France." It comprises
eight books, the first of which, excepting the last chapters, is
devoted to the general history of the world ; (2) Miracles of St.
Martin, in four books ; (3) Lives of the Fathers, a history of
twenty-three Gallic saints; (4) Glory of the Martyrs; (5) Glory
of the Confessors ; (6) Miracles of St. Julien ; (7) Miracles of
St. Andrew. Venantius Fortunatus 1 was born near Trevisia (535),
and studied at Ravenna. Having been cured of a disease of
the eyes while in that city, through the power of St. Martin,
he resolved to go, as an action of grace, to the tomb of that
saint, and he made his way to Tours. After accomplishing
the pilgrimage he passed to Poitiers, where at the time
St. Radegonde was living. He entered the service of that
pious princess, was ordained priest, and at length became
bishop of Poitiers. He died about 600.
Writings. — (1) Numerous poems which display facility in
versification, but an inflated style. Several are worldly, and
indicate that the author's life was not very strict ; others
have a religious character. Three have found their way
into the catholic liturgy. These are : Vexilla regis, Pange
lingua gloriosi, and Quern terra, pontus ; (2) A Life of St. Martin,
in verse ; (3) Lives of saints, in prose, notably of St. Rade
gonde, St. Germain of Paris, St. Aubin of Angers, and
St. Hilary. St. Boniface 2 whose apostolate is noticed elsewhere, has
left us : (1) Letters, to the number of forty ; (2) Sermons, the
authenticity of which is however disputed ; (3) Decisions of
councils, among which should be mentioned Statuta Bonifacii,
the authorship of which is doubted ; (4) Grammar entitled Be
octo orationis partibus, published in the last century by Mai.
St. Chrodegang,3 who has already been mentioned, wrote
rules for canons (Regula canonicorum).
1 Migne, lxxxviii. ; Fr. Leo and Br. Krusch, inM. G., Scriptores antiq., iv.,
Berlin, 1881-1885.
2 Migne, lxxxix ; E. Duemmler, in M. G., Epistolcs, iii., Berlin, 1892; Id.,
in M. G., Poelas latini aevi carolini, Berlin, 1881 ; Hauck, i. 448-594.
8 Migne, M. G., Scriptores, ii. 267 ; Acta Sanctorum, Mars., i. 352.

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 555
Spain. — St. Isidore of Seville,1 born at Carthagena
about 560, was the brother of Leander, bishop of Seville,
who educated him and whom he succeeded about 600.
While bishop he endeavoured to extirpate Arianism, presided
over several councils, and died in 636.
Writings. — (1) Etymologies (or Origins), an encyclopaedia
which sums up all the science of the time. It need not be
said that this is very puerile, especially with respect to
the etymologies proposed by Isidore ; (2) Sentences, an essay
in theological synthesis, composed with the aid of texts taken
from the Fathers, especially from St. Gregory ; (3) Ecclesiastical
Offices, having to do with the liturgy and clerical discipline ;
(4) History of the Gothic, Vandal, and Suevian kings ; (5) other
books relating to the Etymologies.
St. Martin of Braga2 died in 580. We have his
collection of canons, a sermon on the vices of the peasants,
some treatises on morals, largely taken from Seneca.
St. Ildefonso,8 born at Toledo (about 608) ; bishop of that
city (659); died, 669; wrote on the perpetual virginity of
Mary, and on the rites of baptism.
St. Julian,* bishop of Toledo from 681 to 690; wrote
a book on the moments which precede death, and upon the
state of souls departing this life.
African Group. — Fulgentius,6 bishop of Ruspe at the
time of the Vandal domination ; was twice exiled by king
Thrasamund; returned to his diocese in 523, and died 533.
From him we have a considerable number of theological
writings. The most celebrated is the Be fide ad Petrum,
which for a long time was attributed to St. Augustine.
Fulgentius was one of the chief representatives of the
Augustinian theology.
Vigilius,6 bishop of Thapse, like Fulgentius, was a victim
1 Migne, lxxxi.-lxxxiv. ; Mommsen, in M. G., Auctores antiq. , xi., Berlin, 1894 ;
P. Gams, Die Kvrchengeschichte von Spanien, ii. 2, p. 102, Regensburg, 1874.
2 Migne, lxxii., Ixxiii. (see Bardenhever, Patrologie, p. 579, Freiburg, 1901) ;
Caspari MartinvonBracaras ; Schrift, Decorrectionerusticorum, Christiania,1883.
3 Migne, xcvi. ; Gams, ii. 2, 135. ? Migne, xcvi. ; Gams, ii. 2, 176.
6 Migne, lxv. 8 Id-> lxii-

556 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
of the Vandal kings, and passed a part of his life in exile.
He died a little after 520. He wrote several books against
Arianism and Eutychianism under a borrowed name.
Victor of Vite,1 an African priest born after 488 ; wrote
the history of the Vandal persecution in Africa until 484.
Victor, bishop of Tunnones in Africa, a defender of the Three
Chapters ; wrote a Chronicle, of which we possess only the
last part, which covers the period from 444 to 567.
Facundus, bishop of Hermiane in Africa, wrote several books in
favour of the Three Chapters. He died after 571. Liberatus,
deacon of Carthage, also a defender of the Three Chapters ;
about 565 wrote a history (Breviarium) of the Christological
disputes of the fifth century, down to the fifth general
council. England and Ireland. — Columban,2 whose life has been
recounted elsewhere, left : (1) Letters, six in number ; (2) some
sermons ; (3) a rule for the monks (Regula ccenobialis) ;
4. Ritual of Penance, which under its present form (forty-two
articles) must have undergone later additions.
Egbert,3 a disciple of Bede, was archbishop of York
(732-766) and founded a famous school in that city. From
him we have : (1) A Pontifical which was published in
its entirety — the Benedictine Martene had long ago given
extracts from it — in the middle of the last century;
(2) Penitential ; (3) Bialogue on the Catholic Institution.
carolingian period
Alcuin4 was born about 735, in Northumbria, of a noble
Anglo-Saxon family. As a young man he went to York to
the school just founded in that city by the archbishop Egbert,
1 Migne, lviii. ; C. Halm, in M. G., Auctores antiq., iii. 1, Berlin, 1879;
M. Petschenig, in Corpus of Vienna, Vienna, 1881.
2 Migne, lxxx. ; W. Gundlach, in M. G., Epist., iii. 154, 182.
3 Migne, lxxxix. ; W. Green well, in Surtees Society, xxvii., London, 1853.
4 Migne, c, ci. ; F. Duemmler, inM. G., Epist., iv. ; Hauck, ii. 123-145;
A. Mulinier, Les Sources de I'histoire de la France, i. 185, Paris, 1902; F. Cabrol,
in Diet, d'archiol. chrMienne et de liturg., i. 1072 (especially 1077), and iii. 807
(especially 814, 818, 819).

ecclesiastical writers 557
and had iElbert as his master. In 766, ^Elbert became
archbishop of York. Alcuin then directed the school in which
he had been a disciple. To encyclopaedic knowledge Alcuin
joined eminent paedagogical qualities. Pupils flocked from
every quarter, and the school of York eclipsed all the other
schools of England. In 781, Alcuin received from Eanbald,
archbishop of York, the mission to go to Rome to seek the
pallium for him. On his journey he met Charlemagne at Parma.
The Frankish king, who was thinking of introducing the study
of letters among his subjects, asked the Oxford professor to aid
him in realizing this project. The proposal was accepted,
and when he had executed the orders of Eanbald, and had
obtained the necessary authorizations, Alcuin went to the
Continent, entered the service of Charlemagne, lived at the
court, and was one of the chief courtiers. As a reward of
his good will he received at the outset from the great king
the abbeys of Ferrieres and St. Loup de Troyes, to which
was added afterwards (796) the abbey of St. Martin of
Tours. In 786 he made a brief stay in his own country,
during which he attended the councils of Corabrige and
Cealchyd.1 About 789 he made a second visit to England,
and remained there four years. In 793 we find him once
more at the court of Charlemagne. Eight years afterwards,
broken by old age and infirmities, he left the palace and
returned to his abbey of St. Martin, where he died at the
end of three years (804).
Writings. — (1) In the domain of Dogma: Libellus adversus
hceresin Felicis (about 793); Adversus Felicem, libri vii.
(about 794); Adversus Elipandum, libri iv. (about 800).
These three writings and polemical works were directed
against the Adoptionist heresy ; Be fide sanctce et individual
Trinitatis, libri iii., a work founded on St. Augustine (after
800); Be Trinitate ad Fredegisium qucestiones, xxviii. ; Liber
de processione Spiritus Sancti, a compilation of patristic texts to
prove the Filioque, the authorship of which, however, is dis
puted ; Confessio fidei, a compilation of patristic texts concern-
1 E. Duemmler, "Zur Lebensgeschichte Alkuins" in Neues Archiv, xviii.
30 (1892).

558 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
ing various Christian dogmas, the authorship of which is also
disputed. The Carolinian Books, a refutation of the second
council of Nicaea, composed in the name of Charlemagne, either
by a single anonymous theologian, who must be Alcuin, or by
several theologians, of whom Alcuin was probably thee hief ;
various Biblical Commentaries. (2) In the domain of Liturgy :
The Lectionary, the real title of which is, Comes ab Albino ex
Caroli imperatoris prcecepto emendatus, a collection of epistles
read at mass ; the Homeliarium, a collection of sermons from
the Fathers, for the use of preachers ; Liber Sacramentorum, a
book of private devotions, in which Alcuin appointed a special
mass for every day in the week — there is a mass of the Holy
Trinity for Sunday, a mass of the Holy Virgin for Saturday;
Ofiicia per ferias, a collection of prayers for every day of the
week ; Be psalmorum usu, a collection of prayers for various
occasions, preceded by remarks on the manner of using the
Psalms ; these last two books, like the Liber Sacramentorum,
are works of private devotion ; finally, the book entitled
Gregorian Sacramentary, that is, the sacramentary sent by
Pope Adrian to Charlemagne, which Alcuin transcribed,
adding a certain number of masses which did not exist in the
time of St. Gregory. (3) Letters, more than three hundred in
number, some of which have a theological bearing ; four Lives
of the Saints ; some verses ; a short philosophical treatise on
the soul, entitled Be animce ratione; a small manual on
morals, called Be virtutibus et vitiis ; some books on paedagogy,
in dialogue form.
At the court of Charlemagne, Alcuin was what we call
the minister of public instruction. This involved the execu
tion of the intellectual programme of the Frankish king, a
programme which included (1) the defence of orthodoxy
against error; (2) the establishment of the Roman liturgy in
Frankish countries ; (3) the literary and scientific education
of the Franks. Conforming to the orders of his prince,
Alcuin (1) refuted in books referred to above, the Adoptionist
heresy of Elipand, and Felix, and probably composed in whole
or in part the Carolinian books; (2) introduced into the
Frankish empire the Gregorian Missal, after having previously

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 559
enriched it with some new masses ; and (3) devoted attention
to psedagogy. The theological writings are only a matter for
our curiosity ; Alcuin had no influence whatever upon dogma.
On the contrary, he had a considerable place in the history of
the liturgy. From him was derived the Missal which after
the ninth century was in use in the Frankish Church. And
this missal of Alcuin at length reached Rome, where it sup
planted the ancient liturgy. That which is known as the
Roman Missal is, with the exception of some recent additions,
the missal composed by Alcuin. But it was especially in
the department of paedagogy that Alcuin acquired a right
to our gratitude. At Aix-la-Chapelle he organized the School
of the Palace (scola palatii) ; there he introduced the study
of the liberal acts. He made it an academy, and at the same
time placed in honour among the Frankish nobility the
culture of letters. More than this, at Aix-la-Chapelle, even
as later at St. Martin of Tours, he trained disciples like
Raban Maur, who introduced intellectual culture into
Germany. Not only did he train teachers ; he also improved
the instruments of labour, that is to say, the manuscripts,
into which he introduced punctuation, the separation of words,
and calligraphy. Alcuin was the teacher of the Middle
Ages ; more than any other man, he helped to transmit to
future generations the results of ancient culture.
Other Writers. — Theodulf of Orleans,1 born probably
in Spain about 760, acquired considerable literary culture,
married, and became the father of a family. Forced to leave
his country, he went to France and presented himself to
Charlemagne, who in consideration of his talents received
him kindly, made him bishop of Orleans, and also gave him
several abbeys (before 798). As bishop, Theodulf endeavoured
to spread instruction among the clergy and among the people,
he cultivated architecture and poetry. After the death of
Charlemagne, becoming involved in an action for high treason,
1 Miene cv. ; Duemmler, in M. G., Poetae latini medii aevi, i. ; Ch. Cuissard,
Thiodulfe eveque d'Orlians, sa vie et ses omvres, Orleans, 1892 ; C. Port, in Rev.
de V Anjou, 1879.

560 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
he was sent into exile at Angers, where he probably died
(821). From him we have treatises on the Holy Ghost, the
ceremony of baptism, ecclesiastical rules (capitula), a treatise
on the administration of the sacraments (capitulare), some
poems (carmina), one of which, Gloria, laus et honor, composed
at Angers, was introduced (in part — the first twelve stanzas)
into the liturgy of Palm Sunday.
Agobard1 was born in Spain (779), and received his
education in the episcopal school at Lyons. The archbishop
of that city, Leidrade, ordained him priest (804), consecrated
him bishop (813), and made him his coadjutor. In 816,
Leidrade died ; Agobard then became archbishop of Lyons.
He made praiseworthy efforts to oppose superstition, but was
especially occupied with politics. Being a fiery partizan of
the sons of Louis the Debonnair, who had revolted against their
father, he was one of the chief agents in deposing the un
fortunate emperor, who, when he returned to power, sent
Agobard into exile, and entrusted the Church of Lyons to
Amalaire (835). After being in disgrace for two years,
Agobard again ascended the episcopal throne. He died in
840. He wrote (1) a theological treatise against Adop
tionism; (2) five books in favour of the sons of Louis the
Debonnair ; (3) several liturgical books against Amalaire ; (4)
several treatises against superstitions, among which he placed
judicial duels, ordeals, and the worship of images ; (5) several
books against the Jews.
Raban Maur,2 born at Mayence (784), was offered by his
parents to the abbey of Fulda, in which he passed his youth.
In 802 he was sent to the abbey of St. Martin of Tours; was
a pupil of Alcuin, who gave him the surname " Maur." He
then returned to Fulda, where for eighteen years he was
professor, not without having difficulties with the abbot
Ratgaire, which obliged him temporarily to leave the monas
tery. Elected abbot of Fulda in 822, he held the office for
twenty years, at the end of which time he resigned. In
847 he was appointed bishop of Mayence, and he died in
1 Migne, civ. ; Duemmler, in M. G., Epist., v.
2 Migne, cvii.-cxii. ; Duemmler, in M. G., Epist., v. 2; Hauck, ii. 620-664.

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 561
856. From him we have (I) Be TJniverso, an encyclopaedia
the materials of which are taken from Isidore of Seville ;
(2) On the Institution of the Clergy, which is also derived
from Isidore; (3) Letters; (4) Homilies; (5) Biblical
Commentaries. Hincmar,1 of noble family, was born about 806, and at
an early age entered the abbey of St. Denis. Elected arch
bishop of Reims in 845, he occupied that see for thirty-seven
years. He died in 882 at Epernay, where he had sought
refuge with the relics of St. Re"mi, in order to escape the
Normans. Hincmar had troubles with Rome, which have
been elsewhere explained ; mention has also been made of
the part which he took in the condemnation of the monk
Gottschalk, and of his disputes on the subject with a part of
the Frankish episcopate. We may also recall his conflicts
with the clergy of Ebbon, with Rothad of Soissons, and with
his nephew Hincmar of Laon, conflicts which caused his
troubles with Rome. An enemy of the papal despotism,
archbishop Hincmar could not avoid the very defects
which he saw and detested in the throne of St. Peter; he
was a despotic metropolitan. Let us add that he was an
active and enlightened administrator. He was also an author.
Unfortunately he is so prolix, that the reading of what he
wrote is wearisome. From him we have (1) Letters ; (2)
Synodical Rules (capitula synodica), characterized by ponderous
wisdom ; (3) Opuscules ; (4) a treatise on predestination, and
the preface to another treatise which has been lost.
Scotus Erigena,2 of Irish origin, was born probably in the
very early part of the ninth century, and came — it is not
known how — to the court of Charles the Bald, whose
sympathies he gained. When the eucharistic controversy
broke out he took the side of Ratramne against Paschase
Radbert, in favour of the spiritual presence of Christ and
against His carnal presence in the Eucharist. He still enjoyed
1 Migne, cxxv., cxxvi. ; H. Schrbs, Hinkmar, erzbischof von Reims,
Freiburg, 1884.
2 Migne cxxii. ; M. de Wulf, Hist, de la philosophic mediivale, 2nd ed., pp.
179-185, Louvain, 1905 ; S. Deutsch, Realencycl., xviii. 86.
36

562 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
high consideration when the controversy about predestination
took place. It is this which explains the fact that Hincmar
resorted to his knowledge, and asked him to refute Gottschalk.
Scotus Erigena willingly performed the service which was
asked. But he acquitted himself of the task in such a way
that he provoked the indignation of Wenilon, Prudentius,
Florus, and R6"mi ; and two councils condemned him. Hincmar
was obliged to repudiate this troublesome auxiliary. Scotus
Erigena, who then disappeared, died after 880, probably in
France. Writings. — (1) Translation of the works of the Areopa-
gite ; (2) Commentary on the book of the celestial hierarchy
of the Areopagite; (3) Be divina pradestinatione, the book
asked for by Hincmar ; (4) Be divisione naturae, a philosophical
treatise, in which the Neo -Platonic philosophy (derived from
the Areopagite) is combined with pantheism ; (5) Commentary
on the Gospel of St. John, of which we have only fragments ;
(6) Poems, a homily, and the translation of a work by St.
Maximus. Scotus Erigena was not the rationalist that he is some
times thought to have been. He was a believer, but a
believer combined with a philosopher, and the philosopher
attempted to adapt the data of revelation to the concepts of
the reason. Scotus pursued the same object as was afterwards
pursued by St. Anselm. He arrived at a different result.
This was owing partly to the Neo^Platonic philosophy which
he had drawn from the writings of the Areopagite, partly also
to the influence of Origen, with whom he was familiar.
Alfred the Great,1 born in 849, king of England in 871,
died in 901, has a place among the writers of the ninth
century. He translated into Anglo-Saxon the Pastoral of St.
Gregory, the Histories of Paul Orosius.the Ecclesiastical History
of Bede, the Philosophical Consolations of Boethius, a part
of the Soliloquies of St. Augustine. , All these translations,
particularly that of Boethius, deal freely with the text.
Alfred composed a code which utilized the legislation which
1 Ch. Plummer, Life and Times of Alfred the Great, Oxford, 1902 ; W.
Stephenson, Asser's Life of King Alfred, Oxford, 1904.

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 563
he found in force. He left a will, in Anglo-Saxon. He was
besides, according to certain critics, the author of the Anglo-
Saxon Chronicle, which is a history of the Anglo-Saxons after
the year 732. In his translations he was assisted by Asser
the Gaul, whom he called to his presence, and who wrote
the biography Be rebus gestis JElfridi.
Halitgaire, bishop of Cambrai : Penitential (831).
Eginhard : Life of Charlemagne; Annals; Letters (839).
Amalaire: important liturgical works (after 850).
Jonas, bishop of Orleans : Buties of Laymen ; Buties of
Kings; Concerning Images (843).
Hilduin of St. Denis : History of St. Bionysius the Areo
pagite (840).
Walafrid Strabo, abbot of Reichenau: Biblical gloss
which was much esteemed in the Middle Ages ; liturgical
works (849).
Loup, abbot of Ferrieres : Letters ; book on the pre
destination controversy.
Paschase Radbert, abbot of Corbie : On the Body and Blood
of Jesus Christ ; On the Maternity of the Virgin ; Comment
aries; Letter to Frudegarde (860).
Ratramne, a monk of Corbie : On the Body and Blood of
Jesus Christ ; On the Nativity of Christ ; On Predestination ;
Against the Greeks (about 870).
Prudentius, bishop of Troyes : Letter to Hincmar against
Scotus Erigena (883).
Adon, archbishop of Vienne : Chronicle ; Martyr ology (875).
The False Decretals, a collection of pontifical decrees, a
part of which — the most ancient part, as it is thought — was
manufactured. The forger, who is to-day still unknown,
composed his work either at Reims or Le Mans about 850.
His motive was to limit the powers of the metropolitans and
resist the encroachments of the laity.
Auxilius, consecrated bishop by Pope Formosus, lived
afterwards in the region of Naples (about 915); Pleas for
Pope Formosus.

564 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES

ELEVENTH CENTURY
St. Anselm x was born at Aosta, in the Piedmont, in tha
year 1033. Very devout during his childhood, he passed a
dissipated youth. For this, or for some other reason, he was
forced to leave the paternal roof, where his father made his
life unbearable. After three years of adventurous wanderings
he entered the abbey du Bee in Normandy, whither he
was attracted by the reputation of Lanfranc; he became
immersed in the study of the sciences, and became a monk.
That was in 1060 ; he was then twenty-seven years of age.
Three years later he obtained the office of prior, which he
filled for fifteen years, at the end of which time he was elected
abbot (1078). At length, in 1093, he was appointed arch
bishop of Canterbury by William Rufus. In this high
position he had hard conflicts to endure ; conflicts with
William Rufus, who wished to prevent him from going to
Rome to consult Urban II., and who ended by forbidding him
to stay in England (1097); conflicts with Henry I., who
required feudal homage of him. These two difficulties cost
the archbishop of Canterbury two exiles. In 1107 the
conflict came to an end. Anselm, having returned to Canter
bury, lived there in peace until the day when he left the
earth (21st April 1109).
Writings. — The writings of Anselm are some of a
theological, others of an ascetic kind. They may be arranged
in two groups, to which must be added his correspondence,
which comprises more than four hundred letters.
Theological Works. — To this group belong (1) The
Monologium, in which the existence of God, His perfections,
and the existence of the three divine persons, are demonstrated
by reasoning, without any appeal to the data of faith. From
a chronological point of view this book is the first of Anselm's
writings ; it is also one of the most famous ; (2) the Proslogium
a continuation of the Monologium, the argument of which he
seeks to simplify. It is in this book that occurs the celebrated
- Migne, clviii., clix. ; Ch. de Remusat, St. Anselme de Canlorbiry, 2me edit.,
Paris, 1869 ; J. Rigg, St. Anselm of Canterbury, London, 1897.

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 565
argument that from the mere concept of God His existence
may be deduced. This argument was at once attacked by
the monk Gaunilon, whom Anselm answered in the Liber
apologeticus contra Gaunilonem; (3) the Cur Beus homo was
composed in the form of a dialogue, to demonstrate syllo-
gistically that the second person of the Trinity became
incarnate, took human flesh in the womb of the Virgin, and
died for the salvation of men ; (4) Be conceptu virginali et
originali peccato. This book was designed to explain how the
Incarnate Word escaped the law of original sin ; and it
interests us chiefly by the efforts which it makes to demolish
the Augustinian notion of original sin, and to substitute for
it a new notion ; (5) the Liber de fide Trinitatis et de incar-
natione Verbi, written in opposition to Roscelin ; (6) the Be
processione Spiritus Sancti, contra Grcecos, is a rational demon
stration of the Filioque ; (7) various writings of lesser import
ance. The Monologium and the Proslogium were composed at
the abbey du Bee ; the other works mentioned were written
after Anselm's elevation to the see of Canterbury.
Ascetic Works. — (1) Homilies, sixteen in number, several
of which are of doubtful authenticity ; (2) Liber meditationum
et orationum, consisting of twenty-one meditations (to which
must be added one on the Miserere), and seventy-five prayers.
It is with these as with the homilies — some are of uncertain
origin or are certainly apocryphal ; (3) Be beatitudine cozlesti,
a comprehensive discussion on the happiness of heaven,
delivered by Anselm, and reported by his biographer Eadmer ;
(4) Be pace et concordia, another discussion by Anselm which
we know by the notes of Eadmer; (5) Be similitudinibus,
conversations of Anselm, collected by a friend, probably
Eadmer ; (6) Admonitio morienti.
An eminent philosopher, and a sincere Christian,
St. Anselm presented Christian dogmas as philosophical
verities, capable of being deduced from rational principles,
even as geometrical theorems are deduced from axioms.
He occupied himself with this deduction, and demonstrated
the mysteries, that is to say, he presented them as postulates
of the human reason. In this way he opened a new path to

566 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
theology, in which the doctors of the following centuries
walked, not, however, without making some reservations. He
was the father of Scholasticism. Let us add that, not
content with demonstrating dogmas, he interpreted and
explained them ; and his interpretations of redemption and
original sin overturned those which Augustine had given.
The father of Scholasticism was also one of the most powerful
opponents of Augustinianism.
Other Writers: England. — Lanfranc,1 born at Pavia
(1005), monk at the abbey du Bee in Normandy, archbishop
of Canterbury (1089), wrote a treatise on the Eucharist
against Berenger, a treatise on the secret of confession, and
a biblical commentary.
iELFRic,2 a monk of Abingdon, abbot of Cerne, then of
Ensham (f about 1000), wrote two books of homilies, a
grammar, etc.
Italy. — St. Peter Damien3 was born at Ravenna in
1007. At an early age left an orphan and brutally treated
by one of his brothers, he was rescued by another, who
assumed responsibility for his education. After brilliant
studies, which opened to him the highest careers, he re
nounced the world and joined the hermits at Fonte Avellana,
gave himself up to severe austerities, and about 1040
became prior of the monastery. An ardent apostle of the
reform of the clergy, he hailed the emperor Henry in. as a
deliverer, who for his part appointed Damien counsellor to
Pope Clement ii. Under Clement il, who died soon after
wards, Peter Damien could do nothing, but he exercised a
serious influence upon Leo IX., and still more upon Stephen IX.,
who made him cardinal bishop of Ostia (1057). A short
time afterwards, he wished to return to the monastery. He
offered his resignation to Nicholas II. and to Alexander n.,
1 Migne, cl.
2 Thorpe, The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church, 2 vols., London, 1844 ¦¦
Skeat, AZlfric's Lives of Saints, London, 1881.
3 Migne, cxliv., cxlv.

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 567
which for a long time was refused, and then accepted (about
1067). Nevertheless he was entrusted with some important
negotiations, of which he consented to take charge. He died
in 1072. Writings. — (1) Sermons, among which are to be found
nineteen by Nicholas of Clairvaux, a monk of the twelfth
century ; (2) Letters, divided into eight books ; (3) Opuscules,
sixty in number, the most famous of which is the Liber
gomorrhianus, in which the corruption of the clergy is
described with repulsive realism.
Rathier,1 born near Liege (f 974), was successively
monk, bishop of Verona, prisoner on account of a political
crime, vagabond, bishop of Liege, and finally simple monk.
From him we have Prceloquia, an Excerptum ex dialogo
eonfessionali, etc. Rathier attacked the concubinage of
priests and was a partizan of the eucharistic doctrine of
Paschase Radbert.
Adelman2 (1061), bishop of Brescia, wrote a letter to
Berenger begging him to renounce his doctrines.
Humbert, a Burgundian by birth, attached himself to Pope
Leo IX., and was charged with a mission to Constantinople,
where he excommunicated Michael Cerularius (f 1063). He
left a polemical treatise against the Greeks.
Bonizo,3 bishop of Placencia (fl090), a partizan of
Gregorian ideas, wrote Libellus de sacramentis; Becretum; a
chronicle. Guitmond, bishop of Aversa (f 1086), left a treatise on
the Eucharist in opposition to Berenger.
Luitprand,4 born at Pavia, appointed bishop of Cremona
by Otto I. (f970), wrote Antapodosis (a history of the
events from 887 to 949, manifestly partial); an incomplete
biography of Otto I. (960-964).
France. — Gerbert 6 — Pope Sylvester n. — born in
1 Migne, cxxxvi. 2 Id., cxliii. « Id., cl.
4 Id. cxxxvi. ; Pertz in M. G., Scriptores, iii.
6 A. Olleris, CEuvres de Gerbert, Clermont, 1867 ; J. Havet, Lettres de Gerbert,
Paris 1889 • P. Lausser, Gerbert, Etude historique sur le x™ siicle, Aurillac,
1866; J. Lair, Etudes critiques , Paris, 1899.

568 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Auvergne about 940, studied first with the Benedictines
of Aurillac, was led by chance circumstances into Catalonia,
where the bishop of Vich taught him mathematics, as
tronomy, and music. In 970 he attracted the notice of
Pope John xv., who introduced him to Otto I. After a
short stay at Rome he resolved to go to Reims to pursue
his studies (973). There the disciple soon became the
master, and excited the admiration of his students, who
came from every direction to receive his instructions. The
emperor Otto n. heard of him, wished to see him, and gave
him the abbey of Bobbio, near Pavia (982), where, however,
Gerbert did not long remain. Returning to Reims, he took
an active part in the grave events which were then taking
place — it was the time when the crown of France was
passing from the hands of the last Carolingians. He put
himself on the side of Hugh Capet, abandoned Arnoul, bishop
of Reims, who surrendered the city to the Carolingians. He
attended the council of St. Basle, where Arnoul was deposed,
drew up the acts of that Gallican council, and was appointed
Archbishop of Reims by Hugh (991). Meeting with
hostility on the part of Rome, he at first endeavoured to
resist, but then thought it better to yield, and to win the
favour of Otto in., who granted him the archbishopric of
Ravenna (997), and finally had him elected Pope (999).
Sylvester n. died in 1003. This man, who astonished his
contemporaries by his knowledge to such an extent that he
was regarded as a magician and a sorcerer, wrote but little.
From him we have some letters, treatises on mathematics, a
dissertation on a problem of logic, and the acts of the
council of St. Basle. A treatise on the Eucharist, which for
a long time was circulated under his name, is not his.
Flodoard,1 a priest of Reims (f 966) : author of Chronicle
from 919 to 966 ; History of Reims, until 948 ; three
poems on the triumphs of Christ.
Abbon, a monk of St. Germain-des-Pres (921): History
of the Siege of Paris, in verse.
Abbon of Fleury (f 1004) : Works on the pastoral cycle,
1 Migne, oxxxv. ; M, G., Scriptores, iii. xiii. (1839),

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 569
on grammar, collection of the canons, and an apology for his
attack on the vices of the clergy.
Odon of Cluny (f 942) : Conferences.
Odilon of Cluny (f 1042): Sermons; biographies.
Adson, abbot of Montierender (f 992): Treatise on the
Antichrist ; biographies.
Fulbert, bishop of Chartres (1006-1028): Letters,
sermons, dissertations, poems, and prayers.
William, abbot of St. Beninge of Dijon (f 1081): Letter
and sermons.
Raoul Glaber, a monk of Cluny (f 1048): Chronicle;
Life of William.
John, bishop of Avranches, then archbishop of Rouen
(1079) : Treatise on ecclesiastical offices.
Berenger,1 born at Tours (f 1088), archdeacon of Angers,
apostle of a doctrine of the Eucharist, of which mention has
been made elsewhere : Be sacra ccena adversus Lanfrancum;
Letters. Ulric, monk of Cluny (1093): Ordinary of Cluny.
Durand, abbot of Troarn (1089): Treatise on the
Eucharist, against Berenger.
Ives of Chartres2 was born about 1040 in Beauvais, was
a disciple of Lanfranc at the abbey du Bee, directed the
collegial church of St. Quentin, was made bishop of Chartres
(1091), and died in 1116. His principal writings are the
Panormia and the Becretum (a collection of canonical laws
composed before the episcopate). We have also his sermons
and two hundred and ninety-two letters.
Germany. — Reginon, abbot of Priim (f 915), near Treves:
Collection of ecclesiastical laws ; Chronicle.
Burchard, bishop of Worms (|1025): Becretorum liber,
a book which had great vogue.
Roswitha, a nun of Gandersheim in Saxony (f about
1 H. Sudendorf, Berengarius Turonensis, erne Sammlung betreffender
Briefe, Hamburg, 1850 ; J. Schnitzer, Berenger von Tours, sein Leben und seine
Lehre, Munchen, 1891. . ....
2 Migne, clxi., clxii.

570 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
980): Lives of Saints; History of Otto L, in verse;
Comedies, Bernold, a monk of Schaffhausen (1100): Micrologus
(study of the liturgy ; pleas for the Gregorian reform).

TWELFTH CENTURY
Abelard,1 born at Palet, near Nantes, early devoted him
self to the study of philosophy, which was taught to him
successively by the nominalist Roscelin, and by the realist
William of Champeaux. When he reached the age of
twenty-three, he began his career as a professor (1102),
which he continued at Melun, Corbeil, Paris, Mount St.
Genevieve, and at Laon — where he was first a disciple of
Anselm of Laon, afterwards his rival — and again at Paris
(1113). He then had five thousand students, of whom fifty,
later, became bishops, and nineteen, cardinals ; one of whom
even sat on the throne of St. Peter with the name of
Celestine n. At that time Abelard was at the height of
his glory, and also on the eve of painful trials. The first
of these came from his relations with HeUoise, a young girl
whom he seduced and made a mother, whom he had even
secretly married, from whom he was obliged to part, and
whom he had sent into the monastery of Argenteuil. Mad
with rage, the canon Fulbert, uncle of Heloise, caused Abelard
to be shamefully mutilated, who after this treatment was
forced to become a monk. He entered the monastery of
St. Denis (1118). By the authorization of the abbot of St.
Denis, he shortly afterwards resumed his teaching. Then he
had a new trial. Denounced as a heretic by Roscelin, his
former teacher, he appeared before the council of Soissons,
which obliged him to cast into the fire the book in which
he had set forth his doctrine, and which confined him in the
monastery of St. M6dard at Soissons (1121). The imprison-
1 Migne, clxxviii. ; R. Stbltze, Abelards zu Soissons verurtheilter Tractatus,
De unitate et trinitate divina, Freiburg, 1891 ; Deutsch, Peter Abalard, Leipzig,
1883 ; Denifle, Archiv fiir Literatur- und Kirehengeschichte des Mittelalters,
i. 402-620, Berlin, 1885.

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 571
ment did not last long, and at the end of several days
Abelard returned to St. Denis.
Another misadventure awaited him there. One day,
having read in the works of Bede that St. Denis the
Areopagite had been bishop, not of Athens, as had been
believed, but of Corinth, he at once made this discovery
known to the monks around him. It was a fatal discovery,
which robbed the Areopagite of his title as first bishop of
Paris and apostle to the Gallic Church, which struck at the
very foundation of a legend dear to all the French. Abelard
paid dearly for his erudition. The angry monks threatened
to kill him. To escape their violence he took refuge in
the monastery of St. Ayoul, near Provins ; was driven thence,
but was at length authorized to settle in the territory of
Troyes, in a deserted spot, where he constructed an oratory
of reeds and straw. Pupils flowed by thousands to this
hermitage. Abelard became a professor once more, regained
the triumphs of other days, and found consolation, which he
manifested by calling his oratory the "Paraclete." It was
only a passing consolation. Abelard soon became convinced
that St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Norbert suspected his ortho
doxy. Fearful of being at any time condemned by a council,
he was surrendering himself to the most melancholy thoughts,
when he learned that the monks of St. Gildas at Rhuys, in
Brittany, had elected him as their abbot. He accepted this
election, which placed him beyond the reach of his enemies,
and he set out for Brittany (1126). There also disappoint
ments were in store for him. The monks of St. Gildas
led a dissolute life. Abelard soon became disgusted with
his new situation. Just at that time he learned that the
nuns of Argenteuil, among whom was Heloi'se, had been
driven away by the abbot of St. Denis. He went at once
to Argenteuil, rescued H^loise, as well as her companions,
brought them to the Paraclete, installed them there, pro
vided for their spiritual and bodily needs, constituted
himself their chaplain and director, and remained at the
Paraclete until the day when, in order to escape the blows
of public malignity which attacked his honour and that

572 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
of Heloise, he was forced to depart. Returning to St. Gildas,
he endeavoured to reform his monks. The latter, for their
part, attempted several times to poison him. Abelard left
St. Gildas, never to return. This departure occurred in
1136 at the latest, for at this date we find him again at
Mount St. Genevieve, where he had once more become
professor, and where he was surrounded by admiring pupils.
For some reason which we do not know, he soon afterwards
gave up teaching orally, and published books. Misfortune
overtook him. Denounced by St. Bernard and by William
of Thierry, he appealed to a council. We know the sequel.
Condemned by the council of Sens (1141) for his writings,
and in his person by Pope Innocent II., Abelard submitted.
He died the following year (1142), at the age of sixty-
three. His remains were buried at the Paraclete by the
sisters of Heloise. On the morrow of the French Revolution
(1800) they were transferred to the cemetery of Pere
Lachaise at Paris, where they still lie.
Writings. — I. In the theological domain — (1) Be unitate
et trinitate divina, which was condemned by the council of
Soissons (1121). This book, which was supposed to be
lost, was discovered and published by Stolze (1891); (2)
Theologia Christiana, which is only a corrected and enlarged
edition of the preceding book ; (3) Introductio ad theologiam,
begun at St. Denis, and completed about 1136 ; (4) Bialogus
inter philosophum judozum et christianum, edited for the
first time by Rheinwald in 1831; (5) Sic et non (for and
against), a collection of patristic texts which contradict each
other, or which at least appear to do so. This book, a
considerable part of which Cousin published in 1835, was
completely edited for the first time in 1851 by Henke and
Lindenkohl ; (6) Scito teipsum or Ethica, a study of moral
theology, of which we have little more than the first book ;
(7) Commentariorum super S. Pauli epistolam ad Romanas libri
quinque, and other biblical commentaries which it is not
necessary to enumerate here ; (8) Sermones or sermons, thirty-
five in number, several of which were composed for the
nuns of the Paraclete ; (9) we may add to these, Abcdardi

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 573
sententice, called also Epitome theologice christiance, a writing
which is not Abelard's, but which reproduces exactly the
doctrine of the Introduction. II. In the literary or philoso
phical domain — (1) Letters, twelve in number, the most
famous of which is the first, in which Abelard gives his
biography up to the eve of his departure for St. Gildas;
(2) Hymni et sequentice (liturgical poems) ; (3) Planctus varii
(biblical scenes described in verse); (4) Versus ad Astral-
abium filium (advice to his son Astralabius) ; (5) Bialec-
tica, Liber divisionum et Glosses (glosses on Porphyry,
Aristotle, and Boethius). These were published by Cousin
(Ouvrages in&dits a Abilard) in 1836; (6) Glossulce in
Porphyrium, discovered by Ravaisson, and paraphrased by
Re"musat. During his life, and in later times, Abelard has had
passionate admirers, who have regarded him as a philosopher
of the highest class. He has also had fierce opponents —
among whom was St. Bernard — who have seen in him only
a rationalist, a despiser of divine revelation, and a sophist.
He has deserved neither the enthusiasm nor the hatred. He
was a philosopher, distinguished, subtle, eloquent, and
learned ; he was not a philosopher of the highest class. He
had not speculative genius like his contemporary, Anselm
of Canterbury. Yet he always adhered sincerely to the
decisions of the councils and the formulas of the symbols.
He was engaged, it is true, in bringing the Christian
mysteries within the capacity of the human reason, not
without danger of mutilating them. But in this respect he
only followed the movement begun by St. Anselm, a move
ment which was continued by the schoolmen of the thirteenth
century. Nevertheless the philosophy of dogmas did not
wholly absorb him. Moreover, in his Introductio ad theo-
logiam he constructed the first synthesis of the theology of
the Middle Ages. In the Sic et non he opened the way to
criticism of the patristic texts, and laid the foundations
of positive theology. It was thus that he revealed him-
Belf as an initiative spirit, and that he is assured of an
important place in the history of theology.

574 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
St. Bernard 1 was born in 1090 at Fontaines, near Dijon.
He was the son of an officer at the court of the duke of
Burgundy, named Tescelin. At the age of twenty-one he
resolved to leave the world, the pleasures of which had for
a while seduced him. He went to Chatillon-sur-Seine to
serve his apprenticeship in the religious life. Six months
afterwards, he entered the monastery of Citeaux (1112),
which he left at the end of three years in order to found
the abbey of Clairvaux (1115). He died at Clairvaux at the
age of sixty- three (1153), exhausted by mortifications, and
also by the incomparable activity which he displayed
throughout his life.
Bernard possessed to an extraordinary degree the art of
persuading men, of drawing them after him, and of arousing
the multitudes. From his youth he showed himself to be a
leader; for he entered Citeaux, followed by thirty young
men, won by him for the monastic life. When he became
abbot of Clairvaux, people came to him to hear his fiery
preaching, to receive his councils, or rather his oracles. In
1128 he made the council of Troyes approve the orders of
the Templars. He was then the most powerful man in the
Church of France. Two years later the apostolic see was
disputed by two rivals, and the competition troubled all
Christendom. Bernard took in hand the cause of Innocent n.
and made it victorious. Thereafter he was the adviser of
the Roman court, sometimes an arbitrary and troublesome
adviser, but he was always listened to. It was at his
instance, it may even be said by his orders, that Pope
Innocent n. consented to condemn Abelard. His authority
grew greater on the day when a former monk of Clairvaux —
with the name of Eugenius ni. — occupied the chair of St.
Peter. At the demand of the Pope, Bernard preached the
second crusade with wonderful success (1146). It was
success for which he paid dearly ; for the disasters of which
he soon received the news, poisoned his declining years.
Writings. — The literary productions of St. Bernard
1 Migne, clxxxii.-clxxxv. ; Vacandard, Vie de Saint Bernard, 2 vols., Paris,
1895.

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 575
comprise: I. Nearly four hundred and eighty letters; II.
Three hundred and forty sermons, the most famous of which
are the four Super missus est, which sing the praises of the
Virgin, and Be aquce ductu, likewise dedicated to the Virgin ;
III. Fourteen treatises, among which it is here sufficient to
mention (1) Be considerations ; (2) Tractatus contra qucedam
capitula errorum Abcelardi, addressed to Pope Innocent II.,
urging him to condemn Abelard (1141); (3) Liber de vita et
rebus gestis Sanctis Malachice, a biography of Malachi, the
Irish bishop ; (4) Tractatus de baptismo, addressed to Hugh
of St. Victor, and probably aimed at Abelard ; (5) Be laude
novce militice, which was a eulogy of the Templars, and
shows them the ideal to which they should tend. Of all his
treatises, the most famous is the Be consideratione, begun in
1149, finished in 1153, and addressed to Eugenius ni. In
this work Bernard sets forth to his former disciple the pre
rogatives of the Roman pontiff, but at the same time he
traces for him, with a firm hand, the duties of his office, and
urges him to correct the abuses which vitiate the Roman
administration. Letters, sermons, treatises, deal with the most various
subjects, but have one common element : it is mysticism.
Bernard, who was a man of action, was also a man of contem
plation. He cultivated mysticism, not the vaporous and
metaphysical mysticism of the Pseudo-Areopagite who pre
tended to rise even to the divine essence, but the tender and
suave mysticism which effects union with Christ, with Jesus.
Bernard was the father of the mystics of the Middle Ages,
and it was in his school that the author of the Imitation
was trained. From a literary point of view he is to be
counted among the most engaging and seductive writers.
His harmonious and unctious style won for him the surname
of Boctor mellifluus.
Other Writers : England. — Eadmer,1 friend and
companion of St. Anselm; died at Canterbury (1124): a Life
1 Migne clix. ; H. Thurston, Eadmeri monachis cantuariensis tractatus de
amcepLwne Sanctce Marios, Freiburg, 1904.

576 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
of St. Anselm ; Historia novorum (history of the bishops of
Canterbury from the time of Lanfranc) ; various biographies ;
Be conceptione Sanctce Marios.
Robert Pulleyn (Pullus),1 archdeacon of Rochester, pro
fessor at Oxford, then at Paris ; promoted by Innocent II. to
the cardinalate; died at Rome (1146 or 1150): Treatise on
the Sentences, in eight books.
William,2 a monk of Malmesbury (about 1142): Gesta
regum anglorum ; Historice novellce, etc.
Henry of Lincoln8 (after 1154): Historia anglorum,
etc. John of Salisbury,4 a friend of St. Thomas a Becket ;
afterwards bishop of Chartres (f 1180): Polycraticus (a critique
of the life of princes) ; Metalogicus (a critique of the Sophists,
designated by the name of "makers of dilemmas, corni-
fieiens ") ; Entheticus (a poem on philosophical subjects) ;
letters, etc.
Pierre of Blois,5 born at Blois, passed the last twenty-six
years of his life in England, where he was archdeacon of
Bath, then of London (f 1200): Be confessione sacramentali;
Be pcenitentia ; sermons, letters, etc.
France. — Anselm of Laon,6 the teacher of William of
Champeaux and of Abelard (f 1117): Commentaries on the
Bible ; interlinear gloss.
William of Champeaux,7 founder of the cloister of St.
Victor, where he taught (|1122): Be Eucharistia; philo
sophical treatises.
Hugh of St. Victor,8 probably born in Saxony, came to
settle at St. Victor (f 1142) : Be Sacramentis ; Summa senten-
tiarum ; commentaries on the Bible ; treatises on mystic
theology. Hugh occupies a considerable position among the
mystics. Richard of St. Victor,9 a Scot, canon and professor

1 Migne, clxxxvi.

"Id.,

. clxxxix.

'Id.,

cxcv.

* Id., cxcix.

*Id..,

, ccvii.

6 Id..

, clxii.

7 Id., clxiii.

*Id.:

, clxxv.-clxxvii.

» Id..

, oxcvi

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 577
at St. Victor (f 1173): Be Trinitate, de Verbo incarnato;
treatises on asceticism and mystic theology.
Guibert de Nogent1 (f about 1121): Be Sanctis et pig-
noribus sanctorum (against false relics) ; various treatises on
theological subjects; Gesta Bei per Francos (history of the
first crusade).
Orderic Vital,2 an English monk in Normandy (f about
1150): Ecclesiastical history.
Suger,3 abbot of St. Denis (f 1152) : History of Louis VI.
Peter Lombard,4 born in Lombardy, professor at Paris,
afterwards bishop of Paris (fU64): Sentences, a theological
synthesis, inspired by the works of Abelard, which for a
long time was the classic manual of theology.
Italy and Germany. — Gratian,6 a monk, probably a
Benedictine (f about 1158): Becretum (the real title of
which was Concordantia discordantium canonum), an epitome
of canon law which had extraordinary vogue.
RuPERT,6b orn near Liege, abbot of Tuit (f 1 1 35) : Studies
on the Trinity and the Incarnation ; biblical commentaries ;
ascetic works ; inquiries into local history.
Gerhoh,7 of Bavarian origin, had an exciting life
(|1169): Numerous writings, the most famous of which is
Be corrupto Ecclesice statu.
Alger of Liege8 (f about 1130): Several writings, the
best known of which is his treatise on the Eucharist.
1 Migne, clvi. ; Recueil des historiens des croisades, iv. ; B. Monod, Le Maine
Guibert et son temps, Paris, 1905.
2 Migne, clxxxviii.
8 Migne, clxxxvi. ; A. Lecoy de la Marche, GSuvres completes de Suger, Paris,
1867. 4 Migne, cxci., cxcii. The best edition of the Sentences is that found in the
edition of the works of St. Bonaventura at Guaraechi ("Ad claras aquas," near
Florence) torn. i. 1882 ; 0. Baltzer, Die Sentenzen des Petrus Lombardus, ihre
Quellen und ihre dogmengeschichtliche Bedeutung, Leipzig, 1902.
6 Migne, clxxxvii. ; E. Friedberg, Lipsiaj, 1879-1881.
8 Id., clxvii.-clxx.
7 Id., exciii., cxciv. ; E. Sackur in M. G., Libri de lite, iii.
" Id., clxxx.

37

578 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES

THIRTEENTH CENTURY
Roger Bacon x was born about 1212 in England, near
Ilchester, in Somerset county. He began his studies at
Oxford and continued them at Paris, where he was received
as a doctor. He early applied himself to the study of
languages, and learned to read Greek, Hebrew, Chaldsean,
and Arabic. In like manner he cultivated the natural
sciences. Endowed with surprising genius, he manufactured
instruments, and employed them in his astronomical, physical,
and chemical experiments. He discovered the principal laws
of optics, the principle of the telescope and of the microscope,
and had also a glimpse of some modern discoveries. He
likewise studied the shape of the earth ; and the results of
those studies, made known to Christopher Columbus through
Pierre d'Ailly, gave that great navigator the idea of the
expedition which ended in the discovery of America. Bacon
also turned his attention to theology and the Bible ; but this
was in order to discuss scholasticism and exogesis. He
reproached theologians for their ignorance of the natural
sciences, their love of vain and tiresome questions, their
excessive use of deduction, their philosophical theories, and
their devotion to Peter Lombard's Sentences. He accused
the exegetes of knowing the Bible only through the defective
Vulgate translation. He therefore urged them to study
Hebrew and Greek in order to be able to read the sacred
books in the original text; and he demanded the revision
of the Vulgate.
At the age of forty, or even later, Bacon entered the
order of the Minor Friars. Then his trials began. The
wonderful results which he obtained in his laboratory experi
ments seemed suspicious. He was regarded as a magician,
1 J. H. Bridges, The Opus majus of Roger Bacon, 3vols., Oxford, 1897-1905;
J. S. Brewer, Fr. Boger Bacon, opera qucedam hactenus inedita, London, 1859 ;
F. Gasquet, ' ' Letter of Bacon to Clement I v. ," in the English Historical Review,
pp. 494-517, 1897 ; E. Charles, R. Bacon, sa vie, ses ceuvres, so doctrine,
Paris, 1861 ; P. Feret, La FaeulU de thiologie de Paris et ses docteurs les plus
cilibres, ii. 329-369, Paris, 1895 ; G. Delorme, in Diet, de thiol, catholique, ii
8-31, Paris, 1905.

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 579
in league with the devil. Moreover, his theological opinions
were subversive. His superiors, becoming alarmed, were
furious in their efforts to prevent his studies. They forbade
him to publish his writings. This persecution lasted ten
years, and did not come to an end until Clement rv., a former
friend of the English Franciscan, took him under his protec
tion (1266). But Clement died shortly afterwards, and his
protege" found himself without defence, confronted by the
prejudices which had been aroused against him. About
1277, Bacon was attacked once more, this time by the
minister-general of the Minor Friars, Jerome of Ascoli. He
died in 1294.
Writings. — (1) Opus majus, prepared at the request of
Pope Clement iv. (1267). It is divided into seven parts,
which treat respectively of the causes of our errors, the
relations of theology to the other sciences, of languages,
mathematics, optics, experimental sciences, and moral
philosophy. It was first published in 1733 at London,
by Samuel Jebb ; (2) Opus minus, a modification of the pre
ceding treatise. We have only a fragment of it, published
by Brewer in 1859; (3) Opus tertium, a modified re-edition
of the opus majus and the opus minus. Half of this book is
lost; that which remains was published by Brewer in
seventy- five chapters ; (4) Scriptum principale, a vast encyclo
paedia of which we have only fragments, and which besides was
perhaps never completed ; (5) Compendium studii philosophies,
written about 1275 ; (6) Compendium studii theologies, written
in 1292; (7) Epistola de laude Scripturce sanctce; (8) other
less important works.
St. Thomas Aquinas,1 related through his father to the
German emperors, by his mother a descendant of the
Norman princes, was born in 1225 — according to some,
1227  in the castle of Rocca Sicca, near the town of Aquino,
in the territory of Naples. At the age of five years he was
1 Principal editions, Paris, 1636-1641, 23 vols., by Nicolai ; Venice, 1746,
28 vols, by De Rubeis (important critical discussions) ; Rome, 1882 (11 vols.
have appeared) ; Quetif-Echard, Scriptores ordinis Prcedicatorum, i. 271-347,
Paris 1719 • P. Feret, La Faculti de thiologie de Paris, ii. 443-486, Paris, 1895.

580 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
committed to the care of the monks of Mount Cassin, who
gave him his early education ; and at the age of ten yeara
he went to Naples for his literary education. When he
reached the age of eighteen years he resolved, in spite of
his mother's objections, to enter the Dominican order, and he
set out for Paris. He was stopped by his brothers near
Perusia, and was brought back to his father's castle, where
for nearly two years his family used every means — his
brothers one day brought a courtezan into his room — to
make him relinquish his plan. When he had shown that his
resolution could not be broken, he was authorized to leave.
The Dominicans sent him to Cologne, where Albert the
Great was teaching (end of 1244). A short time afterwards
(1245) he followed Albert to Paris, returned with him to
Cologne (1248), and in 1252 again left for Paris to receive
the title of Master of Theology. It was the time when
William St. Amour was making violent war upon the monks,
and was denouncing them as the worst enemies of the
Church. Thomas was obliged to wait until the storm had
passed. At length, in 1256, he received the authorization
to teach, and in 1257 the title of Master of Theology was
conferred on him. In 1261 he was obliged to give up his
chair at Paris to go to Rome, whither he was called by Pope
Urban iv. He returned to Paris in 1271, but in the
following year he was sent to Naples. In 1274 he made
his way to Lyons to attend a council which was to be held
in that town, and to which Gregory x. had called him. He
died while on the journey, in the Cistercian monastery of
Fossa Nova (7th March 1274). A half century later he
was canonized by Pope John xxii., who pronounced this
eulogy upon the saint : " Quot scripsit articulas, tot miracula."
Writings. — I. In the theological domain — (1) In quatuor
sententiarum libros, a commentary on the Sentences of Peter
Lombard, composed at Paris (1252-1256) ; (2) Summa catho-
licce fidei contra gentiles, an apology for Christianity, written, it
is said, about 1261-1264, at the request of Raymond of
Pennafort ; (3) Summa theologies, a synthesis of the whole of
theology, begun about 1265, and continued until question

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 581
xc. of the third part, which treats of contrition. It is the
most famous of the books of St. Thomas ; it is the source of
his glory; (4) Quesstiones disputatce; (5) Quesstiones quod-
libetales ; (6) Various writings of less importance. II. In the
non-theological domain : Be regimine principum, only a part
of which was written by St. Thomas; commentaries on
Aristotle ; commentaries on the Bible ; philosophical tracts.
Thomas Aquinas opened no new ways to the human
mind. He was not a lineal descendant of Origen, Augustine,
Anselm, or Roger Bacon. He left philosophy and theology
as he found them. He did not seek to extend their frontiers,
to go beyond the prejudices of his time, to get rid of verbal
explanations of worthless maxims. He did not even engage
in personal research. His merit was of another sort. It
consisted in mastering questions, in setting them forth
clearly and soberly. Thomas was, to an eminent degree, a
synthetic mind. The two syntheses which he constructed in
the Summa theologies and in the Summa contra gentiles justly
provoked the admiration of the Middle Ages. He summed
up the science of his time, a science which lies in the grave
dug for it by the friends of experimental research since the
time of Roger Bacon.
Other Writers. — Alexander of Hales,1 of English
origin, professor at Paris, became at an early age a Franciscan
(fl245): Summa theologies, an unfinished work, of which
Alexander was perhaps not the sole author.
Albert the Great,2 born in Bavaria, 1206; became a
Dominican in 1223, professor at Cologne, then at Paris,
bishop of Ratisbon (1260), and resigned (f 1280). Albert
had an encyclopaedic mind, and studied all the sciences of his
time. He it was, it appears, who introduced the philosophy
1 Editions : 4 vols., Lyon, 1515-1516 ; 4 vols., Venice, 1575-1576 ; 4 vols.,
Cologne, 1622 ; P. Feret, ii. 311-324 ; Hilarin de Lucerne, Hist, desitudes dans
I'ordre de Saint Francois, pp. 185-235, Paris, 1908.
2 General editions: Lyon, 1651, 21 vols., by Jaminy (a defective work) ;
Paris 1890, 38 vols. ; Quetif-Echard, Scriptores ordinis Prcedicatorum, i. 162-
171 Paris 1719 ; P. Mandonnet, in Diet, d'hist. et de geograph. ecclisiaitiques,
i. 1515-1524, Paris, 1912.

582 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
of Aristotle into theology. From him we have commentaries
on Aristotle and on the Sentences of Peter Lombard.
St. Bonaventura1 was born in Tuscany in 1221, became
a Franciscan in 1243, studied and taught theology at Paris,
was general of his order (1257). He was appointed bishop
and cardinal (1273). He died during the council of Lyons,
which he was attending (1274). He wrote many works, the
chief of which are theological ; commentaries on the Sentences
of Peter Lombard ; and, in the mystic domain, the Itinerarium
mentis ad Beum.
Duns Scotus,2 of Scottish origin — perhaps Irish — entered
the order of St. Francis, taught successively at Oxford, Paris,
and Cologne (f 1308). He wrote numerous works, the best
known of which is the commentary on the Sentences.
Robert Grosseteste,3 bishop of Lincoln (f 1253); pub
lished a Latin version of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs ;
commentaries on the books of Aristotle, of Boethius, and of
the Areopagite ; he wrote important letters, and numerous
philosophical and theological writings, which were unpub
lished ; a Latin version of the letters of St. Ignatius in the
interpolated edition (attributed to Robert, but more probably
the work of his companion, Nicholas).
Mathieu Paris 4 (of Paris), born on the lands of St. Alban ;
monk of St. Albans (f 1259) : Chronica majora, a work of the
highest class, which up to the year 1235 was derived from a
book of Roger Wendover, but which as regards the period after
that date is all his own. Mathieu sets forth the facts with
great frankness and with great talent. In his judgments,
which are not free from feeling, he was the interpreter of the
1 General editions : 7 vols., Rome, 1588-1599 (reproduced at Mayence, 1609,
and at Lyons, 1678) ; 13 vols., Venice, 1751 (reproduced at Paris, 1864) ;
Quaracchi (near Florence), 11 vols. 1882-1902 (much esteemed).
3 Generaljeditions : 12 vols., by Luc Wadding, Lyons, 1639; 20 vols., Paris,
1891-1895 ; E. Pluzanski, Essai sur la philosophic de Duns Scot., Paris, 1887.
* H. Luard, Boberti Grossetesti episcopi quondam Lincolniensis epistolcs,
London, 1861 ; G. Perry, The Life and Times of Grosseteste, London, 1871 ;
Feltoe, Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, London, 1899.
* Chronica majora, 7 vols., by H. Luard (Rolls series), London, 1872 ;
Hist. Anglorum, 13 vols., by F. Madden (Rolls series), London, 1866-1869 ;
De gestis, by H. Riley, 3 vols. (Rolls series).

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 583
English people; Historia Anglorum, an abridgment of the
work mentioned above; Be gestis abbatum albanensium;
biographies. St. Raymond of Pennafort,1 of Spanish origin ; professor
at Bologna, then a Dominican (|1275): a collection of
pontifical decretals. Bartholomew of England,2 a Francis
can; professor at Paris, then at Magdeburg (f about 1240):
composed an encyclopaedia entitled Be proprietatibus rerum.
Vincent of BEAUVAis,3a Dominican (f about 1264); was the
author of an encyclopaedia entitled Speculum universale.
FOURTEENTH century
Occam4 — more exactly, William of Occam — was born
about 1280 in a place of that name in the county of
Surrey, south of London. At an early age he entered the
order of the Minor Friars, was professor at Oxford, then at
Paris, where he settled about 1315. When the war with
John xxn. against poverty broke out in the order, Occam
took the side of the Pope's enemies (1322). For this reason
he was summoned to Avignon and cast into prison, where he
remained confined for four years (1323-1327). In June
1328 he succeeded in escaping to Italy. There he met
Louis of Bavaria, who also had a grievance against John xxn.
According to the historian Tritheme, he said to Louis : " Tu
me defendas gladio, ego te defendam calamo." It is certain
that the prince and the monk, the one with the sword, the
other with the pen, made war to the best of their ability
upon the Pope. From 1330 to 1347, Occam lived at Munich,
where he wrote in safety. In 1347, LouiB of Bavaria died.
1 Editions : Rome, 1582; Paris, 1687 ; Leipzig, 1889; Schulte, Die Geschichte
der Quellen und Literatur der kanonischen Bechts, ii. 6-26, Stuttgart, 1875-1880.
2 Hilarin of Lucerne, Histoire des itudes dans I'ordre de St. Francois,
pp. 259, 263, 411, Paris, 1908.
1 Edition of Beauvais, 1624, 4 vols. ; Quetif-Echard, i. 300 ; Feret, ii. 401 ;
R. Seeberg, in the Realencyclopddie, xx. 665 (proves that the authentic
Speculum comprises only two books).
4 G. Little, The Grey Friars in Oxford, pp. 225-234, Oxford, 1892 ; Feret,
iii. 339 • S. Riezler, Die literarischen Widersacher der Pdpste zur Zeit Ludwigs
des Bayern, pp. 243-272, Leipzig, 1874 ; R. Seeberg, in Bealencye., xiv. 260.

584 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Occam, deprived of his protection, fell into the power of
Pope Clement vi., who, without taking rigorous measures,
endeavoured to obtain a retraction from him. According to
Tritheme, Occam submitted ; according to Jacques de la
Marche, he remained excommunicated. He died on 10 th
April 1349.
Writings. — I. Dogmatic : Quesstiones et decisiones in
quatuor libros sententiarum, a commentary on the Sentences
of Peter Lombard, the publication of which seems to have
begun at Paris before the dispute with the Pope, and to have
finished later ; Centiloquium theologicum ; Quodlibeta septem ;
Be sacramento altaris.
II. Polemical : Bialogus inter magistrum et discipulum de
imperatorum et pontificum potestate, the most important of the
works of Occam, written about 1343, but left unfinished;
Octo quesstiones super potestate ac dignitaie papali; numerous
writings on poverty and in opposition to John xxn.
III. Various philosophical writings.
In his polemic concerning Franciscan poverty, Occam
acted as a fanatic, and has been judged by posterity to have
been one. On the contrary, he had a considerable influence,
by means of his theories, upon the constitution of the Church
and upon the relations of reason and faith. He endeav
oured to prove that the political pretensions of the papacy
were contrary to the will of Christ ; that the papacy itself,
in its Roman and monarchical form, was not necessary
to the Church, which might quite as well be governed by
collective authority. These ideas, from the time of the
Great Schism and throughout the fifteenth century, had
defenders who endeavoured to realize them in whole or in
part. Yet Occam — in this he was a disciple of Duns Scotus
— conceived of Christian dogmas as products of the free will
of God, who would have been able, had such been His pleasure,
to place the economy of salvation on quite different founda
tions. From this principle he concluded that to endeavour
to demonstrate revealed truths and to seek their " why "
was a puerile undertaking ; that the Schoolmen since Anselm
had wasted their time ; and that the role of the human

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 585
reason was limited to remarking what has been revealed,
and exactly recording the dogmas taught of God. For the
rationalism of Anselm he substituted a theological positivism
which was honoured in the fifteenth century.
Other Writers: Theologians. — Durand of St.Pourcain,1
a Dominican, bishop of Puy and of Meaux (1334), wrote a
commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. Durand
was an independent thinker.
Gilles of Rome,2 archbishop of Bourges, much attached to
the doctrines of St. Thomas : Be regimine principum (the be
ginning of which is taken from St. Thomas).
Bradwardin, archbishop of Canterbury, a partizan of
Augustinian doctrines (1349): a book on grace, etc.
Augustine Trionfo,8 a monk, partizan of pontifical abso
lutism (1328) : Summa de potestate ecclesiastica.
Alvarez Pelayo,4 another partizan of political absolutism
1352) : Be planctu Ecclesice.
Marsilio of Padua,6 a disciple and partizan of Occam,
opponent of John xxn. : Befensor pacis, written in collabora
tion with John of Jean dun.
Mystics. — Eckart,8 a Dominican, born near Gotha;
professor at Paris, at Strasburg, and at Cologne (f 1327):
Sermons and treatises.
J. Tauler,7 a Dominican, born at Strasburg (y 1361) :
Sermons and ascetic treatises.
Henri Suso,8 born at Constance, where he passed the
greater part of his life : Horologium sapientice ; sermons.
John Ruysbroek, born near Brussels (f 1381): Be nuptiis
spiritualibus, etc.
1 P. Godet, in Diet, thiol, cath., iv. 1764.
2 H. Hurter, Nomenclator literarius, ii. (3rd edition), 481-486, Innsbruck,
1906. 8 Id., ib. 605.
4 Id. ib. 626 ; Haller, Papsttum und Kirehenreform, i. 85, Berlin, 1903.
" Sander, in Bealencyc, xii. 368-371.
• F. Vernet, in Diet, thiol, cath., iv. 2057-2081.
' F. Cohrs, in Bealencyc, xix. 451-459.
8 Id., in Bealencyc, xix. 173-176.

586 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Commentators on the Bible. — Nicolas de Lyre,1 a
Franciscan (f 1340): Postilla, a commentary on the whole
Bible ; Moralitates, moral reflections on the Bible.
Ludolphe le Chartreux,2 of Saxon origin : Life of Jesus
Christ, which had great vogue in the Middle Ages.
FIFTEENTH CENTURY
Peter d'Ailly,3 born at Compiegne in 1350, made his
studies at Paris. At an early age he was absorbed in the
reading of Roger Bacon and Occam. The first of these
teachers imbued him with a lively interest in the natural
sciences ; the second communicated to him his philosophical
and theological opinions. In 1378 the Great Schism
occurred. Like all subjects of the king of France, Peter
was attached to the Pope of Avignon ; he regarded him as
the legitimate Pope, and the Roman pontiff as an intruder.
He was in agreement with his fellow-countrymen until the
day when, in the assembly of 1395, the clergy of France
decided to oblige the Pope — the Pope of Avignon — to resign
under pain of pronouncing against him the "withdrawal of
obedience." Peter opposed this revolutionary attitude.
According to him, the Pope could be invited, but not forced,
to resign. Consequently, he opposed the withdrawal of
obedience. Nevertheless, he recognized the fact that the
papacy had for some centuries unjustly enlarged the circle
of its functions ; he proposed to undermine the power of
the Pope, to suppress his " usurped " prerogatives, and to
respect the powers of divine origin. Although defeated in
1398, in 1403 he succeeded in making his views prevail.
But in 1408 he encountered a definite check. He could
at least affirm that by his own talent he had postponed the
» L. Schmid, in Bealencyc., xii. 28-30. s H. Hurter, iii. 566.
s P. Tschackert, Peter von Ailli, Gotha, 1877 ; Id., in Realencyc, i. 274-
280; R. Salembier, Petrus de Alliaco, Lille, 1886; Id., CEuvres francaises de
Pierre d'Ailly, Lille, 1907 ; Id., Le Cardinal d'Ailly, bibliographic de ses ceuvres,
Compiegne, 1909; Id., in Diet, d'hist. et de giog. ecclisiast., i. 1153.-1165;
Ch. Guignebert, De imagine mundi ccsterisque Petri de Alliaco geographicis opus-
cutis, Paris, 1902.

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 587
inevitable result, and for several years had maintained the
Church of France under the power of the Avignon pope,
Benedict xhi. The latter showed his gratitude. In 1395,
Peter received the bishopric of Puy ; two years later he was
appointed to the more important and lucrative archbishopric
of Cambre" — a worthy payment for devotion which had been
obedient only to ambitious motives.
From the year 1408, Peter d'Ailly endeavoured to
prevent the election of a third pope. When the election
took place in spite of him, he accepted the result, and
recognized the Pisa pope, Alexander v., and his successor,
John xxiii. The latter, to win his allegiance, decorated him
with the purple (1411); but he was deceived. Cardinal
Peter d'Ailly demanded, more harshly than before, the reform
of the papacy. When the council of Constance opened
(1414), he took a considerable part in the measures which
were at that time decreed by the Christian nations. He
died on 9th August 1420.
Writings. — Peter d'Ailly wrote a great number of
works, of which one hundred and seventy-four have been
recovered. More than thirty deal with schism and reform.
The principal works are: Epistola diaboli Leviathan (1382);
Invectiva Ezechiel contra pseudo-pastores (same date); Be materia
concilii generalis (1402); Capita agendorum (1411); Tractatus
super reformations Ecclesics (1416). In addition to these,
Peter wrote Quesstiones super libros sententiarum, an un
finished commentary on Peter Lombard's Sentences: Be
sacramentis Ecclesics ; Tractatus et sermones ; some commentaries
on the Bible; some books on astronomy and geography,
the most famous of which are Imago mundi (1410) and
Concordia astronomies cum historiea veritate (1414). The
Imago mundi was read and annotated by Christopher
Columbus, who was indebted to Peter for his ideas on the
means of reaching the far East by way of the West. The
Concordia mentions upheavals which were to take place in
1789, and seems to predict the French Revolution. The
writings of Peter d'Ailly are not all printed, nor even
discovered. Several have recently been published by Noel

588 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Valois (Be persecutionibus Ecclesics, in which is repeated the
prophecy contained in the Concordia); by Ehrle (polemical
opuscules) and Salembier (French works).
A disciple of Roger Bacon and of Occam, Peter d'Ailly
applied himself to propagating the ideas of his masters ; he
was a popularizer. But this popularizer was at the same
time a formidable controversialist. With great talent he spread
abroad the ideas of Occam concerning the constitution of
the Church ; he was one of the greatest adversaries of the
papacy in the fifteenth century, one of the pillars of
Gallicanism. His theology of the Eucharist was also liberal.
He rejected transubstantiation ; and Luther boasted that
he knew the books of Peter d'Ailly by heart.
Other Writers. — Gerson 1 was born at Gerson, in the
diocese of Reims (1363); was chancellor of the university
of Paris, champion of Gallican principles in the councils of
Pisa and Constance (f 1429), and wrote Be auferibUitate
papes ; Be potestate ecclesiastica ; Be constitutione theologian ;
Be parvulis ad Christum trahendis.
iENEAS Sylvius2 (Pius il), born near Sienna in 1405,
accompanied a cardinal, as secretary, to the council of Bale,
where his talents in conversation, as a writer, and as an
orator, assured him an important place. A partizan of the
ideas of Bale, he was for some time secretary to Felix v.,
and published writings that were plainly Gallican. But
when he saw that success lay with the opposite party, he
changed sides, denied his Gallican writings, and became an
apostle of pontifical omnipotence. His opportune conversion
was rewarded by the popes. Made priest in 1445, bishop
in 1447, he was promoted to the cardinalate in 1456.
Finally, from 1458 to 1464, he occupied the pontifical throne.
1 H. Hurter, iii. 791-798.
8 R. Wolkan, Der Briefwechsel des Eneas Silvius Piccolomini, 2 vols., Wien,
1909 (see especially letter 78 of jEneas to his father, i. 188, and letter 152
to Mariano Sozzini, i. 353-373, in which it is said, p. 354 : "Quis trigesimum
natus annum amoris causa nullum peregit facinus ! ego de me facio conjecturam
quern amor in mille pericula misit ") ; Pastor, ii. 1-289 ; Zopffel, in Bealencyc,
xv. 422-435.

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 589
After becoming Pope, he was engrossed with three thoughts :
the crusades, the conflict with Gallicanism, and nepotism (he
loaded his nephews with favours).
Writings. — Be generalis concilii auctoritate; Historia
concilii lasileenses (in 1463 he made full amends for
publishing these books, and wrote this phrase : " Reject
iEneas ; accept Pius ") ; Commentarius de rebus Basilece gestis ;
Commentarius rerum mirabilium ; Historia bohemica ; letters ;
the bull Execralilis, which condemned one of the Gallican
maxims (the appeal from the Pope to the council). Until
1445, Mnea,a Sylvius led a disorderly life, a cynical avowal
of which is to be found in his letters.
Savonarola, a Dominican, born at Ferrare (1451), preacher
at Florence, and a fervent mystic, believed that he was called
by Providence to deliver the Church from the wicked pope
Alexander vl, whom the cardinals had imposed upon it.
He was hanged and burned at Florence (1498). From him
we have a number of ascetic, philosophical, and theological
writings. His chief book is an apology for Christianity,
entitled Triumphus crucis.
Marsilius Ficinus, who was born and who died at
Florence (1433-1499), was a partizan of the Neo-Platonic
school. He published translations of Plato, Plotinus, Iam-
blichus, and Proclus, with commentaries. His principal
work is an apology for Christianity, entitled Be religions
Christiana. St. Antoninus,1 a Dominican, afterwards archbishop of
Florence (f 1459): Summa theologies moralis; chronicle, etc.
Thomas a Kempis,2 born at Kempen, near Cologne (j- 1471),
a monk near ZwoUe in Holland, supposed to be the author of
The Imitation of Jesus Christ.
Lorenzo Valla,3 an Italian, canon of the Lateran, an
'.] ,;,rpfncer of the pontifical chancellory (|1457), wrote a book
on the Epicurean philosophy, and an historical dissertation
v 'v1 '
1 P. Mandonnet, in Diet, thiol, cath., i. 1450-1454.
2 L. Schulze, in Bealencyc, xix. 719-733 (dissertation tending to prove that
Thomas was the author of the Imitation).
» Pastor, i. 12-20, 405-430.

590 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
on the " Donation of Constantine." Valla was the first
to notice that this " Donation " was the work of a
forger. SIXTEENTH CENTURY
Desiderius Erasmus,1 a natural son, was born at Rotterdam
in 1464, and received his first education at Deventer. Left
an orphan at an early age, and obliged by his guardians to
become a monk, he entered an Augustinian convent (1486).
There he surrendered himself enthusiastically to study. He
diligently read the pagan authors, as well as St. Jerome
and Lorenzo Valla ; and this prolonged contact with great
writers and great thinkers, while it developed his literary
culture, it also inspired him with a profound contempt for
Scholasticism. In 1491 the young Augustinian monk left
the convent. He then began that wandering life which was
to be his until his death, and which was to lead him to
France, England, Italy, Germany, Holland, Brabant, and
Switzerland. In the case of any other man this instability
might have been a cause of destitution and misery. But
Erasmus, a fine man of letters, seductive in conversation,
a superior mind, fascinated all those who approached him.
Everywhere he excited sympathy, enthusiasm, and admiration.
Princes and kings heaped favours upon him, and sought to
keep him in their presence. Popes Julius n. and Leo x.
joined in the concert of adulation. Jealous of his inde
pendence, Erasmus surrendered to no one, and continued his
wanderings. Between two journeys he published a book,
issued an edition of an ancient author, wrote letters, received
1 Complete works, 11 vols., by Le Clerc, Leyden, 1703-1706 ; Colloquia
familiaria, Leipzig, 1829 ; P. Allen, Opus epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Bolter-
dami, Oxford, 1906 (in course of publication) ; Drummond, Erasmus, his Life
and Character as shown in his Correspondence and Works, 2 vols., London,
1873 ; F. Seebohm,2%« Oxford Beformers, 3rd edition, Oxford, 1887; J.Froude,
Life and Letters of Erasmus, London, 1895 ; G. Feugere, Erasme, itude sur sa
vie et ses ouvrages, Paris, 1874 ; A. Humbert, Les Origines de la thiologie
moderne, pp. 179-223, Paris, 1911 ; Janssen-Pastor, Geschichte des deutschen
Volkes, ii. 7-25, Freiburg, 1897.

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 591
the homage of humanists, bishops, and magistrates. He was
an intellectual king.
The thunderbolt of the Reformation interrupted the cycle
of his triumphs. Erasmus was urged by the Protestants to
lend them his support, to fight with them the fight against
the Roman Church. On the contrary, he was solicited by
the Pope to advance against Luther. For several years he
endeavoured to arrest hostilities, exhorted the two parties
to lay down arms, played the part of peacemaker, and care
fully refrained from taking aggressive action in favour of
either side. But this neutrality could not last indefinitely.
In 1521 Erasmus was called on by Ulrich von Hutten, the
friend of Luther, to give up his reserve and to declare him
self. He did declare himself, but it was to affirm his
unshaken allegiance to the Roman Church. This profession
of faith exasperated the Protestants, who ascribed it to
cowardice and hypocrisy. Overwhelmed with the insults of
Hutten and of Luther, Erasmus was soon surrounded by
enemies. In 1529 he fled from Bale, where his life was no
longer safe, and sought refuge in the Catholic town of
Freiburg in Brisgau. There he remained six years, at the
end of which he returned to Bale to superintend the printing
of his books. He died in that city on 12th July 1536, at
a time when his friends at Rome were endeavouring to obtain
for him a cardinal's hat. He had been a priest since 1492.
Writings. — (1) Encomium of Folly (Mories encomium sive
stultities laus), a biting satire on all the institutions of the
Church. This book, published in 1509, received some
additions in 1515, which increased its significance; (2)
Familiar Conversations (Colloquia familiaria), published in
1518, afterwards re-edited with additions, attacking the
monastic life, pilgrimages, the worship of relics. These two
are the most important works of Erasmus; (3) Be libero
arbitrio, in opposition to Luther (1524); (4) letters, more
than two thousand in number ; (5) Enchiridion militis chris
tians published in 1502, casts ridicule upon external forms
of piety • (6) Ratio perveniendi ad veram theologiam, a satire
on Scholasticism; (7) various books on paedagogy, and on

592 THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
piety; (8) editions of the Fathers: St. Jerome, St. Hilary,
St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Epiphanius, and Origen; (9)
translations of certain Greek Fathers; (10) works on the
Bible, comprising translations, annotations, paraphrases, and
the edition of the Greek text of the New Testament; (11)
editions of profane authors, and works of less importance.
Erasmus, who was the most learned man and the most
elegant writer of his age, employed his knowledge and his
intellect in making war, a merciless war, on the puerilities of
Scholasticism, on the vices of the clergy and of the monks,
on the abuses which, in his time, abounded in the Roman
Church. He thus prepared the way for the Reformation, and
deserved to be regarded by Protestants as their leader. But
he did not confine himself to riddling with epigrams the men
and the institutions of the Church. The very dogmas did
not escape his attack. According to him, religion is above
all things a morale, a rule of life revealed by the Scripture.
One should therefore adhere to the Scripture, as he said,
to " evangelical simplicity " ; one should suppress dogmatic
formulas, which, like rust, change the purity of religious
feeling. Here he was at the antipodes of the Protestants, for
whom the symbols and definitions of the ancient councils
were sacred things. To this difference of religious ideas was
added a difference in tactics. While Luther, Calvin, Zwingle,
and their disciples rebelled noisily against the Roman Church,
Erasmus never desired to leave it. He thought that he
should resort to dissimulation rather than break with the
papacy. In short, Erasmus was the Voltaire of the sixteenth
century. In him may be rightly hailed the ancestor of the
" Modernists." Other Writers. — Thomas More,1 chancellor of Henry vin.,
beheaded for his refusal to recognize the spiritual supremacy
of his king (1535), wrote Utopia, in which he sets forth
chimerical views on the constitution of societies ; an answer to
Luther's historical works ; Quod mors pro fide non sit fugienda.
1 Seebohm, op. cit. ; F. E. Bridgett, Life and Writings of Sir Thomas More,
London, 1891.

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 593
John Fisher,1 bishop of Rochester, beheaded for the same
reason as Thomas More, published various works against the
Protestants, notably Be Eucharistia ; Sacerdotii defensio ; Con-
vulsio calumniarum.
John Reuchlin,2 born in Baden, versed in Hebrew and
Greek, an ardent advocate of classical studies (fl523):
published Be verbo mirifico, an apology for Christianity;
paedagogical studies in Hebrew. Reuchlin was the father of
Hebrew grammar. He believed in the Kabbala.
John Eck,s the most active and learned among the
adversaries of Luther, with whom he had the famous Leipzig
debate (f 1543), was the author of numerous polemical works
against Luther, among which is Be primatu Petri adversus
Luderum ; homilies, etc.
Cajetanus (Thomas Vio),4 a Dominican, very devoted to
Julius H., who made him cardinal ; was the legate of Leo x. in
Germany when the Lutheran rebellion broke out, which he
made vain efforts to suppress (f 1534) ; author of treatises on
scholastic theology, the most famous of which is the com
mentary on the Summa of St. Thomas ; biblical commentaries,
in which the author often rejects the so-called traditional
opinions. Melchior Cano,s a Dominican of Spanish origin (f 1563) :
Be locis theologies, a book which marks an era in Catholic
theology. 1 Bridgett, Life of Fisher, London, 1888 ; Analecta bollandicma, x. 121-
365, xii. 97-287.
8 L. Geiger, J. Reuchlin, sein Leben und seine Werke, Leipzig, 1871 ;
Janssen-Pastor, ii. 37; G. Kavverau, in Bealencyc, xvi. 680-688.
* A. Humbert, in Diet, de thiol, cath., iv. 2056 ; Pastor, Gesch. der Pdpste,
iv. 1, 277.
4 P. Mandonnet, in Diet, de thiol, cath., iii. 1313-1329.
iId„ iii. 1537-1540.

INDEX

Abelard, 437,528, 570 f.
Absolution, 62.
Abstinence, 339.
Adalbert of Prague, 27.
Adrian iv., 203.
Adrian vi. and Lutheranism, 412.
jEneas Sylvius, 588.
Africa, Church of, 264.
writers of, 555.
Agapitus, Pope, 128, 217.
Agobard, 560.
Aidan, 7.
Aix-la-Chapelle, 92.
Albert of Brandenburg, 119.
Albert the Great, 35, 581.
Albigenses, 451 f.
Alcuin, 90, 556 f.
Alexander of Hales, 35, 581.
Alexander III. and the Albigenses,
452.
Alexander vi., 174, 335.
Alfred the Great, 62.
Amand, 8.
America committed by Rome to Spain,
252.
Anglo-Saxon Church, see Church of
England.
Anglo-Saxons, conversion of, 4, 5.
Annates, 312 f.
Annonciades, order of, 124.
Anschair, 17 f.
Anselm, 372, 397, 428, 436, 527, 564 f.
Antonites, order of, 121.
Apollinaris, Sidonius, 552.
Apostolic Chamber, 339.
Aquinas, St. Thomas, 579 f.
Archbishops and the papacy, 366.
Arianism, 3 f., 426.
Aristotle and Scholasticism, 528 t.
Armorican Britain, Church of, 275.
Arnold of Brescia, 202, 439, 450.
Articles, Thirty-nine, 479.
Athanasian Creed, 436.
Augsburg Confession, 472 f.
Augustine, his work in England, 6.
his election, 358.

Augustinian order, 109.
Ausculta fili, bull, 244.
Ave Maria, 80.
Avignon, 146, 170 f., 183, 290.
Bacon, Roger, 578.
Bale, Council of, 147, 291, 465, 513.
Baptism, 35 f.
Bavaria, conversion of, 13.
Beatific vision, 443 f.
Beatus, his christology, 417.
Bede, Venerable, 80, 548.
Beghines, 97 f.
Belisarius, 216, 264.
Benedict of Aniane, 91 f.
Benedict, St., 47, 88 f.
Benefices in the English Church, 312
Beneficia, 203.
Berenger, 434, 526.
Bernard of Clairvaux, 99, 437, 574.
Bernon of Cluny, 93 f., 574.
Berthold, archbishop, 29.
Bishoprics, sale of, 360.
Bishops, vassalage of, 374.
Boccaccio, 541.
Boceslas, 23, 26.
Boethius, 550.
Bohemia, Church of, 404 ; conversion
of, 22.
Bologna, university of, 534.
Bonaventura, 582.
Boniface, missionary, llf., 36, 39, 58,
278, 351, 385, 554.
pope, 127, 244, 247, 251.
Borgia, Caesar, 175.
Bremen, archbishopric of, 29 f.
Bridget, St., 123.
Budseus, 544.
Csesarius of Aries, 65, 277.
Calixtines, 465.
Calixtus II., 495 f.
Camaldaldi and Camaldules, 97.
Cambridge University, 535 f.
Canassa, 231.
Canonical life, 384 f.

596

INDEX

Canterbury and Rome, 270.
Canute and the denarius of St. Peter,
305.
Capitulations, 148.
Cardinals and the papacy, 151.
Caritative subsidies, 333.
Carlisle, statute of, 318.
Carmelites, order of, 98, 101, 108 f.
Carolingian books, 423 f., 558.
restoration, 522.
Cassiodorus, 551.
Cathares, 445 f.
Celibacy, 258, 382 f., 413.
Celtic Church, 272.
missionaries, 6f.
monks, 55, 62, 517 f.
Chaplet, origin of the, 277.
Chapters, the Three, 256, 264 f., 415.
Charlemagne, missionary work of, 14 f.,
37.
and the papacy, 161 f., 185 f.
his empire, 188 f., 352.
and the filioque, 428 f.
Charles le Bel, 212 ; and the Mono-
physites, 418 ; and the iconoclasts,
424 f.
the Bald, 226 f.
Martel, 385.
Chiergati, the, 471.
Childeric, 223.
Children, communion of, 42 f.
crusade of, 488.
Chorepiscopi, 39.
Christian, bishop of Prussia, 27.
Cistercians, order of, 99.
Citeaux, monastery of, 99.
Clement v., 114 f., 170.
Clement vi. on celibacy, 409.
Clement vn., 145, 477 f.
Clergy, origin and election, 70.
in disrepute, 451.
intellectual state of, 537.
Clotilde and Clovis, 1.
Cluny, 98, 96, 193, 298, 309, 392.
Collagium, 408.
Colleges of Paris, 534.
Columban, 10, 56, 84 f., 272 f.
Common Life, Friars of the, 122.
Common Prayer, Book of, 479 f.
Communion, how administered, 45.
Compactata of Bale, 465.
Conclave, origin of the, 143.
Concubinage, 398, 409.
Confession, 55 f. , written, 61.
Confirmation, 38 f.
Conrad of Marburg, 498, 504.
Constance, council of, 324, 462,
512.

Constantinople, council of, 262 ; patri
archate of, 259 ; Latin empire of,
487.
Constitutum, the, 416.
Copronymus, 423.
Cornelimunster Abbey, 91.
Corruption of the clergy, 445.
Councils, authority of the, 291.
General, 509.
Imperial, 509.
Pontifical, 512.
Reform, 512.
Courland, conversion of, 29, 30.
Cranmer, 477 f.
Crusade, First, 483 f.
Second, 484.
Third, 485.
Fourth, 486.
Fifth, 487.
Sixth, 488.
Seventh, 490.
Eighth, 490.
Crusaders, 208, 286, 334 f., 481 f.
Cyril, missionary, 20 f.
Deaconesses, 75.
Dead, communion of the, 48.
Decadence of learning, 517.
Decretals, the False, 282, 296, 354,
563.
Denarius of St. Peter, 305 f.
Denmark, conversion of, 17 ; and
Rome, 232 f.
Dialectic, 627.
Dipping in the eucharist, 42, 47, 52.
Dispensation, 337.
Divinity, 526.
Dombrowka, her work in Poland, 23.
Dominic, St., and the Dominicans, 82,
106 f., 503, 532.
Dragomir, 22.
Duns Scotus, 582.
Eadmer, 575.
Ecthesis, 420.
Election of clergy, 70 ; of bishops, 345,
Elections, Pontifical, 126 f.
Empire, Germanic, 191 ; Frankish,
191 ; Holy Roman, 185 f.
England, Church of, 268, 274, 321,
396, 495.
monasteries of, 90.
writers of, 556, 575.
Ennodius, 551.
Eon de l'Etoile, 451.
Ephesus and Rome, 220.
Erasmus, 413, 543 f., 590 f.
Eternal Gospel, the, 104,

INDEX

597

Eucharist, development of the rite,
41 f. ; controversies concerning the,
432 f. 6 '
Eugenius iv. and the papacy, 172.
Exarchate of Ravenna, 130 f., 156,
187.
Exchequer, the pontifical, 304 f.
Excommunication and indulgences,
337.
Execrabilis, Bull, 291.
Exsurge, Bull, 469.
Extortion, 326.
Fasting, 53.
Faustus and semi-Pelagianism, 430.
Ficinus, 589.
Filioque clause, 262, 426 f.
Florence, Council of, 513.
Florus, 354.
France, writers of, 567, 576.
and the papacy, 240.
celibacy in, 406.
Francis of Assisi, 26, 101 f.
Francis I. and the Pragmatic Sanction,
295 317
Franciscans, 100 f., 104, 213, 503.
Franks, conversion of the, 1 f.
church of the, 276, 283, 348.
Frederick Barbarossa, 168, 202 f.,
485 f., 500.
Frederick II., 205 f., 4891.
Friar Preachers, 108.
Friars, Minor, 102.
Fulgentius, 555.
Gallicanism, 283 f., 295, 381.
Gaul, Church of, and Rome, 276.
writers of, 552.
Genevieve, St., school of, 530.
Gennadius, 552.
Gerard of Borgo, 104 f.
Gerbert, 284, 567.
Gerhoch, 403.
Germany and the papacy, 214, 249,
296 f.
writers of, 569, 577.
Gerson, 588.
Gilbert de la Parree, 440.
Gottschalk, 431 f.
Grace, doctrine of, 430 f.
Gravamina, the, 299.
Gregory l., 5, 89, 131, 346, 383, 546 f.
Gregory VI., 362 f.
Gregory vn. [see also Hildebrand],
177, 182, 230 f., 362 f., 394, 395,
482.
Gregory x., constitution of, 144.
Gregory sf Tours, 553.

Gregorian school of Church polity, 250,
401.
Grasseteste, Robert, 535, 582.
Guiscard, Robert, 199, 232, 247.
Haudriettes, the, 122.
Haut-Pas, friars, 122.
Healing by unction, 64.
Henry iv. and Hildebrand, 194 f.,
230 f.
Henry v. and Pope Pascal n., 200 f.
Henry vm. and Protestantism, 475 f.
Henry of Lausanne, 449.
Heresy, a crime, 501 f.
Hermit life, 98.
Hieronymites, 125.
Hildebrand, 139 f., 151, 166 f., 193 f.,
229 f., 297, 306.
Hincmar, 282, 431, 561.
Holy Ghost, Friars of the, 120.
heresies concerning the, 425 f.
Honorius ni. and the crusades, 488.
Hospital orders, 120.
Hugh of St. Victor, 33 f., 69, 576.
Hugues and the Templars, 113.
and celibacy, 395.
Humanists, 539.
Hungary, church of, 404 ; conversion
of, 24 f.
Iconoclastic dispute, 259, 422 f.
Images, use of, 78, 422.
Immaculate Conception, 441 f.
Immersion, 37.
Immorality of the clergy, 385.
Indulgences, 78 f., 333, 336.
Infidelity and heresy, conflict with,
481 f.
Innocent n. and Lothair, 202.
Innocent m., 27, 63, 168, 178, 205,
236 f., 311, 337, 451 f., 486, 499 f.,
531.
Inquisition, 494 f., 505 f.
Interim of Charles v., 413.
Investiture, 94, 357, 370.
Ireland, learning in, 517 f.
Isidore of Seville, 32, 555.
Italy, writers of, 666, 577.
Jerusalem and the crusades, 482 f.
Jesuates, 124.
John the Faster, 257.
John Lackland, 236 f., 248, 311.
John of Salisbury, 576.
John Scotus Erigena, 431, 561.
John xxn., 106, 212 f., 289, 443 f.
John xxm., 462 f.
Julius II., 149, 175 f., 245, 294, 336.

598

INDEX

Jussio, The, 130.
Justinian, policy of, 255.
Kent, conversion of, 6.
Knights of Malta, 112.
of St. John of Jerusalem, 111.
of St. Lazarus, 122.
of the Sword, 111.
Teutonic, 118.
Lady of Mercy, order of Our, 121.
Lanfranc, 369, 396.
Lateran councils, 510 f.
Laymen and the pontifical office, 133,
152.
and the episcopate, 360.
Learning, decadence of, 517.
Leo in., trial of, 161 f. ; and Charle
magne, 185, 189.
Leo x., 469.
Liber Pontificalis, 72, 552.
Literature of the twelfth century, 538.
Lithuanians, partial conversion of the,
30.
Lollards, 459 f.
Lombards, 3, 131, 171, .209.
Lothair, 133, 202, 225 f.
Louis of Bavaria, 213 f.
the Debonnair, 17 f., 91, 133, 163 f.,
189, 224 f., 386, 425.
Germanicus, 22, 226.
ir. and the pope, 190.
St., 210 f., 287, 490.
Lucques, charter of, 308.
Lully, Raymond, 26, 331.
Luther, 466 f.
Luxeuil, 86.
Lyons, Councils of, 510 f.
Magna Charta, 238.
Malachi, archbishop, 400.
Marignan, victory of, 295, 402.
Mariology, 441.
Marozia, 166.
Marriages of priests, 390, 400, 408,
412.
Martin of Braga, 555.
Mary, doctrines concerning the Virgin,
441.
Mary, the slaves of, 101.
Mass, doctrine of the, 50.
Mathilda, her bequest to Rome, 167.
Maurus of Ravenna, 267.
Meinhard, archbishop, 28, 29.
Melanchthon, 471.
Mellitus, 90.
Mendicant orders, 101.
Methodius, 11.

Michael Paleologus, 491.
Milan, priests of, 390.
Military orders, 111 f.
Minimes, 123.
Monasteries, Anglo-Saxon, 90 f.
Monastic rules, 87 f., revivals, 97 f.
Monasticism, 83 f., 91.
Monks, anti-clerical, 447.
Monophysite heresy, 128, 258, 416 f.
Monothelism, 265, 419 f.
Moravia, conversion of, 20.
More, Sir Thomas, 544, 592.
Mussulmans in Palestine, 493.
Narses and Pelagius, 266.
Nicholas Breakspear, 18.
Nicholas of Clairvaux, 33.
Nicholas I., 134, 190, 225 f.
Nicholas n., 140 f.
Nicholas in., 170.
Norbert, 98.
Northumbria, conversion of, 7.
Norwegians, conversion of, i9.
Novit, the, 240.
Niirnberg, Diet of, 514.
Oblates, 124.
Occam, 288, 583.
Odeacer, 216 f.
Offerings, sacramental, 49.
Oils, sacred, 64.
Olivetans, 124.
Ordination of clergy, 71 f.
Osny, 7.
Ostrogoths, 3.
Otto, bishop of Bramberg, 26.
Otto I., constitution of, 136 f.
Pallium, the, 328.
Pannonia, conversion of, 20 f.
Papacy, eligibility to the, 151, 192 ;
purchase of the, 149, and the
empire, 185 f. ; political advance
of the, 216 f. ; religious advance
of the, 216 f. ; wealth of the, 314 f.
Parens scientiarum, Bull, 529.
Paris, Mathieu, 582.
university of, 291, 530 f.
Pascal II., 200.
Paschase, Radbert, 432.
Pataria, the, 393.
Pater noster, the, 80 f.
Patrimony of St. Peter, 304 f.
Patronate, The, 71.
Paul the Deacon, 551.
Paululus, 42.
Pelagius, 129.
Pelayo, 402.

INDEX

599

Penance, 52 f.
Penda, 6.
Pepin, 9, 153, 157 f., 187, 223.
Peter d'Ailly, 586 f.
Bernadone, 101.
Damien, 33, 398, 566.
Lombard, 34, 62, 68, 577.
Martyr, 506.
St., 219 f., 257 f.
Peter m. of Aragon, and the papacy,
the Hermit, 484.
Petrarch, 541.
Philip Augustus, 239, 455, 486, 530.
the Bel, and the Templars, 113 f. ;
and the pope, 243, 322.
Philip I. and Rome, 233.
Photius of Constantinople, 260, 291,
428.
Pierre de Bruys, 449.
de Castelnau, 455.
Piligrim, 25.
Pirmin, 10, 11.
Pisa, council of, 512.
Poggio, 542.
Pogonatus, 131 f.
Poland, conversion of, 23 ; Church of,
405.
Polyptichus, the, 304.
Pomerania, conversion of, 27, 138.
Pontifical State, 153 f.
Popes, rival, 146 ; residence away from
Rome, 180 f. ; submission to the
Emperor, 218 f.
Poppon, 95.
Portugal and Rome, 241.
Poverty, monastic, 102 f.
Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, 291,
293.
Premonstratensians, 99.
Predestination, 431.
Procuration, 329.
Protestantism and the morals of the
clergy, 411.
Prussia, conversion of, 27.
Raban Maur, 32, 431, 560.
Rastiz, 20.
Ratramne, doctrine of, 433.
Ravenna and the papacy, 154 f.
Raymond of Toulouse, 455 f.
Reccarde, 300.
Reformation, the Protestant, 473 f.
Relics, 77 f.
Renaissance, 539 f.
Rens, diet of, 214.
Richard Cceur de Leon, 485.
Robert, cardinal of Geneva, 171.

Robert Guiscard, 232 f.
Rome, administrations of, 176 f. ; rivalry
with Ephesus, 220 ; supremacy of,
221 ; and the Eastern Church, 130,
154, 186, 253, 263.
Romescot, the, 307.
Roscelin, 436 f.
Rudolph, emperor, and the papacv,
170, 198 f.
Sacraments, doctrine of the, 32 f.
Saladin, 485.
Salerno, university of, 535.
Salutato, 541.
San Germano, treaty of, 209.
"Santa Casa," 77.
Saracens at Rome, 164.
Saviour, St., order of, 123.
Savonarola, 589.
Saxony, conversion of, 14 f.
Schism, the Great, 145 f., 171, 379,
410.
Schola Saxonum, 395.
Scholasticism, 525 f.
School of the Palace, 520.
Semi-Pelagianism, 430 f.
Sergius, Pope, and the patrimony of St.
Peter, 154.
Servites, 97.
Servitia, 325.
Sforza, 173.
Silvernus, 128.
Simony, 194, 361.
Soissons, council of, 437.
Spain, Church of, 232, 300, 401, 521
Spoleto, dukes of, 135.
Spolia, 331.
Stephen n., 157.
Strict Observance of the Franciscans,
105.
Studies, ecclesiastical, 517 f.
Supremacy, Act of, 478.
Sweden, conversion of, 188 ; Church
of, 405.
Symmachus and the papal succession,
127.
Taharites, 465.
Tanchelm, 449.
Tarasius, 259.
Templars, 112 f., 341, 506.
Temporal power of Rome, 225, 249.
Tertiaries, Franciscan, 102.
Tetzel, 467 f.
Theodelinde, 4.
Theodora and the Monophysites, 128.
Theodore, Mopsuestius, 415.
of Tarsus, 8.

600

INDEX

Theodulf of Orleans, 559.
Thomas Aquinas, St. See Aquinas.
Thomas k Kempis, 589.
Thomas a Becket, 269.
Thuringia, conversion of, 11 f.
Tithes, 318 f.
Tonsure, 75.
Toto, 132.
Toulouse, University of, 536.
Trent, council of, 514 f.
Tribur, assembly of, 197.
Trinitarians, order of the, 120.
Trinity, heresies concerning the, 435 f.
Trasly, council of, 92.
TriiUo, council of, 258.
Tuscany, and the Pontifical state, 169.
Type, The, and Monothelism, 420.
Unction, rite of, 64 f.
Universals, doctrine of the, 527.
Universities, 530.
Urban iv. and the crusades, 483.
Vacancies, 332.
Valdo and the Waldensiana, 110.

Venantius, Fortunatus, 554.
Victor II., 139.
Vigilius, Pope, 128, 256, 415.
Visconti, 172.
Visigoths, conversion of the, 4.
Visitation, 329.
"Visitors," 346.
Vitelleschi, 172.
Wala, 353.
Waldenses, 110, 507.
Wars of the popes, 508.
Widukind, 15 f.
Wilfrid, 7.
William of Champeaux, 631.
the Conqueror, 231, 233, 369
of Oecan, 288, 583.
of St. Beningne, 392.
Willibrord, 8, 9, 10.
Worms, diet of, 469 f.
Wycliffe, 459 f.
Zacharias, Pope, 180, 223.
Zwingle, 471.

The International Theological Library

ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS

THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA. By CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D.,
D.Litt., sometime Professor of Theological Encyclopaedia and Symbolics,
Union Theological Seminary, New York.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTA-
MENT. By S. R. -Driver, D.D., D.Litt., sometime Regius Professor of
Hebrew and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. [Revised and Enlarged Edition.
CANON AND TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By the Rev. John
Skinner, D.D., Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Lit
erature, College of the Presbyterian Church of England, Cambridge, England,
and the Rev. Owen Whitehouse, B.A., Principal and Professor of Hebrew,
Chestnut College, Cambridge, England.
OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. By Henry Preserved Smith, D.D.,
Librarian, Union Theological Seminary, New York. [Now Ready.
CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By
Francis Brown, D.D., LL.D., D.Litt., President and Profeisor of
Hebrew, Union Theological Seminary, New York.
THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D.,
LL.D., sometime Professor of Hebrew, New College, Edinburgh. [Now Ready.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTA
MENT. By Rev. James Moffatt, B.D., Minister United Free Church,
Broughty Ferry, Scotland. [Now Ready.
CANON AND TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By CASPAR Rene
Gregory, D.D., LL.D., Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the
University of Leipzig. [Now Ready.
THE LIFE OF CHRIST. By William Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady
Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.

The International Theological Library

A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE. By
Arthur C. McGiffert, D.D., Professor of Church History, Union Theo
logical Seminary, New York. [Now Ready.
CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By
Frank C. Porter, D.D., Professor of Biblical Theology, Yale University,
New Haven, Conn.
THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By GEORGE B. STEVENS,
D.D., sometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University, New
Haven, Conn. [Now Ready.
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. By G. Buchanan Gray, D.D., Professor
of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford.
THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC CHURCH. By ROBERT RAINEY, D.D.,
LL.D., sometime Principal of New College, Edinburgh. [Now Ready.
THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES. By ANDRE- LagardE.
[Now Ready.
THE GREEK AND EASTERN CHURCHES. By W. F. AdenEY, D.D.,
Principal of Independent College, Manchester. [Now Ready.
THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY. By T. M. Lindsay, D.D., Prin
cipal of the United Free College, Glasgow. [Now Ready.
THE REFORMATION IN LANDS BEYOND GERMANY. By T. M.
Lindsay, D.D. [Now Ready.
CHRISTIANITY IN LATIN COUNTRIES SINCE THE COUNCIL OF
TRENT. By Paul Sabatier, D.Litt., Drome, France.
THEOLOGICAL SYMBOLICS. By Charles A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt.,
sometime Professor of Theological Encyclopaedia and Symbolics, Union
Theological Seminary, New York. [Now Ready.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. By G. P. FlSHER, D.D.,
LL.D., sometime Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Yale University,
New Haven, Conn. [Revised and Enlarged Edition.
CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS. By A. V. G. Allen, D.D., sometime
Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Protestant Episcopal Divinity School,
Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready.
PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. By George Galloway, D.D., Minister
of United Free Church, Castle Douglas, Scotland. [Now Ready.
HISTORY OF RELIGIONS. I. China, Japan, Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria,
India, Persia, Greece, Rome. By George F. Moore, D.D., LL.D., Pro
fessor in Harvard University. [Now Ready.
HISTORY OF RELIGIONS. II. Judaism, Christianity , Mohammedanism.
By George F. Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor in Harvard University.
APOLOGETICS. By A. B. Bruce, D.D., sometime Prof essor of New Testa
ment Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow. [Revised and Enlarged Edition.

The International Theological Library

THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD. By WilliamN. Clarke, D.D.,
sometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Hamilton Theological Semi
nary. [Now Ready.
THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. By William P. Paterson, D.D., Professor
of Divinity, University of Edin6urgh.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. By H. R.
Mackintosh, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Theology, New College, Edinburgh.
[Now Ready.
THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF SALVATION. By GEORGE B. STE
VENS, D.D., sometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University. [Now Ready.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. By WILLIAM ADAMS
Brown, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology, Union Theological
Seminary, New York.
CHRISTIAN ETHICS. By Newman Smyth, D.D., Pastor of Congrega
tional Church, New Haven. [Revised and Enlarged Edition.
THE CHRISTIAN PASTOR AND THE WORKING CHURCH. By
Washington Gladden, D.D., Pastor of Congregational Church, Columbus,
Ohio. [Now Ready.
THE CHRISTIAN PREACHER. By A. E. Garvie, D.D., Principal of
New College, London, England.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. By CHARLES HeNRY ROBIN
SON, D.D., Hon. Canon of Ripon Cathedral and Editorial Secretary of the
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. [Now Ready.

The International Critical Commentary

ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS
THE OLD TESTAMENT
uENESIS. The Rev. John Skinner, D.D., Principal and Professor o.
Old Testament Language and Literature, College of Presbyterian Church
of England, Cambridge, England. [Now Ready.
EXODUS. The Rev. A. R. S. Kennedy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew,
University of Edinburgh.
LEVITICUS. T. F. Stenning, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford.
VUMBERS. The Rev. G. Buchanan Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew
Mansfield College, Oxford. [Now Ready.
DEUTERONOMY. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt, sometime
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. [Now Ready.
JOSH UA. The Rev. George Adam Smith, D.D., LL.D., Principal of the
University of Aberdeen.
JUDGES. The Rev. George F. Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor of The
ology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready.
SAMUEL. The Rev. H. P. Smith, D.D., Librarian, Union Theological
Seminary, New York. [Now Ready.
KINGS. The Rev. Francis Brown, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D, President
and Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union Theological
Seminary, New York City.
CHRONICLES. The Rev. Edward L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of
Hebrew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. [Now Ready.
EZRA AND NEHEMIAH. The Rev. L. W. Batten, Ph.D., D.D., Pro-
lessor of Old TesUment Literature, General Theological Seminary, New
Ycrk City. lNow Ready-
PSALMS. The Rev. Chas. A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., sometime Graduate
Professor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics, Union Theological
Seminary, New York. [2 vols. Now Ready.
PROVERBS The Rev. C. H. Toy, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready.
JOB. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., sometime Regius Professor
of Hebrew, Oxford.

The International Critical Commentary

ISAIAH. Chaps. I-XXVII. The Rev. G. Buchanan Gray, D.D., Pro
fessor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. [Now Ready.
ISAIAH. Chaps. XXVIII-XXXIX. The Rev. G. Buchanan Gray, D.D.
Chaps. LX-LXVI. The Rev. A. S. Peake, M.A.. D.D., Dean of the Theo
logical Faculty of the Victoria University and Professor of Biblical Exegesis
in the University of Manchester. England.
JEREMIAH. The Rev. A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D., Dean of Ely, sometime
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge, England.
EZEKIEL. The Rev. G. A. Cooke, M.A., Oriel Professor of the Interpre
tation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford, and the Rev. Charles F.
Burney, D.Litt., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. John's College,
Oxford. DANIEL. The Rev. John P. Peters, Ph.D., D.D., sometime Professor
of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rectcr of St. Michael's
Church, New York City.
AMOS AND HOSEA. W. R. Harper, Ph.D., LL.D., sometime President
of the University of Chicago, Illinois. [Now Ready.
MICAH, ZEPHANIAH, NAHUM, HAEAKKUK, OBADIAH AND JOEL
Prof. John M. P. Smith, University of Chicago; W. Hayes Ward, D.D.,
LL.D., Editor of The Independent, New York; Prof. Julius A. Bewer,
Union Theological Seminary, New York. [Now Ready.
HAGGAI, ZECHARIAH, MALACHI AND JONAH. Prof. II. G. MITCHELL,
D.D.; Prof. John M. P. Smith, Ph.D., and Prof. J. A. Bewer, Ph.D.
[Now Ready.
ESTHER. The Rev. L. B. Paton, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hart
ford Theological Seminary. [Now Ready.
ECCLESIASTES. Prof. George A. Barton, Ph.D., Professor of Bibli
cal Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. [Now Ready,,'
RUTH, SONG OF SONGS AND LAMENTATIONS. Rev.CHARLESA.
Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., sometime Graduate Professor of Theological Ency
clopaedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York.

THE NEW TESTAMENT
ST. MATTHEW. The Rev. Willoughby C. Allen, M.A., Fellow and
Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. \ Now Ready.
ST. MARK. Rev. E. P. Gould, D.D., sometime Professor of New Testa
ment Literature, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. [Now Ready.
ST. LUKE. The Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., late Master of University
College, Durham. [Now Ready.

The International Critical Commentary

ST. JOHN. The Right Rev. John Henry Bernard, D.D., Bishop of
Ossory, Ireland.
HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. The Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D.,
LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the Rev. Wil
loughby C. Allen, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew,
Exeter College, Oxford.
ACTS. The Rev. C. H. Turner, D.D., Fellow of Magdalen College,
Oxford, and the Rev. H. N. Bate, M.A., Examining Chaplain to the
Bishop of London.
ROMANS. The Rev. William Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret
Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev.
A. C. Headlam, M.A., D.D., Principal of King's College, London. [Now Ready.
I. CORINTHIANS. The Right Rev. Arch Robertson, D.D., LL.D.,
Lord Bishop of Exeter, and Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., late Master of
University College, Durham. [Now Ready.
II. CORINTHIANS. The Rev. Alfred Plummer, M.A., D.D., late
Master of University College, Durham. [Now Ready.
GALATIANS. The Rev. Ernest D. Burton, D.D:, Professor of New
Testament Literature, University of Chicago.
EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. The Rev. T. K. ABBOTT, B.D.,
D.Litt., sometime Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin,
now Librarian of the same. [Now Ready.
PHILIPPIANS AND PHILEMON. The Rev. Marvin R Vincent,
D.D., Professor of Biblical Literature, Union Theological Seminary, New
York City. \Now Ready.
THESSALONIANS. The Rev. James E. Frame, M.A., Professor of
Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. [Now Ready.
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. The Rev. Walter Lock, D.D., Warden
of Keble College and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford.
HEBREWS. The Rev. James Moffatt, D.D., Minister United Free
Church, Broughty Ferry. Scotland.
ST JAMES. The Rev. James H. Ropes, D.D., Bussey Professor of New
Testament Criticism in Harvard University. [In Press.
PFTER AND JUDE. The Rev. CHARLES BlGG, D.D., sometime Regius
Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.
\N&w Ready.
the JOHANNINE EPISTLES. The Rev. E. A. Brooke, B.D., Fellow
Ind Div"*?Lecturer in King's College, Cambridge. [Now Ready.
revelation The Rev. Robert H. Charles, M.A., D.D., sometime
Professor of Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin.