II c 2
c^
r-fV-^-
•iv
xr--
J
:^y
t
S" 7 1.
GANAUA ^
r.
5
k*/\v n
d 1Q87 . 1
II c 2
u
i
L~ ^ "^ ^
THE
POWER or THE rorE
DURING THE MIDDLE AGES;
— OE,
AN HISTORICAL INQUIRY
INTO THE
OUIGIN OF THE TEMPORAL TOWER OF THE HOLY SEE,
AND
THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS OF THE MIDDLE AGES
BELATINQ TO THE DEPOSITION OF SOVEREIGNS.
WITH AN INTRODUCTION,
<^N THE HONOCUS AND TEMPOIUVL PRIVILEGES CONFERRED ON RELIGION AND ON
ITS MINISTERS BY THE NATIONS OP ANTIQllTY,
BSPECIALLY BY THE FIRST CHRISTIAN EMPERORS.
By M. GOSSELIX,
DIRECTOR IN THE SEMINARY OF ST. SULPICE, PARIS.
VOL. n.
TRANSLATED BY
THE REV. MATTHEW KELLY,
6aiiit Patrick's Coltoje, Maynoolh.
LONDON :
C. DOLMAN, Gl, NEW BOND STREET,
AND 22, PATERNOSTEU llOW.
MDCCCLIII.
PBINTKn BT
COX (brotbibs) and wtman, great quBBir sirfbt,
LINCOLW'8-ISN FIELDS.
CONTENTS.
PART 11.
PAOB
1
ib.
2
ib.
ib.
4
Power of the pope over sovereigns during the middle ages
1. General idea of this power . .
2. Different systems to account for it
3. Tlieological theories — their number
4. System of the right divine
5. This theory generally impugned hy Protestants . .
C. Opposed ahjo by many Catholic writers, but with more modera-
tion . . . . . . . . 6
7. Historical theories not much valued before the eighteenth cen-
^ tury ^ . 7
8. Fenelon's opinion . . . . 8
9. His mode »>f explaining the deposition of Childeric and of Louis
le Debonnaire . . . . . . ib.
10. Maxims and usages of the middle ages on the deposition of
princes . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. Directive power of the Church and of the pojie over sovereigns 11
12. The con<luct of the ]>opes to sovereigns during the middle ages
accounted for by the constitutional laws of those times . . 12
13. Fenelon's opinion niodifieil by that of Cfiunt de Maistre .. 11
14. Tlie Count de Maistre's nnxle of proving this constitutional l;iw 15
la. A condition made, according to him, in the election of sove-
reigns . . . . . . . . 16
16. Difference lietween Count de Maistre's 0]>inion and Fenelon's . . 17
17. Opinion of M. Michaud — The conduct of the popes to sovereigns
during the middle ages justified by the necessity of circum-
stances .... . . . . . . 18
18. Many Protestant writers favourable to this opinion — Testimony
of Voigt 20
19. This opinion iidmitted substintially by Hurter . . 21
20. Plan of this second part — The whole discussion reduced to four
propositions . . . . 24
CHAPTER I.
Some of the principal circumstances which contributed to establish or
favour the extraordinary power of popes and councils over sovereigns
during the middle ages . . . . . . . . 25
21. How to fonn an imparti.-U judgment of our ancestors and of their
intentions . . j6.
22. The power of the popes and councils over sovereigns during the
middle ages tested by this principle . . . . 26
Article I. — Constitution of governments in the mi<ldle ages 27
23. Most of the monarchies of that period elective . ib.
21. M. Guizot's opinion on this point . . .28
VI CONTENTS.
PAGE
25. The authority of the sovereign restricted by the general assembly
of the nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
26. Strict union of religion and government in these monarchies . . 33
27. Union of these two powers . . . . . . . . . . 34
28. This union more strict at this period than under the first Chris-
tian emperors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
29. Influence of the clergy in public affairs in consequence of this
union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
30. Influence of the pope the natural consequence of similar circum-
stances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
31. Errors of many modem writers on this point . . . . . . 39
Akticle II. — State of society during the middle ages — Advantages which
it derived from religion and the clergy . . . . . . . . . . 40
32. Picture of the state of society during the middle ages . . . . ib.
33. Ignorance and barbarism of this epoch . . . . . . . . 41
34. Disorders of society in the time of Gregory VII. . . . . 42
35. These disorders often fomented by the example of princes . . 43
36. A respect for religion still surviving in the midst of these dis-
orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
37. The clergy distinguished at all times by their enlightenment . . ib,
38. Edifying spectacle presented by the principal religious orders . . 47
39. The disorders of the middle ages often exaggerated by modem
authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
40. This important fact admitted by authors least liable to the sus-
picion of partiaUty . , . . . . . . . . ib.
41. Remarkable admissions of H.iUam on this point . . . . 49
42. Services rendered to society by the monastic orders, according
to this author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ib.
43. Admissions of M. Guizot — Influence of the clergy on civilization
in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
44. Salutary influence of the Church on social amelioration .. 52
45. Admissions of Voltaire — Usefulness of the religious orders . . 54
46. Unjust declamations of some authors on this point .. .. 55
47. First inference from the preceding facts : Influence of the clergy
in the temporal order during the middle ages . . . . 56
48. Second inference : Origin of ecclesiastical principalities . . .. 57
49. Third Inference: Influence of the pope in the government of
states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
50. Fourth Inference : Eight of sovereignty of the Holy See over
many states ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
61. The influence of the pope more frequently exercised, and more
extensive, during the Crusades . . . . . . . . . . 60
52. Remarkable examples of this influence . . . . . . . . 62
53. Necessity of the influence of the clergy in the middle ages ac-
knowledged by unexceptionable authorities . . . . . . 64
64. Testimony of Bossuet . . . . . . . . . . . . ib.
65. Testimony of Bernardi . . . . . . . . ... . . 66
66. Admissions of M. Hurter . . . . . . . . . . . . ib.
57. Inconsistencies of many modern writers on this subject . . 67
Article III. — Legislation of the middle ages on the temporal conse-
quences of public penance and of excommunication in the case of
private individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ib.
68. The origin of this legislation . . . . . . . . . . ib.
§1. Temporal eSects of public penance .. .. .. .. .. 68
69. Ancient discipline of the Church on public penance . . . . ib.
60. Temporal effects of public penance in the west after the fourth
century . . ... . . . . . . . , . . . . 70
CONTENTS. Vli
PAGE
61. ReninrkaMo tostimony of St. Loo on this point ..70
62. CjiuonH of ditriri-'nt CDUiiciU on the Kftnic Huhji-ct 71
63. TluiJe i-Jfecl-s (iitai-hi'll to public ponaDco, evou when ncceptixi
out of lucrw devotion . . . . . . 73
64. This custom saiictioueil by the two powen> in the kingdom of
the iJoth.s . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
65. Decline of public penance from tlio seventh to the twelfth cen-
tury 70
66. Itu ttmjionil effects maintained in France, and in other places,
by the authority of the two jK)wers 77
67. The custom of tho«o ayes illustrated in the case of Louis le l)e-
Iwiinaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . j/j,
68. Tliis custom gradually falls into desuetude after the ninth cen-
tury 78
69. This custom wa-s founded neither on the divine law nor on tlie
authority of the Church alone . . . . . . . . . . 80
§ 2. Temporal effects of excommunication 81
70. Temporal effects of excommunication from the origin of Chris-
tianity . . . . . . . . il),
71. Rc-vson.-i why ecclesi.-v.stieal censures lK?canie in course of time so
fretjuent, and their tem|x)ral effects so numerous . . . . 82
72. Ivemarkable examples illustrating this matter in France after
the sixth century . . . . . . 84
73. Tlie same custom gradually established in the other states of
Europe . . . . . . 85
74. Concurrence of sovereigns in establishing this discipline 80
75. Severity of tliis discipline before the time of Gregory VII. ib.
7'>. This severity moderated by Gregory VII. . . . . 87
77. Exconmiunication entailed the forfeiture of all dignities, even
temporal . . . . 88
78. Tliis discipline sanctioned for many centuries by the common
laws of Europe — German law . . . . . . . . ih.
79. Englisli Laws . . . . 00
80. Ancient cu8t<inis of France conformable on this jKiint to that of
other countries . . . . . . . . ib.
81. This legislation in force under the reign of St. Louis 01
82. Circumstances favourable to the esUiblishment of this discipline 1*2
CHAPTER IL
The power exercised by popes and councils over sovereigns in the middle
ages generally admitted by princes and j>eople . . . . 03
83. Tliis general In-'lief uniloubtc<lly existed . . . . ib.
84. Proofs of this iitct — Plan of this chapter . . 16.
Article I. — Proofs of this belief in the case of Catholic sovereigns in
general . . . . 01
85. General Ijelief tliat lieretical princes incurred deponition . . ib.
86. This belief existing in France under the reign of St. Louis . . 05
87. General and particular councils almj attest this belief 06
88. Decrees <jf the thinl general Council of Lateran. . . . ib.
89. Decrees of the fourth general Council of Lateran .. 98
90. Concurrence of the two powers in the promulgation of those
decrees .. .. .. .. ..100
91. Confinnation of the.se decrees by the laws of princeii, and by
different councils or mixeil assemblies . . ij.
92. General belief regarding the temporal effects of excommunication
in the case of sovereigns 102
Vlll
CONTENTS.
PAGE
93. This belief proved to exist from the history of the emperor
Henry IV. — Character and conduct of that prince .. .. 102
94. The pope tlireatens to excommunicate him— His insulting an-
swer to that menace . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
95. He is excommunicated and deposed by the pope — Lawfulness
of this sentence .. .. .. .. .. ... .. 106
96. Consequences of this sentence .. .. .. .. ..107
97. The emperor solicits and obtains absolution . . . . . . 108
98. Inferences from all these facts with regard to the general belief
in the papal temporal power .. .. .. ., ..110
99. Futile objections against the fact that such a belief prevailed . . Ill
100. The sentence of the pope treated with contempt by the parti-
sans of Henry .. .. .. .. .. .. ., 112
101. General astonishment at this sentence . . . . . . . . 113
102. Temporal effects of excommunication with regard to princes
acknowledged in England during the twelfth century . . 115
103. Contests of Henry II. with St. Thomas of Canterbury . , . . 117
104. Bossuet's opinion of this contest . . .. .. .. ..118
105. The belief of which we treat proved by this contest . . . . 119
106. The same belief proved by the history of Richard I. . . . . 120
107. Proof of this belief in France under the second race of French
kings 121
108. Proof of this belief under the third race — Philip I. threatened
with excommunication by Gregory VII. . . . . . . 122
109. This prince excommunicated by Pope Urban II. . . . . 124
110. Effects of this excommunication, according to contemporary
authors . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 125
111. Tliese effects acknowledged by Ivo of Chartres .. .. ih.
112. Futile objections against this testimony . . . . . . 127
113. This belief continued in full force after the reign of Philip I. . . 128
114. Objection against the existence of this belief founded on the
conduct of some sovereigns . . . . , . . . . ib.
115. This objection answered by some general observations. . . . 129
116. Objection from the case of Philip I. answered .. .. .. 130
117. Answer to the case of Frederick Barbarossa .. .. .. 131
118. This general belief admitted even by Bossuet .. .. .. 133
119. Admissions of Fleury on the same subject .. .. .. 134
120. Opinion of Dr. Lingard .. .. .. .. .. .. 136
121. Opinion of Michaud 137
122. Ferrand's opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
123. Remarkable admissions of Protestant authors .. .. .. ib.
124. Leibnitz ib
125. Pfeffel 140
126. Admissions of Voltaire .. .. .. .. .. .. 141
Abticle II. — Special proofs of this belief in France . . . . ib.
127. Remarkable testimony of St. Gregory on this subject . . . . ib.
128. Authenticity of this testimony .. .. .. .. .. 142
129. Different e.xplanations proposed by critics . . . . . . ib.
130. The difficult}' solved by the consent of the French princes
given to the decree . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
131. The king generally considered amenable to the national council,
under the second race of French kings . . . . . . 145
132. This fact admitted by our most eminent historians . . . . 147
133. Their attempts to elude the consequences of their admissions. . ib.
134. The belief in question was not an error . . . . . . . . 148
135. It was not introduced by the policy of Pepin and his successors 149
Article III. — Special proofs of this belief for the case of those sovereigns
who were vassals of the Holy See .. .. .. .. ..150
CONTENTS. IX
PAGK
136. Righto of sovereignty attributod to tl»e pope over differvnt
states . 150
137. Over EngUnd IT. I
138. Over Sicily C*-
139. Over the kingilom of Arragon ib.
140. Over the republic of Venice '(>■
Artioi-E IV.— Special proofs of this belief with regard to the empire of
the West 152
141. Genenil belief that the empire of Uie West was in a peculiar
way dej>eudent on the pope '6.
142. In what sense was the empire considered a fief of the Holy See iO.
143. Dependence of the empire on the pope admitted by the Ger-
man lords in the time of Gregory Vll. . . 154
144. Various testimonies of the existence of this belief .. .. 155
145. Opinion of lierviise of Tilbury .. 156
14fJ. Opinion of Ludolph, bishop of Bamljerg ,. .. .. 157
14 7. The same belief long prevalent in France .. .. .. 158
lis. This belief held even by .sijvereigns .. 159
149. This Wlief proved from the first general council of Lyons 160
150. This belief held by the emperors themselves . . 162
l.')!. Pnxifs of this belief under the Carlovingian emperors . . ib.
152. Proofs of this Wlief under the Gennan emj)erors .. .. 163
\:>3. KWtion of Uodul(.h in M77 164
154. Klection of Otho IV. in 1201 ib.
155. Deposition of Utho IV. in 1211, and of Louisof liavaria in 1346 166
156. 0»th of fidelity taken to the popes by the emperors . . 167
157. Text of this oath in the ninth century . . ib.
158. Oath taken by Otho I. in 900 . . . . 168
159. Oath of the emperor Henry II. in 1014 . 169
160. Form of oath drawn up by Gregory VII. 170
161. Di.spute on this subject between Frederick I. and Adrian IV. i6.
162. Dispute on the .same subject between Uie emperor Henry VII.
and Po|)e Clement V. ., .. ..172
163. Remarkalde atlmissions of Henry IV. and Frederick II. on the
pope's right to depose them ..174
104. Frederick and others often change their opinion on this point. . 175
165. First Inference : From the i)receding facts the belief in question
was not iutroduce<l by Gregory VII. . . . . .. . . 1 7'J
166. Second inference : The pojtes and councils of the middle ages
cannot be accused of criminal usurpation 177
167. Third inference : Nor can they be accused of a gross error iO.
CHAITEK 111.
Titles of the power exercised by popes and councils over sovereigns in the
middle ages . . . . 1 79
168. This question not much di.-cussed before the twelfth century . . ib.
169. Two principal opinions on this matter . . ib.
170. Distinction between the power of jurisdiction and the directive
power . . . . . 1 80
171. The present question regards solely the power of jurisdiction,
as founded on the ri^'ht divine. . . . ib.
172. IV)->suet's opinion on the directive power 181
173. The opinion which as.'^igns C"onst--intine's donation a^* the ground
of the j>oj»e's power over sovereigns justly al)andone<l 183
174. Tlie opinion wliich liclicves this power was founded on the
theological theory of the tlivine right is the more conmion at
the present day .. 154
X CONTENTS.
PAGE
175. The present discussion reduced to two propositions . . . . 185
Article I. — Historical discussion on the system according to which the
tlieological opinion of the right divine was the title of the power exer-
cised by popes and councils over sovereigns in the middle ages . . ib.
176. This system contradicted by history . . . . . . . . ib.
§ 1. Historical inquiry on the origin of the theological opinion of the
right divine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
177. The theological opinion on the right divine hardly known in the
time of Gregory VII., or for a considerable time after . . ib.
178. The doctrine of antiquity on the distinction of the two powers
proclaimed in the Capitularies .. .. .. .. 187
179. This doctrine professed by the Holy See in the eighth and
ninth centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
180. The same doctrine professed at the time in England and Spain ib.
181. This doctrine generally acknowledged under Gregory VII. —
Testimony of St. Peter Damian . . . . 190
182. Pretended evidences of the theological opinion of the divine
right before Gregory VII. . . . . . . . . . . 192
183. Discussion of the facts alleged. — 1. Admixture of the temporal
and the spiritual in acts of legislation . . ., .. .. 193
184. Mutual encroachments of the two powers .. .. .. 195
185. The answer of Pope Zachary to the French on the deposition
of Childeric III 196
186. The titles "consul," "patrician," "emperor," given to the
kings of France by the popes of the eighth century . . 197
187. The king considered as amenable to the council in France
during the ninth century . . . . . . . . . . ib.
188. Inference from these explanations . . . . . . . . 198
189. The theological theory of the divine right hardly known before
the twelfth century . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
190. The language of Gregory VII. does not suppose that opinion 200
191. Explanation of the two sentences of deposition issued against
the emperor Henry IV. . . . . . . . . . . 201
192. Explanation of his letters to Herman, bishop of Metz. . . . 204
193. These explanations confirmed by the conmion consent of con-
temporary authors . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
194. Doctrine of the blessed Ivo of Chartres. . . . . . . . 206
195. Gratian's doctrine . . .... . . . . . . . . 207
196. Doctrine of Hugo de Sancto Victore . . . . . . . . 209
197. Doctrine of St. Bernard — Sense in which he applies the alle-
gory of the two swords . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
198. In what sense he attributes to the pope the right of disposing
of kingdoms and of empires . . . . . . . . . . 214
199. Different interpretations of the allegory of the two swords in
the authors of this period . . . . . . . . . . 215
200. Sense in which it is used by Geoffrey of Vendome . . . . ib.
201. And by Hildebert^ bishop of Mans, and the majority of ancient
authors .. .. .. .. ,. .. .. .. 216
§ 2. Discussion of the principal acts and decrees of councils and popes,
cited in support of the theological opinion of the divine right. . 218
202. This discussion, though very useful for our purpose, is not in-
dispensable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ib.
203. Pretended donation of Ireland to the king of England by
Adrian IV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
204. Decrees of the third and fourth Councils of Lateran on temporal .
matters, sanctioned by sovereigns . . . . , . . . 220
CONTENTS. XI
PAGE
205. Doctrine of Innocent III. — In what sonso ho maintninB the
pix'-ciuinciKV of the spiritual over tlie toiupural power . . 221
206. Souse in which he employed the allegory of the two great
lunjiniirifs . . . . . . . . 223
207. lie apjviiiitrf himself arbiter of peace b«twoen Philip Auguatua
and John Lackland . . . . 225
208. Motive;* of this conduct — the pope's vindication of it . . 226
20y. Inju.itico of the censures passed on him in this matter. . .. 2'_'7
210. Wise remonstrances of the pope with Philip Augu.stus 223
211. Conduct of Innocent III. on this occasion vindicated by
M. Hurler 229
212. DeiKwition of the emperor Frederick II. in the first general
Council of Lyons . . . . . . . . . . 230
213. Tlie sentence of Pope Innocent IV. against the emperor
exi)lained by the same principles as that of ttregory VII. . . 281
214. Why he does not mention the laws of the empire . . 232
215. Examination of the bull of Boniface VIII., Unam Sanctam. . 233
216. Tlie strongest expression.'* of this bull borrowed from St. Ber-
nard and Hu^'o de Sancto Victore . . . . 234
217. Remarkable conclusion of this bull .. .. .. 286
21S. MtKlerate explanation of this decree given by Boniface VIII.
himself . . . . . . . . ib.
215). His doctrine by no means favourable to the theological system
of the divine right .. .. 237
220. Why it was at first understood in a sense favourable to that
system . . . . . . 238
221. Decrees of the Holy See for the jiartition of newly-dis-
covenxl countries . . . . 239
222. Examimition of the bull of Alexander VI. (InU-r C.xHcni) . . 241
223. Injustice of the censures passed on the poj)es for decrees of
this kind . . 243
224. Decrees of the Councils of Constance and Basil in temporal
matters authorized by princes . . . . . . ib.
225. Similar decree of the Council of Trent 245
226. Decrees of the Holy See against the monarchs of England
in the sixteenth century. — General principle for the explana-
tion of these decrees . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
227. Bulls of excommunication and deposition issued by Pope
Paul III. against King Henry VIII 247
228. This decree by no means supposes the theological theory of
the divine right . . 248
229. Tlie bull of Pius V. against Elizabeth explained by the same
principles 250
230. Oaths of supremacy and allegiance required of the English
Catholics at this period . . . . 251
231. Brief of Paul V. against the oath of allegiance .. . . 253
232. These briefs do not in any manner favour the theoiogicnl
opinion of the divine right lb.
233. Tlic oalli of allegi.-ince censurable independently of that opinion ;
Ist, as reviving the oath of suprem.acy 254
234. As censuring as heretiad a d(.>ctrine not condemned by the
Church 255
235. As subverting the rule of faith established by Jesus Christ . . 256
236. The theob gical opinion of the divine right always a free
opinion in England as well as in other countries . . . . ib.
237. Bull of Sixtus V. against the king of Navarre (Henry IV.)
and the prince of C'onde .. .. 257
238. Tliis bull expLiined by liie .same principles xs those of Paul III.
and of Pius V. 258
Xll CONTENTS.
PAGE
239. This explanation is totally independent of the opinions of the
popes as private doctors . . . . . . . . . . 259
240. Conclusion of this discussion : 1st. No decree of popes or
councils sanctions the theological opinion of the divine right 260
241. 2nd. This system was never defined to be an article of faith . . ib.
Article II. — Real ground of the power in question the constitutional
law of the middle ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
242. Some idea of constitutional law and of common law . . . . ib.
243. How both can be known 262
244. Power of the pope and of councils over sovereigns during
the middle ages founded on the constitutional law of the time 263
§ 1. Proofs founded on the constitution common to all the Catholic
states of Europe during the middle ages . . . . . . 264
245. Two important facts to be remembered on this subject. . . . ib.
246. Obvious inferences from these facts, as bearing on the present
question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
§ 2. Proofs founded on the constitution of particular states . . . . 267
247. Conditions in the election of the kings of Spain in the seventh
century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ib.
248. Lawfulness of these conditions . . . . . . . . 268
249. Continuance of this ancient law in Spain during the middle ages ib.
250. A king rebelling against God and the Church deprived of his
titles by a law of St. Edward 269
251. Authenticity of this law, and its real meaning. . . . . . 270
252. Many sovereigns declare themselves vassals of the Holy See
after the tenth century . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
253. Oath of fealty taken to the pope by Robert Guiscard . . . . 272
254. Rights of sovereignty of the Holy See both before and after
the time of Gregory VII. . . . . . . . . 273
255. Remarkable consequences of these rights . . . . . . 274
256. The king of France and some others exempt from all feudal
subjection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
257. The rights of the Holy See over the empire of the West estab-
lished by these facts . . . . . . . . . . 276
258. First fact : Charlemagne acquired the title of emperor from
the pope . . .... . . . . . . . . . . ib.
259. Second fact : The pope did not renounce at that time his right
in future elections . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
260. Third fact : He retained this right long after the reign of
Charlemagne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
2b'x. Exercise of this right under the Carlovingian emperors . . 280
262. Tulc right generally acknowledged at the time by sovei-eigns . . 281
263. How to :^°concile this right with the fact of several emperors
having assumed their sons as colleagues in the throne . . 283
264. The empire transferred from the French to the Germans by the
authority of the pope . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
265. Influence of the pope in the election of the emperor from that
period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
266. Consequence of this mode of election . . . . . . . . 286
267. Fourth fact : The pope's rights over the empire established by
the ancient laws of Germany . . . . . . . . . . 287
268. Supremacy of the spiritual over the temporal power according
to this code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ib.
269. Provisions of the same code on the election of the emperor . . 289
270. Three cases determined by this law in which an emperor may
be excommunicated by the pope . . . . . . . . ib.
CONTENTS. xm
PAflK
271. Consequences of tliU exoonimuuication according u> the ancient
law.s ul' the cMjpirc . . 21*0
272. Till- jKjniilty of deposition pronounced by the Kune lawH ajjain.Ht
heretical princes. . 201
273. Inferences froni these provisions . . . . ih.
t) 3. Discu.«ion uf the princi[>al objection.^ that may \yo raised agaitiHt
our opinion . . 292
274. First objection : The divine power of bindin;,' and of loosing
.•»ppealed to by the po])es in support of their sentences of
dejHwition . . . . ib.
275. Seconil objection : Pretendcil inconipatiliility of the spirit of the
CJortjiel with the temporal power of the pope in tlie middle ages 293
276. TemjKjral jiower not necessarily incompatible with spiritual
power 294
277. This incompatibility not introduced into tlie new law by Jesus
Christ 295
278. Constant l>elief and practice of the Church on this point . . 296
279. Tins practice and belief justified by reason . . 297
280. Inadmissible consequences of the contrary opinion 298
§ 4. Confirmation of our opinion by eminent authorities, and by the
constitution of many modem states 16.
281. Remark.ible admissions of Bossuet 16.
282. These admissions should correct many parts of the defence of
the declaration . . 300
283. Opinion of the old faculty of Louvain 301
284. General disposition in the present day to admit this explanation 303
285. Proofe of this disjMsition, even among Protestants. — Testimony
of Lieil>Ditz and Eichom 304
286. Importance of these admissions . . 300
287. This constitutional law retained in the constitutions of even
inany modern stites 307
288. Proofs of this point with regard to Gennany ib.
289. Kingdom of Englaii-1 309
290. Spain and Sicily .311
291. Poland 312
292. Kingdom of France.— Motives and object of the league under
Henry III. . . ih.
293. Manifesto of the league .313
294. Results of this act. 314
295. Conversion of Henry IV. — Edict of Nantes and its revocation ib.
296. Remains of the ancient constitutional law of the middle ages
in many Protestant states, especially in England . . 315
297. Sweden and Norway .310
298. Difference between the modern law of those states and that of
thp middle age.i .317
CHAPTER IV
Practical results of the power exercised by popes and councils over sove-
reigns during the middle ages 319
299. Plan and design of this chapter ib.
Article I. — Supposed evil results of this power 320
300. Three principal evils attributed to it ib.
§ 1. Of the ambition and exorbitant iiretensions of which the popes of
the middle ages are .accused . . ib.
301. Injustice of this reproach . . ..... ib.
302. Moderation of the popes, con»idere<l as sovereign-. ib.
XIV CONTENTS.
PAGE
303. Their moderation as arbiters of princes, and as .suzerain lords . 322
304. Object and aim of their policy . . . . . . . . . . 323
305. It was perfectly justifiable . . . . . . . . 324
306. And highly praiseworthy . . . . . . . . . . . . ib.
307. Vain declamations on this subject . . . . . . . . 325
§ 2. On the pretended degrading of the authority of sovereigns in the
eyes of the people . . . . . . . . . , . , . . 326
308. Prejudices propagated on this subject . . . . . . . . ib.
309. Political theory of the middle ages compared with modern
theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
310. System of the sovereignty of the people. . . . . . . . 329
311. Great inconveniences of this system . . . . . . . . 330
312. All the modern theories useless or dangerous . . . . . . 331
313. Theory of the middle ages much more rational. . . . . . 332
314. It is not adapted to all times nor to all states of society . . 333
315. Application of this theory by the popes . . .. .. .. 334
316. Character of the deposed princes . . .. .. .. 335
317. Character of the emperor Henry IV. . . . . . . 336
318. How Gregory VII. vindicated himself in this matter. . . . ib.
319. The successors of Gregory VII. defended as easily . . . . 337
§ 3. On the wars said to have been caused by the collision of the two
powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
320. Palpable exaggeration on this subject . . . . . . . . ib.
321. Real causes of the contest between the two powers . . . . 339
322. Excesses of Heniy IV. — IModeration of Gregory VII. . . ib.
323. Henry IV. the real cause of this war . . . . . . 340
324. Crimes equally notorious of the princes deposed after Henry IV. 341
325. Purely political origin of the Guelph and Ghibelline factions. . 342
326. It was not, properly speaking, a war between the two powers,
but one between Italy and Germany . . . . . . . . 343
327. Exaggerations on the duration of the war. — Its pretended
universality . . 344
Article II. — Real .advantages of this power . . . . . . . . 345
328. These advantages reduced principally to three . . . . . . ib.
§ 1. Efficiency of this power in preserving religion . . . . . . ib.
329. Nature of investitures . . . . . . ib.
330. Origin of the controversy of the investitures . . . . 346
331. The ceremony of investiture dififerent from that of homage,
and of the oath of fidelity . . . . . . . . . . 347
332. Subject of the contest about the investitures. — Importance of
this question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ib.
333. This importance acknowledged, even by Protestant authors . . 349
§ 2. Influence of this power in preserving morality . . ... . . 350
334. This power used principally in repressing the licentiousness of
princes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ib.
335. Admissions of M. Hurter on this point . . . . 351
§ 3. Influence of this power in maintaining public tranquillity . . 352
336. This effect admitted by unexceptionable testimony. — Admis-
sions of Voltaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ib.
337. Admissions of M. Ferrand 353
338. Admissions of Protestant authors . . . . . . . . ib.
339. M. Coquerel 354
340. Inconveniences of this power abundantly compensated for by its
advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ib.
341. Services conferred on .societj"^ by the popes .. .. .. 355
rONTENTS. W
PACK
CoNCLi'sioN. ami suniiiinry of the seooiul part 356
3-12. Injustice u{ tlic tlcclaiuatitiiirt iig:viii«t the popes nnd councilrt nf
tlie iiiiJdIe ajji-s . . ib.
3-13. Why tlicwo invi-ctivcs have been so easily admitted by Catholic
writers . . . . 357
CONFIKMATOIJV EVIDENCE.
\ 1 1 1. •)rigin, proj^ffi-ss, ami nioilificAtions of the opinion which attrihutoR
to the Chunh and to the pope a divine right, direct or indirect,
of teiniM>ral jurisdiction . . . . . . 359
IX Work;* to l>o cimsnlted on the controvcrsic.i relatini.; to the ri^fhts
of Elizal>eth to the crown of England, and of the king of Na-
varro (afterwards Henry IV.) to the crown of Franco . . 372
INDEX 375
POWER OF THE rOTE
IN THE MIDDLE AGES.
PART II.
POWER OF THE POPE OVER SOVEREIGNS DURING THE MIDDLE
AGES.
1. General Idea of thia Power.
Besides the supreme power enjoyed by the pope in his own
dominions, he exercised, after the tenth century, another much
more extraordinary over the soverei<:7is of other states. For
many centuries after tliat date all the Catholic kingdoms of
Europe constituted a sort of commonwealth, of which the pope
was recognised the head. In that capacity he decided both in
councils and by himself, as supreme arbiter and judge in contests
arising between princes and tlieir subjects, or between princes
among themselves ; he cited sovereigns before his tribunal ;
and not only inflicted on scandalous princes spiritual censures,
but even deprived of their rank those who persisted obstinately
in their disorders. Thus Henry IV., emperor of (Jennany, was
solemnly deposed by Gregory VII. in 107() ; Frederick I. by
Alexander III. in 1160 ; the emperor Otho IV. and John, king
of England, by Innocent III. in 1211 ; and Frederick II. by
Innocent IV. in 124.3. Even general coimcils, far from pro-
testing against these acts of authority, occasionally suppose that
they are legitimate, and attribute to themselves the same right.
We find, especially, that when Pope Innocent IV. pronounced
sentence of deposition against the emperor Frederick II., in the
first Council of Lyons, the fathers not only did not protest
against the act, but, as we shall soon see, even expressly approved
VOL. II. B
2 POWER OF THE roPE [part II.
it.^ We find similar acts in the tliird and fourth councils of
Lateran, and in the councils of Constance and of Basle, which
condemn heretics to the forfeitm-e of all, even temporal dignities,
and absolve their subjects from their oath of allegiance.
2. Different Systems to account fw it.
The difficulty of accounting for so prodigious a power has
given rise, in these latter times, to the most contradictory
theories, both among Catholic and heretical authors. These
theories may all be reduced to two classes, the first of which
may be called theological, because they examine the difficulty
principally in a theological view, that is, according to the prin-
ciples of revelation and of divine right ; the second are the
historical, because they examine the question chiefly in its
historical view, that is, according to positive human laws, accord-
ing to the principles of legislation then in force, and according
to some considerations founded on the condition and exigencies
of society in the middle ages.
3. TJuoloffical TJieories — Th^r Number.
I. Theological theories. — From the revival of learning until
the commencement of the last century the question was never
discussed except in a theological view : nor did the majority of
those who examined it in that light appear to know that it cotdd
be discussed on any other principles. This mode of investiga-
tion gave rise to systems so totally different, that some tend to
justify completely the conduct of popes and councils to sovereigns
during the middle ages ; others absolutely condemn it, and others
merely excuse it on the ground of the peculiar circumstances of
the times, and of the opinions then generally prevalent.
4. System of the Right Divine.
The conduct of popes and councils is completely justified by
the principles of revelation and of divine right, if we believe
the advocates of that theological opinion which attributes to the
Church and to the pope, according to Divine institution, " a
power of jurisdiction, at least indirect, over temporal matters." -
' Infra, ch. ii. n. 149.
* An exposition of this system may be seen in the following works : Bel-
larmin, De Summo Pontifice, lib. v. cap. i. vi. ; Pereira de Castro, De Manu
PART 1 1. J OVER SOVEREIGNS. "I
Acconlin<» to the advocates of this opinion, the direct and
immediate object of ecclesia.stical power is to govern the faithful in
the spiritual order; which naturally involves the power of making
all the laws necessary for their spiritual good. This power, how-
ever, implies indirectly, and aa it were inferentially, a power
of regidating even temporal concerns for the greater good of
religion ; so that the temporal power, though in its nature
diflercnt from the spiritual, is nevertheless subordinate to it, in
the same way as a subject is to his suijcrior, who has the power
to judge, to examine, and to annul his subject's acts, and even
to depose him whenever the greater good of religion rei^uires it.
In accordance with these principles, the ecclesiastical power never
meddles with temporal affairs as long as the prince to whom they
are intrusted docs notliing contrary to the good of religion ; but
should he act so, it is a right and a duty of the ecclesiastical
power to repress the temporal power, by all the means necessary
for the greater good of religion, so far even a.3 to depose a
sovereign and to appoint another in his place.* This system
was long maintained, with modifications more or less important,
by a great number of theologians not French ; * but in the course •
r.-zi.l Pmlud. I. Lugd. Rit-iv. 1073, fol, Olyssipone, 1C25, 1GS8, and 1742 ;
K'ti' aj,'lia, Aniiiiadvenfiones ia Hi«t. Eccle«. Nat. Alexander, at the close of
tlio Second Dissertation of Nat. Alexander on the Ecclesi.astic.il History of tlio
Eleventh Century ; Biaiichi, Delia I'otesta e <l(;lla Politia dclla Chiesa, vol. i.
bcxik i. g 8, n. 1 ; Perez Valiente, AppanitU8 Juris j)uljlici Hisjianici ; Matriti,
1751, 2 vols. 4to vol. i. caj). xiv. xv. ; Mamachi, Uriginorf et Antitjuitjitea
Chriatianse, vol iv. cap. ii. § 4. Every one knows the noise made by the
reviv.il of these ultramontine opinion.s in our own time by a too famous writer.
See especially the two work.s entitled De la Kelipion consiilurt-e dans sea
Rapj)ort8 avec I'Ordre Politi'|ue, Paris, 182G ; Des Proj,'r!.B de la lii'volution
et de la Guerre contre I'Eglise, Pari.s, 1820. See al«o in the Histoire Litt<?-
raire de Frnelon (p.nrt iv. n. 74), an exposition of hia system, on the temporal
power of the Church and of the pope.
' This system of the " indirect power," as explained iu the text, is defended
princi|)ally by Cardinal Bellamiin (ubi supra). Even the autliors who aflor-
wanl.^ modified that system, have retained the substance of the learned car-
dinal's doctrine, and fpven it in nearly all its details ; so that the modifica-
tions introiluccd are really of very slight im|>ortance. See in No. S of the
Confirmatory Evidence at the end of this volume, more ample details on the
origin, progress, and vicissitudes of the system.
* Ik-fore the sixteenth century, this system was not less common in France
than in other countries. See, on this subject, Cliarl.orf, Tract, de Libertat.
Eccl. Gall. lib. vii. cap. viii. ix. ; I'iaiu-bi, Di-lla I'otcfta c dell.a I'olitia della
Chie.sa, vol. i. book, i. § 10 — 14 ; Mamachi, Origines et Anti<{uit. Christ, vol. iv.
p. 254, note 1. It must, however, l>e observed, that those writers attribute
the advocacy of the indirect power to many ancient theologians, who may very
well be tmderatood as speaking of a power purely directive.
B 2
4 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II
of our inquiry it will be shown, that it was never sanctioned by
any decision of the Church or of the Holy Sce.^ Some modern
writers have even confidently asserted that it is generally aban-
doned at present, even by foreign theologians."
5. Tlds Theory generally impugned by Protestants.
The general opposition of Protestants to this system, which
we have now explained, may be seen from the exposition given
in the first part of this work of the different opinions of modern
authors, on the grounds and original titles of the temporal
power of the Holy See.^ The first reformers, following, as
we have seen, in the footsteps of Calvin, carried their opposition
so for as to maintain the incompatibility of the temporal with
spiritual power, at least in the New Law : whence they in-
ferred, first, that the conduct of popes and councils to sovereigns
in the middle ages, cannot be excused from " gross error," and
even from criminal usurpation of the sovereign's rights : and,
secondly, that the sanctity and infallibility attributed to the Roman
church by Catholic divines, were both refuted by this conduct.^
Modern Protestants, for the most part, are far from the
extravagance of maintaining the incompatibility of temporal
with spiritual power in the ministers of the New Law. Many of
them, nevertheless, do not hesitate to repeat, with more or less
violence or vituperation, the declamations of the first reformers
against popes and councils, and especially the accusations of
"error" and criminal usurpation of the rights of the temporal
power.''
' See infra, eh. iii. art. i. last number.
- Fraj'ssinous, Les Vrais Principes de I'Eglise Gallicane, 2nd edit. p. 62.
De la Luzerne, Sur la Dt^clar. de I'Assemble'e de 1682. Paris, 1821, 8vo. p. 7.
Lettre de Monseigneur I'Eveque de Chartres k un de ses Dioc^sains, du 30
Mars, 1826, pp. 57, 69, &c. Milner, Excellence de la Religion Catholique,
vol. ii. p. 579, &c. L'Ami de la Religion, vol. xviii. p. 198 ; vol. Ix. p. 35,
81 ; vol. xcv. p. 434.
In corroboration of the opinion of these authors, see No. 8 of the Confirma-
tory Evidence at the close of this volume.
^ See, supra, part i. ch. ii. art. ii. n. 87, 88.
* Calvin, Instit. lib. iv. cap. ii. n. 8, &c. Cardinal Bellarmin (De Rom.
Pontif. lib. v. cap. i.) cites some other works of the first reformers on this
subject.
* See, among others, Basnage, Hist, de I'Eglise, vol. ii. book xxvii. ch. vii. ;
Mosheim, Hist. Eccl. sjbc. ii. part. ii. cap. ii. § 9 ; saec. xiii. part. ii. cap. ii.
§ 11 ; cap. V. § 2, &c. et alibi passim ; Hallam, Middle Ages, vol. iii. ch. vii.
M. Guizot, it must be admitted, speaks more moderately than those authors ;
PAUT II.] OVER SOVEKEIGXS. 5
6. Opposed also by many Catholic Writers, but vcith more ifoderatl'm.
The system of those authors who undertake to jiustify the
conduct of popes and councils to soverei^s in the middle ages,
by the theolojpcal theory " of the indirect power," has been
opposed, not only by Protestant writers, but also by a great
number of Catholic divines, who denounce that theory as an
error contrary to the doctrine of antiquity on the distinction
and reciprocal independence of the two powers.' The spiritual
and the temporal powers, they maintain, are equally sovereign
within their own sphere, and independent of each other, accord-
it is clear, nevertheless, that his system on the temporal power of the Church
and uf the po}>e in the middle ages is imbued with the principles and prejudices
of the reformers. (Guizot, Hist. G(?n. de Ia Civilis. en Europe, 3rd edit. Paris,
1S4<^.^ However beneficial to society in Europe the influence uf the Church
was from the fifth century, it tended ever from that time, he says, to encroach
on the temj)<>ral power, and to aspire to exclusive dominion (ibid. p. 5!>). To
defend herself ajj^inst the violence and des)>otisni of princes, the Church pro-
claimed her owii indei)endence ; and by the natunil development of ambition,
she endeavoured to establish not only the indejMjndence of the spiritual power,
but ita domination over the temporal (pp. 156, 161). Gregory V'll. was the
real author of this revolution, the remote causes of which ha<l lieen in oi)era-
tion for many aj,'cs (p. 192) ; but the execution of this jilan was impeded in the
very commencement by great obstacles, which the Church never was able to
overcome. CJregory VII. by his violent conduct, rather injured than promoted
the cause which he wi.'.he<l to serve ; and its success was compromised, towards
the close of the thirteenth century, by the reaction of sovereigns and their
subjects against the domination of the Church (pp. 289, 297). This author,
however, excuses the injustice done by the Church, in consideration of the
deplorable state of society from the fifth to the thirteenth century, which
absolutt-lv required the intervention of the Church between princes and people,
to mainu-iin the liberty of the Litter against the despotism of the former
(p. 159). ....
This system, it is clear, may be reduced to three leading points : first, that
the Church's independence of princes, even in the spiritual ortler, was not
acknowledged in the Church before the fifth century ; second, that from that
j)eriod she was not content with procLiiming her own independence, but
aspired to domination over the temponil power ; third, that Gregory VII. was
the chief author of this reform, which subjects the temponil to the spiritual
power. In the course of our iniiuiry we shall prove that these three assertions
are false. See especially, ch. iii. part ii.
' Tliis is the system commonly maintained by French authors, especially
during the two last centuries. Of these iJossuet is beyond all conqiarison the
most cel< bnited. Def. Declarat. (<Euvres, vol. xxxi. and following. A'er>ailles
edit.). It is from him that Mainachi gives his long exposition of the system of
French authors (Mamachi, ubi supra, j>. l.')8, &c.). See also l)u])in, 'J'rait*^ do
la Puissance Eccl»is. et Temp. Paris, 17"7. 'Hiis work is reconmuiKied l>y
De Hericonrt as one of the best on the subject. De Hericourt, Lois Ecclea.
de France, Paris, 1771, fol. p. 220. The AI.Ik- Dinouart gave, in 176S, a new
edition of Dupin's work, 3 vols. Svo. Nat. Alexander, Dissert. 2 in Hist.
Eccles. saculi xi. art. ix. x. It was from him th.at IWst^uet, in our opinion,
• 'ted most of the f^cts and obser^atiuus published on thiii subject in the
1 1, iiuse de la Declaration.
6 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
ing to divine institution. The spiritual power, though more
excellent in its nature and in its object, has no right to make
laws on matters Avithin the sphere of the temporal power ; it may
direct the latter by advice or exhortation, but not by orders or
decrees in temporal affairs. In this system, it is manifest that
the conduct of popes and councils to sovereigns during the
middle ages cannot be excused from error, nor, consequently,
from usurpation, at least unintentional, of the rights of sove-
reigns. The theologians who hold this opinion, are nevertheless
very far from admitting, as legitimate consequences of their
principles, the abominable declamations of the enemies of the
Church on this point ; on the contrary, they insist on the fact,
that the error on which the conduct of popes and councils to
sovereigns during the middle ages was grounded, never had been
sanctioned by any doctrinal decision or decree, and that it was
no more than a mere opinion, left to the free discussion of the
schools ; ^ they add, moreover, that of all errors it was the
"most harmless and excusable ;" that it had gradually become
so respectable, in consequence of the decline of learning, as to
be adopted by " the most pious and enlightened men ;" - and, in
fine, that the error was the more pardonable, as the condition
and interest of society had insensibly introduced, and in some
manner rendered imperative, the intervention of the ecclesiastical
power in temporal affairs, and the great influence which it
exercised over them, with the express or tacit consent of princes.'
All Catholic writers, it must be confessed, do not express them-
selves on this subject with equal moderation ; and many have
too lightly adopted the odious declamations of the enemies of the
Church.^
' Bossnet takes particular care in establishing this point, in his examination
of the particular facts alleged by ultramontane theologians in support of their
opinion. See especially the explanations which he gives on the subject in his
Defense de la Dipolar, book iii. oh. i. v.
- Bossuet, Defens. Declarat. lib. i. sect. 2, cap. xxiv. p. 3-18 ; lib. iii. cap,
xxi. p. 662.
^ As we shall soon see (infra, ch. iv. art. 2), this point is admitted also by
French authors, even those who censure with great petulance and acrimony
the conduct of popes and councils to sovereigns in the middle ages. See
especially Bossuet, ibid, book iv. ch. v. ; Ferrand, I'Esprit de I'Histoire, vol. ii.
letter 47, p. 494.
* We have mentioned some of those authors in the Preface to this work.
TAUT 11. J OVER SoVKUKUiN'.s. 7
7. I/utorical Thcoria not mutk valued br/on- (he EiyhUcntk t'tuttiry.
II. llistvrioil tliforics. — Until tlic close i>f thesevonteciitli cen-
tury, as we have already remarked, theolojpeal theories alone
were maintained on both sides of the question, with «;reat
vehemence, and sometimes with excessive ardour. The dilliculty
which had <;:iven rise to these different systems, had been, it is
true, examined by several authors in the light of history, inde-
pendently of the principles of revelation and of the right
divine ; but even those who examined it in that view, did so in
a cursory manner, their only object being to support and confirm
by secondary evidence, the more complete solution, which they
imagined was given by theological princijiles alone. This Avaa
especially observable in many writings published in the sixteenth
century by the English and French Catholics, against the rights
of Elizabeth to the cro^^^l of England, and against those of
the king of Navarre (afterwards Henry IV.) to the crown of
France.' The authors of these writings against the two sove-
reigns appeal jtrincipally to the divine right, either in the sense
in which it is explained by the advocates of the theological
theory of the "indirect power," or in the sense of those authors
who attribute to society the right, in certain cases, of dejiosing
sovereigns : but they also appeal in support of their o})iiiion,
to human positive laws, that is, to the ancient codes of the
Catholic states of Europe, and especially of France and England,
which excluded heretical princes from the throne.
This la.-^t mode of solving the (juestion appears to have been
completely unknown to the majority of those theologians who
discussed the point before the eighteenth century ; and niany of
those to whom it was kno^^•ll appear to have attached no impor-
tance to it. Among the latter may be mentioned Bossuet espe-
cially, as we shall prove in the course of our imiuiry. It may
be obsen'ed here, that in his Defence of the Declaration, when
stating briefly this mode of accounting for the conduct of the
popes, especially to the emperors of Germany, he merely cites
the opinion ; and, without either apj^roving or condemning.
' We reserve for No. 8, Confimiatorj- Evidence, at the close of tbia volume,
some details on the priucipal works relating to tbetie two controvemien.
8 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
refers it for the consideration of jurisconsults, and of those who
take an interest in such discussions.^
After having been so long discussed on theological principles
almost exclusively, the difficulty was at length, during the course
of the last century, subjected to a more close examination on
historical principles. Many celebrated writers, both Protestant
and Catholic, undertook to explain and vindicate the conduct of
the popes and councils of the middle ages to sovereigns, on
purely historical considerations, founded either on the general
legislation of the times, or the condition and requirements of
society. This new line of inquiry gave rise to various systems,
which seem to be every day acquiring more credit, in proportion as
historical studies are pursued with gi-eater ardour and impar-
tiality. We shall give here a brief exposition of the most
remarkable of these systems.
8. Pendon's Opinion.
Fenelon's opinion is unquestionably one of the best entitled
to consideration, both from its author's fame, and, as we
shall prove in the course of our inquiry, from the solidity of its
principles, and also because this illustrious prelate appears to
have been the first Catholic writer that expounded at any length
the opinion, which explains, by the constitutional law of the
middle ages, the conduct of those popes and councils who had
formerly deposed temporal princes.^ We may mention here,
that the firm and confident tone in which he expresses his opi-
nion on the point, mainly gave rise to the researches wliich we
have been making during some years, for the settlement of this
important question.
9. His Mode of explaining the Deposition of Childeric and of
Louis le Debonnaire.
In the 39th chapter of his Dissertation on the Authority of
' Defens. Declarat. lib. i. sect. i. cap. xvi. p. 273 ; lib. iii. cap, xxiv. p. 682.
Infra, ch. iii. art. 2, § 2.
* In another place we shall see that Fenelon's opinions on this point appear
to be in reality the same as those which Leibnitz had professed a few years
before, in several of his works (see infra, ch. ii. art. ii. n. 124). How far
Fenelon may have been influenced by Leibnitz's opinion we are unable to say ;
but in our judgment, the former has explained his system with far greater
clearness and precision. But however that may be, the agreement of these
two great men on so important a question, notwithstanding the difference of
their religious iirinciples, is a fact well worthy of consideration.
PAKT II.] OVKK SuVKREIGN'S. 9
the Pope, he examines, ex profhso, " hy what rij^ht the
ecclesiastical authority formerly deposed temporal princes ;"
and he undertakes to answer that delicate (luestion in the ful-
lowinc^ manner. In the first place, he observes, that Pope
Zachary's answer to the French, on Childcric's deposition in 7.')2,
and the deposition of Louis le Debonnaire by the French
bishops in 833, are not, properly speaking, acts of jurisdiction
exercised by the ecclesiastical authority over the temporalities of
princes. The answer of Pope Zachary was simply a decision
on a case of conscience, which the French had of their own
accord submitted to his tribunal ;^ and the French bishops who
pronounced the deposition of Louis le Debonnaire acted so, not
in virtue of their ecclesiastical authority, but as chief lords of
the kingdom, and in concert with the other lords, who composed
the States-General of the nation.-
10. Majrimt and Utagca of the Middle A get on the Depotition of Princes.
After these important observations, Fenelon continues : —
" After this lust cvent,^ an impression began gnidually to take
deep hold uf the mind of Catholic nations, that the supreme
power could be vested in none but a Cathulic ; and that a
condition was implied in the tacit contract between princes
and people, that the people should faithfully obey the prince
80 long as he remained faithful to the Catholic reliirion.*
' It is to be observed, that this theory of Fenelon *s is adopted by Bossuet,
and hy our \)esi historians. See supra, ch. ii. part i. n. 95 ; and also cb. iii. of
part ii. n. 17-.
* In this pasiugc Fenelon apj^ears to suppose that Louis le Deljonnairo was
depose<l by the Council of Coinpiegije in 833. We sh.-ill see, in aiiothc-r place,
that this council merely aj)priive<l the emperor's depoisition, which h.'ul already
been decreed by an .issenibly of lords in the rebel army of Lotlmire. Infira,
ch. i. art. iii. n. C7.
* " Sensim Catholicaruin ffcntium hac fuit tenlailia, animia alfd inipreMa,
scilicet, supremam potestatem committi non posse nisi principi (.'atholico, eam-
qne esse legem sive conditionem tacito crmtractui .-ippusit.-iiii jmpulos inter et
principem, ut |iopuli princijii fideles jtarerent ; modo priiiccps ipse Citholica;
religiiini obsequeretur. C^ikI lege |K)Hit;l, jxtAflm jnttabuut oniiirg Kulutum esso
vinculum *»acranienti tideiitatin a toUl gcnte prjeHtitum, wimul at<|uc princeps,
ed lege violat;!, Catholica; religioni eontuniaci aninio resisterct." — Fenelon,
Dissert, de Auctoritate Summi Pontificis, cap. xxxix. p. 382.
* Fenelon ^ here, that the authority of the prince can be n.strained
by a fundaii. v of the state, pre.->cril>ing certain conditions on the elec-
tion of the s..vcrci)^'ii, and making him liable to deiK^sition by a gciu-ral con-
vention of the nation, should he presume to violate them. This doctrine is,
in fact, admitted by the most eminent and the wisest jurists, and even by
Bossuet himself. See infra, cb. i. art. i. n. 25.
10 POWER OF THE POPE [PART IP
This condition once supposed, it was the general belief, that the
oath which bound the nation to its prince, ceased to be obligatory
whenever he violated that condition, and openly revolted against
the Catholic religion. In these times, it was usual, ^ that persons
excommunicated should be deprived of all communication with
the faithful, and should have no intercourse with them except
for the indispensable necessities of life. It is, therefore, not at
all so surprising that the nations, then so attached to the Catholic
religion, should shake off the yoke of an excommunicated prince.
In truth, they had promised to obey him only on condition that
he should obey the Catholic religion ; now, a prince who had
been excommunicated by the Church, either for heresy or fur
crimes and impieties committed by him in the government of
his kingdom, ceased to be considered as that religious prince to
whom the whole nation intended to subject itself ; the oath of
allegiance which bound them to their sovereign ceased, they
believed, to bind them in such circumstances. Moreover, canon
law had decided that excommunicated persons, not obtaining
sentence of absolution by submission to the Church, within a
stated time, should be regarded as heretics, or at least suspected
of heresy. Hence, all princes who doggedly lay under sentence
of excommunication, were considered guilty of sacrilegious
' "Turn verb moris crat, ut excommunicati pioruni omnium societate pri-
varentur, et sol;1 ope ad victum necessaria fnii possent ; unde nihil est mirum
si gentea CatholicEe religioni qukm maxime addictse, principis excommunicati
jugum excuterent. Ea enim lege sese principi subditas fore pollicitae erant,
ut princeps ipse Catholicae religioni pariter subditus esset. Princeps vero qui,
ob hseresim, vel ob facinorosam et impiam regni administrationem, ab EcclesiA
excoramunicatur, jam non censetur pius ille princeps, cui tota gens sese com-
mittere voluerat : unde solutum sacramenti vinculum arhitrahantur. Prseterea
canonico jure sancitum fuit, ut ii censerentur haeretici, aut saltem hEereticas
pravitatis valde suspecti, qui, excommunicati ab Ecolesia, intra certum tempus
absolutionem excommimicationis debita submissione non consequerentur. Ita
principes qui in excommunicationis vinculo contumaces jam obsordescebant,
ut impii Ecclesife CatholicEe contemptores, atque adeo haeretici habebantur.
Hos autem, tanquara a contractu secum inito deficientes, exauctorabat gens
sua. Porro hoc erat hujus moi-is temperamentum, quod ea depositio non fieret,
nisi consultil prius Ecolesia. ... In ea autem discipUnd, qufe multum viguit,
nulla est Ecclesise doctrina quae in dubium vocari possit : sed solummodo agitur
de placito, quod ajnul omnes Catholicas gentcs invalu.it, nirairum, ut ssecularis
auctoritas non committeretur principi, nisi ea certissima lege, ut ipse princeps
Catholicae religioni per omnia tuendae et observandae inciunberet. Itaque
Ecdesia ')icque destituebat neque iiistituehat la'icos princi]>es ; sed tanttim con-
sulentibus gentibus respondebat, quid, ratione contractils et sacramenti, con-
scientiam attineret. Hific non juridica et ciiilis, sed directiva tantum et ordi-
nativa potestas, quam approbat Gersonius." — Fenelon, ubi supra.
PART II. J OVER SOVEUEIONS. 11
contempt of the Chunli, and, consc(jucntly, uf heresy ; and their
suhject^i, regarding them as guilty of the infniction of tlie contract
made l)ctwocn them, renounced tlieir authority. Tliis usage
w:is, however, so far modified, that the deposition of the prince
could not be carried into efl'ect without having previously con-
sulted the Church."
11. Directive Pineer of the Church and of the Pope over Sovereigiu.
" This discipline, which was in force during many centuries,
supplies no pretence for calling in doubt any part of the doctrine
of the Church ; for the whole question turns on a principle then
generally enforced in all Catholic nations, namely, that tem-
poral authority was conferred on a prince on the express condi-
tion of his protecting, and obser-ving in all things the Catholic
religion. Ilcnce, the Church neither made nor unmade temporal
princes : but when consulted by the people, she decided merely
a case of conscience, arising from a contract and an oath. She
exercised no civil and judicial power, but a power purely directive
and superintending admitted by Gerson. The power consists in
this, that the pope, as prince of pastors, and chief doctor and
governor of the Church in all great questions of morality, is
bound to instruct the people who consult him on the observance
of the oath of allegiance. But the pupes have no right of jtc-
tending to command princes, unless they have acquired that
right by a special title, or by some peculiar prescription over
princes feudally subject to the Holy See; it was to all the
apostles, and, consequently, to Peter, that Jesus Christ addressed
the words, ' The kings of the Gentiles exercise dominion over
them, but not so you/ " *■
Conformably to these principles, Fenelon teaches, in his
Plans of Government, drawn up in 1711 for the duke of
' "Hjbc autem potestaa, qtiam Gersonius dircctivam et ordinativam nun-
cupat, in eo tanthm consistit, quod Papa, utpote princeps pastoruin, utpote
pnecipuus, in ni.-ijoribu8 moralis disciplinae caiutis, Ecclc«ijE director et doctor,
de senando fiilnlitatis sacrainento ^M.puluin conBulent«;m edoccre teneatur.
Decat^^^r • lali tUulo,
linn mdU
apostolica, adq>ti jucnnt. N.-uuque apu»t<>li.i uiiiiiil<us, ac pn.iiido I'ctro djc-
tum est : Rcga rjentium dominantur cjrum ; vot autcm non sic." —Fenelon, ubi
supra, cap. xxvii. p. 334.
12 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
Burgundy, that the pope has no direct power over the tempora-
lities of princes, but only an indirectpower, in the sense already
explained ; that is, a purely directive power, which is no more
than a deciding on the oath of allegiance in cases submitted for
consultation, but not implying in any manner a power, properly
so called, of deposing sovereigns.^
12. The Conduct of the Popes to Sovereigns during tlie Middle Ages accounted for
by the Constitutional Laws of those Times.
In Fenelon's opinion, therefore, the conduct of those popes
who formerly deposed temporal princes, can be naturally ex-
plained by the maxims then generally received in the Catholic
nations of Europe, which invested the Church in certain cases,
with at least an indirect power of appointing and of deposing
sovereigns. This power, according to the archbishop of Cam-
bray, was not " a power of temporal jurisdiction, founded on the
divine law," but it was both " a directive power" of divine
institution, and "a power of temporal jurisdiction" of purely
human institution. The Church and the pope, being, in a word,
bound, and consequently entitled, by divine institution, to
enlighten and direct the consciences of princes and of people,
in all that concerns salvation, have, by the very fact, power to
decide questions relating to obligations of conscience, arising
from the oath of allegiance.- But besides this directive power,
divinely instituted, they had, moreover, during the middle ages,
" a power of temporal jurisdiction," of purely human institution,
founded on the usages and maxims of constitutional law then
generally admitted. When they deposed a sovereign, who
obstinately persisted in his heresy or remained under excommu-
nication, they acted, not only as doctors and directors of the
faithful in the spiritual order ; they acted, moreover, as judges,
' The following are Fenelon's words on this passage ; they rather suggest
than develop his meaning : — " Power (of Rome) over temporalities : direct,
absurd and pernicious ; indirect, evident, though fallible, where it merely de-
cides on the oath by way of consultation ; but deposition by no means follows
from it." See in the Hist. Litt(?raire de F^nelon (4th part, n. 60, note) some
important observations proving the authenticity of this passage.
^ It must be remarked, that the directive power of the pope, explained iu
this sense, is readily admitted, even by divines most opposed to the opinion
which attributes to the Church and to the pope, by divine right, juiisdiction,
at least indirect, over the temporalities of princes. See infra, ch. iii. n. 172.
PART 11. j OVER SOVEnEIONS. 13
established and reeognised by the uHai^e and constitutional law
then in force, according to which, sovereigns should be ex-
amined and judged, when incurring deposition by the violation
of the contract which they had made with their subjects.
This is, in reality, a statement of Fenelon's opinion, though
he docs not, perhaps, express it so fully.
In this oj>inion, it is clear, that the sentence of deposition
pronounced by the pope or council in the middle ages, on an
heretical or excommunicated prince, was founded both on the
divine riixht and on human law. It was founded on the divine
right, not merely because it pronounced a prince to be a heretic,
or excommunicated, but because it moreover enlightened and
directed the consciences of princes and people on the objections
arising from the oath of allcfriance. It was also founded on
human laws, not only by declaring a prince to have forfeited his
throne, in consequence of a stipulation made at his election ;
but also in virtue of a power which usage and constitutional
law then conferred on the popes and councils of judging the
cases of sovereigns, who incurred the penalty of deposition.
In pronouncing this sentence, the pope and councils did not,
properly speaking, depose the sovereign, nor attribute to them-
selves a power by divine right of deposing them ; but Tuerely
declared and decided that, according to the conditions implied
in his election by the usage and jurisprudence of the age, he
had forfeited his dignity. Their sentence may be compared to
that of an ordinary judge pronouncing the nullity of an act,
which the laws declare null, but where nullity is not ipso jure,
and takes not effect until sentence has been pronounced by the
judge.'
' Observe, th.-tt in thi.s systom the popes ami councils who abaoU-cd suhjocta
from the oath of allogiance to their sovereign, did not give a dispensation,
properly so called, fmni the oath, but merely a declaration or interpretation of
it-< nullity. Tlie oatii of alle},'iance bc-ing, in fact, exclusively referre<l to the
contract between the prince and his subji-cts, had no force wliatsot-ver, exi-ent
tti confirm that contract, and not even so much, if tliat contract became null.
The moment that contract wa« broken (by the prinre^ the oath cea»c<i to bind,
ltd matter lieing destroye«l ; and the same sentence which d«clare<l the contract
null, included, a.s a natural consenuence, a declaration of the rmllity of the
oath, without requiring any other dispensation in the rigorous and strict sense
of the term. If therefore the p<ipes and councils sometimes use in those ca^es
the terms "disjit-nsation " and " ab.solution," ami others of a simiLir kind, it is
in a general sense, a.s P'enelon explains them, when speaking of the deposition
of Frederick II., pronounced by Innocent IV. in the Council of Lyons in 1245.
14 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
1 3. FenelorCs Opinion modified by that of Cowni de Maiitrc,
In the course of this inquiry we shall have occasion to cite, in
support of this opinion, many learned authors, even Protestants,
^yho during tlie last century adopted it, more or less explicitly,
though with various restrictions.^ In this place we shall only
observe, that of the authors who have adopted it, some have
believed they could combine it with that theory of " the divine
right'' which we have already explained, and which Fenelon
expressly rejects.*^ We have already stated, that in the sixteenth
century the divine right and positive human laws were both
appealed to by the English and the French Catholics against the
rio;hts of Elizabeth to the crown of England, and against those
of the king of Navarre (afterwards Henry IV.) to the crown of
France.' This opinion was also adopted in our own time by
(Fenelon, ubi supra, cap. xxxix. p. 387. See this passage, infra, ch. iii. art. i.
n, 213.) If, however, any one should still insist that this was a dispensation,
properly so called, we will not dispute about words ; we shall merely remark,
that in this matter it is often difficult to distinguish between a dispen.sation
properly so called and a mere interj>retation. It must be admitted that the
difference commonly assigned between these two things is not always easily
understood.
' See infra, ch. iii. art. ii. § 4.
^ At first sight it appears difficult to combine these two opinions on the
same system ; for if we suppose that the Church has, by divine right, the power
of deposing .sovereigns for the greater good of religion, what can positive
human laws add to that power 1 The provisions of human laws on the subject
could be no more than a useless repetition of the divine laws ; they would
therefore be useless laws, without an object, and consequently null. This
difficulty, nevertheless, is rather specious than solid. There is no reason why
a point of the divine law should not be made the matter of human laws, the
better to insure its observance by adding the sanction of the temporal power
to that of the divine will, and to restrain, by the dread of temporal penalties,
those whom the fear of God alone could not sufficiently restrain. It was from
this motive that all Christian princes, from the days of Constantine, sanctioned
by their edicts many divine laws, as we have already proved (Introduction,
art. ii. § 2). In consequence of this sanction, many provisions, both of con-
stitutional and common law, belong both to the divine law and to human Law :
to the former by their origin ; to the latter by the sanction given to them by
princes. Thus, in countries where the Catholic religion alone is recognised as
a law of the state, to the exclusion of every other, the external profession of
that religion is grounded both on the divine and human law ; so that whoever
sho'old make open profession of any other would be guilty of disobedience both
against God and the prince, and would render himself liable both to temporal
and spiritual penalties.
^ See supra, n. 7, p. 7. Leibnitz, it must be observed, who admits sub-
stantially the opinion of Fenelon on this subject, does not venture to condemn
absolutely the theological theory of the indirect power, in the sense explained
by Cardinal Bellannin. See infra a remarkable passage of Leibnitz on this
subject, ch. ii. n. 167.
PART n. I OVKR SOVKIII-IONS. 1 ')
Count (le Maistre, in his work on tho Pope. It is not rcpuif-
nant, accordinir to him, that a sovereignty, thou;^h divine in its
principle, should be controlled by the spiritual authority esta-
blished by God for the government of his Church, and that tliis
authority should in certain cases have a right to annul the oath
made to princes by their subjects. That was, according to him,
the belief of the middle ages. " These ideas," he says, " were
floating in the minds of our fatliers, who were not in a condition
to account to themselves for this theory, and to give it a sys-
tematic form : they merely suffered their minds to receive the
vague impression, that the temporal power could l)e controlled
by that supreme spiritual power which, in certain cases, had the
right of annulling the oath of allegiance." '
14. Tlie Count dc Maixtrca Mode of proving this Constitutional Law.
But besides this theory, which he does not absolutely adopt.
Count de Maistre had another : he believed that the conduct of
popes and councils to sovereigns, during the middle ages, could
be fully explained and justified by the constitutional law of
these times. Whatever may have been the origin and fuunda-
tions of this law, its existence is manifestly proved, according to
him, by the sole fact of the usage and general persuasion of the
middle ages, or by the long and undisputed prescription of popes
and councils. This constitutional law was, he asserts, "as
generally and as indisputably recognised as any law that ever
existed.'- We must assume, from the outset," he says, " this
general and indisputable principle, that all governments are
good, when they have been long established and when they
exist without opposition. All possible fonns of government have
appeared in the world ; and all arc legitimate as soon as they
are established ; so that it is never lawful to test them by abstract
reasonings, not bearing on the facts of the particular case. Now,
if there be one fact attested by all the monuments of history, it
is, that the popes, during the middle ages, and for a considerable
time also in modern ages, exercised a great power over tenij)oral
sovereigns; that they judged them, and on certain extraordinary
occasions excommunicated them, and have frequently even
« De Maistre, Du Pape, book ii. ch. iii. x, pp. 227, 333—335.
' Ibid. p. 235.
16 POWER OF THE POPE [PART 11.
declared the subjects of those sovereigns absolved from the oath
of allegiance. The authority of the popes was the power
chosen and established during the middle ages as a counterpoise
for the temporal power, to make it supportable to men. In this,
there was qertainly nothing contrary to the nature of things,
which admits of every form of political association. If this
power is not established, I do not mean to say that it ought to
be established or re-established ; I have repeatedly made this
solemn disclaimer ; I merely assert, with reference to ancient
times, that being established, it was as legitimate as any other ;
the sole foundation of all power being possession. The authority
of popes over kings was disputed by none except those whom it
judged. There never, therefore, was a more legitimate authority,
because there never was one less disputed. What is there cer-
tain among men, if usage, especially when undisputed, is not
the mother of legitimacy ? It is the greatest of all sophisms to
transport a modem system to ancient times, and to judge by
that rule the men and affairs of ages more or less remote. Such
a principle would upset the world : all possible established insti-
tutions could be subverted by that means, by judging them
according to abstract theories ; once admit that kings and peoples
agreed in recognising the authority of the popes, and all modem
objections are refuted. During the course of my life, I have
often heard the question asked, by what right the popes deposed
emperors ? the answer is easy ; by the same right on which all
legitimate authority reposes ; possession on one side, and assent
on the other." ^
15. .4 Condition made, according to him, in the Election of Sovereigns.
Though the author does not consider an inquiry into the
origin of this right necessary for the vindication of the popes
and councils who exercised it, he intimates clearly enough that
it was founded on a stipulation made in the election of the
sovereign by the electors, who by the elective constitution of the
middle ages had an un([uestionable right of thus restricting the
authority of sovereig-ns. In this respect, Count de Maistre's
opinion very much resembles Fenelon's. " I cannot," he says.
De Maistre, ibid. ch. ix. &c. pp. 318, 320, 321, 325, 337, 344, 378.
PART II. J OVER SOVEREIGNS. 17
"close tliis fhnptor \\-ithout one observation, which, in my
opinion, has not been suthciontly insisted on ; namely, that the
greatest acts of jiapal authority over the temporal power which
can be cited, always assailed elective sovcrei^oities, that is to
say, .«w/-soverei^ties, which were responsible to otherauthority,
and which could be deposed, in case of certain excesses of mis-
government. It has been truly remarked by Voltaire, that
election necessarily implies a contract between the king and the
nation,' so that an elective monarch can at all times be called to
account and judged ; he never has that sacred character which
time alone can give ; for no man ever really respects whatever
himself has made ; he does justice to himself by despising his
works until God has sanctioned them by time. Sovereignty was
therefore very badly understood, and very badly secured in the
middle ages : elective sovereignty in particular had no other
firm stay but what it derived from the personal qualities of the
sovereign : let no person, therefore, be astonished, that it had
been so often attacked, transferred, or subverted."'
16. Diffcmict hctvecn Count de MaUtrc't Opinion and Pcnclon'a.
From this exposition we see how the opinions of Count dc
Maistre and of Fenelun agreed, and in what they differed.
Both agree in accounting for the power of the Church over
sovereigns in the middle ages, by the maxims of constitutional
law then universally admitted ; but, in the opinion of Count
de Maistre, this exjdanation does not exclude the other, which
is founded on the divine right The two opinions differ, more-
over, in the line of argument by which they prove the existence
of the constitutional law. Except in the case of fiefs and of other
sovereignties acquired by some special title, Fenelon's sole argu-
ment is, the contract tacitly made between the prince and his
subjects, in virtue of which the prince forfeited his rights by
rebellion against the Church. Besides this first title, which
Count de Maistre admits, he produces another proof of the
existence of the constitutional law, namely, the fact itself, — the
general belief of the middle ages, or the long and undisputed
possession of popes and councils. Count de Maistre's opinion,
' Voltaire, Essai sur lea Moeurs, vol. iii. ch. cixi.
' De Maidtre, ubi supra, p. 327.
VOL. II. C
18 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
therefore, besides being liable to all the objections against the
systems both of the ultramontane theologians, and of Fenelon,
is, moreover, exposed to the arguments which may be proposed
against the proof from prescription, on which he chiefly relies.
The majority of readers will, we fear, be disheartened by so
formidable an array of difficulties, and will consider them, in
some manner, a justifiable prejudice against Count de Maistre's
system.^
1 7. Opinion of M. MicJiaud — Tlie Conduct of the Popes to Sovereigns dwing the
Middle Ages justified by the Necessity of Circumstances.
In fine, some modern authors, without inquiring precisely
into the origin and titles of the power exercised by popes and
councils during the middle ages, are of opinion that this power
was fully justified by the necessities of the times and circum-
stances, that is, by the deplorable position to which European
society had then been reduced : a position which imperatively
required that sort of dictatorship with which popes and councils
were then invested, for the repression of public disorders. In
his History of the Crusades, Michaud appears favourable to
this explanation, and proposes it confidently against those
modern authors who have so thoughtlessly censured the conduct
of popes in the middle ages. " In these latter times," he
observes, "writers have spoken much of the power of the heads
of the Church ; but they have judged more by theories than by
facts : more in the spirit of our age, than in that of the middle
ages. The genius of the popes has been lauded in extravagant
strains ; and these eulogies have been designed principally to
make their ambition more palpable. But if the popes had the
genius and ambition which are attributed to them, we must
believe that their first object should have been to extend their
' M. Henrion, in his edition of Beranlt-Bercastel's History of the Church,
seems to adopt substantially Count de Maistre's system ; for he explains and
justifies the conduct of the popes to sovereigns during the middle ages, some-
times by the jurisprudence or constitutional law of that epoch ; sometimes by
the theological theory of the divine right ; and sometimes by both combined.
But in some passages he pronounces much more decisively than Count de
Maistre for the second explanation. In support of these observations, see
especially M. Henrion's corrections in Bercastel's text, in the passages relating
to Gregory VII., Innocent III., Innocent IV., and .John XXII. vol. iv.
pp. 405, 406 ; vol. v. pp. 94, 206, 239, 263, 329, 503, 517, &c. ; vol. vii. pp.
281, 428, et alibi passim.
PART II. j OVER SO/EREIONS. 19
own dominions, and to increase their power as sovereigns ;
nevertlielcss, in this they have not succeeded, or they never
tried to succeed. Is it not more natural to suppose tliat,
in whatever great things they accomplished, the popes only
obeyed the impulse of Christendom? During the middle ages, the
epoch of their power, they rather obeyed than created that impulse.
Their supreme power was forced on them by their position, not
by their own will. Without undertaking to justify their domina-
tion, we may assert, that they were led to the possession of
supreme power by the circumstances in which Europe was jdaced
during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Society in Europe,
overwhelmed with ignorance and anarchy, and without any law,
threw itself into the arms of the pope, and believed that it was
placing it.self under the protection of heaven. As nations had
no other notion of civilization, but that which they received
from the Christian religion, the popes naturally became the
supreme arbiters of nations. In the midst of that darkness
which the light of the Gosi)el was constantly tending to dispel,
their authority was naturally the iirst that was established, the
first that was recognised. The temporal power stood in need of
their sanction ; nations and kings imjdored their support, and
consiJted their wisdom : they believed themselves authorized to
assume a universal dictatorship. This dictatoi*ship was often
e.vercised for the benefit of public morality and social order ; it
often protected the weak against the strong : it prevented the
execution of criminal projects; it restored peace between nations;
it saved society in its infancy from the excesses of ambition,
from licentiousness and barbarism."^
' Midland, Hint. ilo(iCr<.isa<le.t, 4th edit. vol. iv. p. f»7 : vol. vi. pp. 2.10-234.
These jiniirious rcflfctions may correct many pa>^ipeH in tlio wimo work, in
which the aiilhur too inconHidcratoly adopts the severe ceiisureH of modern
writers against (Jregory \'II., I'rhan II., Innocent III., Innocent IV., an<l
many other popes of the middle agCB. After having boldly vindicated them
from the repro.iche« of .imhition an<i usurpation in the passagcH juHt cited, ho
copies these very reproache.s in other places, without even attemj>ting to recon-
cile them with what he ha*! p^e^•ioUHly said to refute them. Wo h1i;i11 mention
particularly the following jiass.-iges : on (Jregory VII. vol. i. pp. M, 87; vol.
iv. pp. Iti}-1»)4 ; vol. v\. p. 2t>0 ; on Pojie Url..^ti 11. vol. i. p].. iKl, 102; on
Innocent III. vol. iii. pp. 3t»lt, 400, 405 ; on (Jr.-gory IX. v<d. iv. pp. IS, 73,
488, &c. ; on Innocent IV. vol. iv. pp. Kl, Hr,, 152", 154, 157, 1»51, 163, 184,
185, 198, 4.'i2, 4.15, 470, et alihi pa-ssim. From a collation of these passageri
with those of the same author citcnl in our text, the inference is inevitable,
that he bad not fixed and well-digested notions of the papal power in the
c2
20 POWER OF THE POPE [PAET II.
18. Many Protestant Writers favourable to this Opinion — Testimony of Voigt.
From tlie time of the publication of the work now cited, many
Catholic writers fully adopted the opinion and moderate theoiy
of Michaud, and applied them as their criterion in their judg-
ments on the conduct of popes and councils to sovereigns during
the middle ages.^ But the most remarkable fact is the language
of two Protestant authors, who were led by a profound and im-
partial study of the monuments relating to the history of
Gregory VII. and of Innocent III., to judge of these two popes
with a moderation not always observed by many Catholic authors.
" To give an opinion of this pope, in which all would agree, is
impossible," Voigt observes, in his History of Gregory VII.
"His great idea, and he had no other, was the independence of
the Church. To this point, all his thoughts, all his writings,
all his actions, like so many rays of light, tend, as to their
centre. This idea was the soul of his amazing activity ; it was
an epitome of his life ; the spring of all his operations. Poli-
tical power naturally tends to unity ; hence, Gregory desired to
establish in the Church a perfect unity, by raising her above
every other power. To attain that end, to confirm it, to make
it predominant throughout all ages and in all countries, that was
the constant object of his acts, and as he conscientiously be-
lieved, the duty of his office. Assuming, then, that he had
middle ages. His inconsistencies on this subject may also, we believe, be
attributed partly to his excessive fear of exposing himself by moderate opinions
to the censures of certain prejudiced minds. At least, this is the reason
assigned by himself for the suppression of the second part of the Memoire sur
la Lutte des Deux Puissances au Moyen Age, placed at the commencement of
the Eclaircissements of tlie fourth volume of his History (p. 461). In closing
that Memoir, the author had announced a second (p. 517), which was to be
inserted in the following volume, but which he there deferred to the sixth
volume, in which it did not however appear. (See vol. v. p. 537-)
In the same interview in which Michaud communicated to us these facts
(it occuiTed not long after the publication of the fourth edition of his history),
he listened with interest to an exposition which we gave him of Fenelon's
opinion ; though be did not expressly adopt it, he declared that it deserved
serious consideration, and earnestly urged us to continue our researches on the
subject. He appeared, moreover, convinced, that the authority of the popes
during the middle ages was " a provisional authority, rendered necessary by
circumstances ;" that is, by the state of anarchy in which society was then
involved ; he compared the conduct of the popes at that period to that of a
private individual, who, in a time of disorder and anarchy, seizes with a fii-m
hand the reins of government to save his covmtry.
* See especially Lefranc, Hist, du Moyen Age, book iv. ch. vi. § 1.
I'ART II.] OVER SOVEREIQNS. 21
conceived, like ancient Rome, the project of l>rini^inij all nations
under his sway, can we blame the means which lie adopted fur
that end, especially when we reflect that they were for the
benefit of nations i To judge his acts impartially, we must
keep in view liis object and his intentions ; we must consider
the exigencies of his age. The German no doubt swells with
generous indignation when he beholds his emperor (Henry IV.)
Jiumbled at Canossa ; and the Frenchman, in like manner, when
he hears the bitter lectures addressed to his king (Philip I.).'
But the historian, who surveys events in a general point of view,
rises above the limited horizon of (Jerman and of Frenchman,
and approves highly all that was done, though others censure it.
Even Gregory's enemies arc constrained to acknowledge that the
master idea of this pontiflf — the independence of the Church — was
indispensable for the good of religion, and for the reform of
society ; and that, for this end, the chains which had hitherto,
to the great detriment of religion, bound the Church to the
State, should be burst asunder. To the genius of Gregory it is
difficult to give too much praise ; for he laid on every side the
foundations of lasting glory ; and all ought to desire to do
justice, where it is due. Let no man, therefore, cast a stone at
the innocent ; but all respect and honour a man who laboured
for his times, with views so generous and so great. "'-'
19. Tills Opinion admitted gubaiantially by Hurter,
We find the same views substantially in 'M. Ilurter's Life of
Innocent III., a wurk not less remarkable than M. Voigt's,
' See infra, ch. ii. art. i. n. 97, 108.
' Voigt, Hitit. de fln'goirc VII. vol. ii. ; Conclusion, p. GO.*!, &c. We may
apply here to M. Void's work what we have said in another place of the
Hij'tork' of Innocent III. I»y M. Hurter (supra, p.-vrt i. n. 99, note 2). The
panegyric on such a poi)e ax Gregory VII. by a IVutetitaut writer, ia undoubt-
edly a rare in.stance of camlour, and of the resultH that iii.iy Ix; pnMluceil by
conscientious Ktudiea, in eradicating from honest minds even tlie most dt^.-ply-
roote<l prejudices. Nevertheless, it were exceedingly difficult fur M. Voigt,
attached aa he is to the fundamental principles of the Refonnation, not to allow
some assertions to escape him which are contrarj- to Catholic df>ctrino. In
this re8]>ect his work, however useful in dispc-lling hostile prejtidiccs, needs
much improvement. To com])Ose a work of that character, to appreciate cor-
rectly the priiicij)le3 an<l conduct of (Jn-gor)' \']I., learning alone is not
enough, if it be not guided by a pure faith, and a sincere a<lhcrence to the
Catholic doctrines. See, on this subject, the review of M. Voigt'a work, in
the IJibliograph. CatboL 2nd year, p. 431.
22 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
both for erudition and for the moderation and impartiality of
its judgments. After the most extensive and conscientious
researches on the character and principal actions of Innocent III.,
M. Hurter professes sincere admiration of the exalted notions
which that pope had formed to himself of the powers of his
office, not only in the spiritual, but also in the temporal order ;
he does full justice to the comprehensiveness of his views, as
well as to the uprightness of his intentions ; he acknowledges, in
fine, that the views of Innocent III. were in harmony with those of
his time, and that society derived immense benefit from the political
system, which invested the pope with so great power over sove-
reigns.^ "A power based on the purest moral principle," he ob-
serves, "on the recognition of a divine influence in human affairs,
surely must be pronounced beneficial when it prevented or healed
contests between kings and crowns. When Innocent assumed
the title of vicar of the supreme Peacemaker, it was no empty
title in him ; for dui-ing his whole life he endeavoured to realize
the grandeur of his mission. If universal peace were not a
dream, it could never be realized except by a spiritual ruler,
generally recognised, established as mediator between kings and
nations, and wielding all the power of Christendom against him
who should abuse his authority, refuse to submit to its awards,
and disturb the general tranquillity.^ It was thus that the autho-
rity of Pope Innocent III. restored peace between the kings of
Castillo and of Portugal, when they were threatened by the
Moors. * ^ ^ Must we now proceed to pass judgment on
this pope ? All historians, both ancient and modern, who knew
how to appreciate a man's character by the comprehensiveness of
his views, by the difficulty of the social problems which he has
solved, by his elevating himself so as to become, as it were, the
centre to which all the lights of his time necessarily converged ;
aU agi-ee, that during many centuries before and after Inno-
cent III., no pope that sat in the chair of St. Peter obtained
' In confirmation of these assertions, see especially the following passages of
the History of Innocent III.: vol. i. pp. 220, 221, 430, 431 ; vol. ii. pp. 445, &c.
731, 732, 786, &c. 798, &c. SOI, 846, &c.
^ M. Hurter is not the first nor the only author wlio has based on this idea
the project of a universal peace. He cites, in support of his opinion, the prior
Gerhoho de Raitenpuch, mentioned by Schmid, Hist. d'Allemagne, vol. iv.
In another place we shall see that this idea had been broached long before by
Leibnitz (infra, ch. ii. art. i. d. 124).
PART II. J OVER SOVEREIGNS. 23
uioiv brilliant renown, by the extent of his knowUdtfe, by the
purity of his murals, and by his eminent services to the Church ;
80 that he has been styled, not only the most powerful, but also
the ^nsest of all the popes that filled the papal chair since the
days of Gregory VII, * ♦ ♦ If authors of a later period
have picked up the calumnies vented against this pope by some
contemporaries, whose interests he had crossed, or whose rival
prejudices he had wounded, we must attribute their historical
error rather to interested passions than to a serious investiga-
tion of the acts, and especially of the intentions, of Innocent,
as carefully explained and propounded by him.sclf with the
most perfect candour. Other writers, who have succeeded in
emancipating themselves from the prejudices of their times, and
who better understand this great pope and the difficulties of his
jMjsition, have pronounced quite a dilTerent opinion of him :
lying and exaggeration, engendered in party hate, ought never
to have passed current as historical truth. Can it be main-
tained, consistently with history, that Innocent was nothing but
ambitious ? To answer this question, one thing alone is neces-
sary ; namely, to examine sincerely whether this pope, in the
exercise of his power, in his mode of directing the affairs of
the universe, in his persevering superintendence over them as a
supreme arbiter, had in view the pei-sonal glory which thence
redounded to himself, or rather the solemn and simple realization
of the exalted idea which he had conceived of the duties of
sovereign pontiff ; whether, in fine, his position was his own work.
The facts which we have narrated, the convictions with which
Innocent was ])rofountlly impressed, and which he manifested
on many important occasions, without ever troubling himself,
in my opinion, about the judgment of posterity, are sufficient
guarantees of his disinterestedness." '
' Hurter, Ilistoire d'Innocent III. vol. ii. pp. 801, Bi6, kc. Wc iiiiiy
remark here, in pa.s.sinf^, th.at MM. Hurt<-T :iii<l Voigt are not the only I'p)-
teMtAnt writers in our days who have spoken with so much modcnition on the
character and conduct of Greporj' VII. and of his 8Ucce««orH. Many other
remarkalilo testimonies of a similar kind are given in No. 2 of the Annali di
Scien. Kel. pul.liihed in Home by the Al.lato di Luca (Oct. 1835). Part of that
article w.-w repllt)li^^hed in the Ami de la I{elii,'ion, vol. lx.xxviii. pp. 18, 55, &c. ;
vol. xci. p. i.jr, &c., and tranMlatol complete in vol. xvi. of iJenionstrations
Evangtlique.s, i.ublislied l.y Al»l»e Migrie (Paris, l>4:j, 4t4i. pp. 577, &c.). This
article was written by X. Wiseman, then Hector of the Eny^lish College, Rome
(now [1845] bishop in partibua of Mcliputainus, and coadjutor of the Midland
24 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II,
20. Plan of this Second Part — Tlie whole Discussion reduced to Four Propositions.
The very diversity of opinion ^vliich -we have now explained,
is of itself a sufficient evidence of the importance and difficul-
ties of the subject which we intend to discuss in this second
part. To proceed with order, we shall divide it into four
chapters, the development of which ^\-ill comprise a solution of
all the difficulties of the subject. In the first, we shall state
the principal circumstances which introduced or aided the
establishment of that extraordinary power which popes and
councils exercised over sovereigns during the middle ages. In
the second, we shall inquire, "what was the general belief of
princes and people regarding the existence of this power ?"
In the third, we shall point out the real foundations of this
power. Finally, in the fourth, we shall consider the influence
of this power on the good of society. A development of these
diffi;rcnt points will demonstrate to evidence the truth of these
four propositions to which this whole discussion may be reduced,
and which contain a complete justification of popes and councils
on the subject of our inquiry. First, the power of popes and
councils over sovereia;ns durina; the middle ages, however extra-
ordinary it may appear to us at present, was introduced naturally,
and in some manner inevitably, by the state of society and the
exigencies of the times ; second, the popes and councils, when
claiming and exercising this power, merely followed principles
then authorized by universal consent ; third, the universal
consent wliich attributed this power to them was not founded on
error, or on their usurpation, but on the then existing constitu-
tional law ; fourth, the maxims of the middle ages which
attributed this power to them, were far from producing all the
bad consequences sometimes supposed in modern times ; and
whatever bad consequences they really may have produced, have
been amply counterbalanced by the great benefits which society
derived from the extraordinary power with which popes and
District, England).* We may also mention on this matter a review of Voigt's
History of Gregory VII. in the Biblioth. Univ. de Geneve, n. 25, 26 (January
and February, 1838). These two articles were written bj' M , a Protestant
minister, professor of belles-lettres in the Academy of Geneva, and librarian of
that city,
* [Now Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster.— T.]
CHAP. I.J OVER SOVEREIGNS. 25
councils had been so loni; invested.' The development of these
four propositions will place in a new liirht Fenelon's opinion,
which wc have already explained, and which we believe to bo
preferable to any other opinion on tliis matter.
CIIAPTEll I.
SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL CI KCIM STANCES WHICII CONTRIBCTED TO ESTABLISH
OK KAVoCn THE EXTUAOIIDINAUY POWEU OF POPES AND COUNCILS OVER
SOVEREIGNS DDHING THE UIDDLE AGES.
21 . IIoxc to form an impartial Judgment of our A nccstors and of their Intentions.
To judge of our ancestors impartially, as a judicious historian
observes, we must not measure their acts by our present manners
and ideas ; wc must transport ourselves to the times in which
' S l-^rs m-iy perhaps, .it first sitjlit, be suq^rised at the order ailoptcl
in thi- I'.'irt, aud they may regret not having tlie fa*-ts connected with
it stated, aa in the fir-t i>art, in chronologicaJ order. This observation havinj?
been made to us l»y some persons to whom we had subnutted our work, wo
niaiie several attempts to mo<lify our plan acconling to their suggestion ; but
it appeare«l to us to I je exceedingly difficult, and perhaps impo.s.sible. It was
easy to observe the chronologicjil order in the first part, liecause we h.-wl really
but one question to examine ; namely, the origin and progress of the temporal
power of the Holy See. In the second, we have many questions, different iu
themselves aud in their relations to different states. Fii-st, wo have to exa-
mine the circumstances which paved tlie way for the temporal power of popes
over sovereigns, — circumstances which, from their number and variety, require
to be stated separately. .Second, the exercise of this power in different statc-i,
and in very difterent circumstances ; at one time with regard to princes feudally
subject to the Holy See, at another with regard to the emj)eror, who, though
not a feudal subject of the pope, was dependent on him in a peculiar m.muer ;
and again witli regard to other sovereigns. Thirdly, the foundations of this
jiower, as it concerned both the emperor and other sovereigns ; foundations
which could not be explained without an attentive study of the constitutions
of the different states, and of that theory which exjilains the conduct of the
popes to sovereigns by the theological opinion of " the indirect power." An
examination of .so many ilifferent f|uestions excludes the possibility of observing
chronological order ; at lejist all our attempts to observe it were fruitless. It
ap{)€ars to us, moreover, that the want of this chron0logic.1l order is very well
compensated for by the logiravl order of these four propositions to which we
reiluce the second part ; an order which has the undoubted advanUige of pro-
ceeding from the more clear to the less clear, by establishing first the facts
most easily proved and generally .idmitted, to deduce from them as a conse-
quence that c0nstitution.1l law which is the principal object of our inquirj'.
Moreover, the first ami s<.;cond pro|>o9ition3 prepare the way so naturally for
the third, th.it, once .iduiitte<l, the nrader is naturally inclined to embrace the
opinion which we adopt in the thinl. The development of our plan, and
especially of the third chapter of this second part, will fully illustrate the
importance and justness of these observations.
26 POWER OF THE POPE [PART 11.
they lived, and reflect on their political institutions, their prin-
ciples of legislation, and their government.^ It may be confi-
dently asserted, that forgetfulness of this principle is one of
the most ordinary causes of the false estimates formed by so
many modern authors, of the principal events, and of the most
celebrated characters in history, both ancient and modern.
Hence arise, especially, the different judgments pronounced in
those latter times on the conduct of popes and councils to
sovereigns in the middle ages. On this, as on so many other
points, they could have avoided a mass of errors and of hateful
declamations, had they been better acquainted with the political
institutions of the middle ages, and with the state of society
during that period.
22. TJie Power of the Popes and Councils over Sovereigns during the Middle Ages
tested by this Pnndple.
To be convinced of this, we need but examine closely the
origin of that extraordinary power which popes and councils
then exercised over sovereigns ; that is, the circumstances which
insensibly introduced this power, which favoured its establish-
ment, and which continued to maintain it during many centuries.
The result of this inquiry must be to convince every impartial
reader, that this power, however opposed to the prejudices and
customs of our age, was naturally introduced, and maintained
during the greater part of the middle ages, by the condition and
exigencies of society, and also by the constitution of the prin-
cipal states in Catholic Europe. At a time when all monarchies
were elective, and when the clergy were the first order in the
state, a necessary consequence in course of time should be, that
the principal stipulation in the election of a sovereign would be,
a profession of the Catholic faith, and its defence against all
enemies. This condition once established, the sovereign could
not violate it, without incurring the forfeiture of his rights ;
he became, as a matter of course, amenable to the pope and to
councils, the only competent judges of such offences : it was
even the interest of sovereigns that their judgment should be
reserved to the tribunal of the Church, as being more enlightened
and more disinterested than that of the lay lords. However
' Lingard, History of England.
CHAP. I.] OVER SOVERKIONS. -1
BinfTuliir this onlcr of thin«^ may appear to us at the jiri.;!tnt
day, the jjcut-nil intL-rests of society imperatively re(iuircJ it
at a time when the elerjry occupied the first rank in society, by
the threefold ascendancy of their profession, their leaniing, and
their virtues. In tine, this order of tilings was the more easily
establi:«hed, as it was no more than the result and natund
application of the jurisprudence then existing in all the Catholic
states of Eiu"ope, on the temporal effects of heresy, of public
penance, and of excommunication.
This combination of circumstances, which explains so naturally
the origin of the power of popes and councils over the Catholic
sovereigns of Europe in general, explains it still more satisfac-
torily with regard to those who had voluntarily declared them-
selves feudatories of the Holy See ; and also with regard to the
emperors of the West, who, from the establishment of the new
empire, had special relations of dependence on the Holy See.
These are the principal circumstances whose Combination
explains naturally the origin of the power now under considera-
tion. To illustrate these in all their bearings, wo shall now
develop each of them more amply.
ARTICLE I.
Constitution of Govemmenta in the Middle Ages.
23. Most of tlie Monarchies of thai Period Ekclive.
After even a slight examination of the nature of the govern-
ments of Europe during the middle ages, and especially during
the earlier part of that period, no person can be surjirised at the
great influence which the clergy long possessed in political
affairs, more particularly in the election and deposition of
sovereigns.
First, most of the monarchies established in Europe, after the
fourth century, on the ruins of the Roman empire, were elective, at
least in this sense, that the sovereign might be selected indifferently
among all the princes of the reigning family. The crown, properly
speaking, was neither purely elective, nor purely hereditary ; but
it was both elective and hereditary : hereditary, in this sense,
that the sovereign should be selected out of the members of
28 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
the reigning family ; elective, in the sense, that the nation was
at liberty to select any of the princes of the royal blood. All
the children of the deceased king had the same pretensions to
the succession, which they sometimes partitioned among them-
selves, like private property, with the express or tacit consent
of the barons of the kingdom : this right, however, was depen-
dent on the consent of the barons, who could resist the partition
of the kingdom, and elect a new king among the relatives of
the deceased, to the exclusion even of his children. Their
birth gave to the latter a hope, and, so to speak, an inchoate
right, but not a full and incontestable right ; they might be
regarded as "natural and probable" successors of the deceased
king, but not necessary successors, since they could be excluded
by the barons, in whom was vested the right of election. This
was the order of succession to the throne in the Visigoth
monarchy in Spain ;* in that of the Anglo-Saxons in Great
Britain ;- in that of the French under the second race of their
kings, according to the common opinion of historians,^ and
even under the first, in the opinion of many learned writers.'*
Such was, especially, the constitution of the new empire of the
West, in which this form of government was retained longer
than in the other states of Eui'ope.^
24. M. Guizot's Opinion on this Point.
We deem it unnecessary to insist on this first point, which is
generally admitted by the modern authors who have most
' Hallam's Europe, &c. vol. ii. p. 18, et alil)i passim. Ferreras, Hist.
d'Espagne, vol. ii. p. 414. Perez Valiente, Apparatus Juris publici Hispanici ;
Matriti, 1751, 2 vols. 4to. ; vol. ii. cap. vi. vii. xxi.
^ Hallam, ubi supra, vol. ii. pp. 270, 271, et alibi passim. Lingard, Hist, of
England, vol. i. pp. 99, 22,'), 521, 542. Alban Butler, Lives of the Saints,
note on the Life of St. Edward the Confessor, 13th October, vol. ix. p. 473, &c.
^ Daniel, Hist, de France, vol. i. Preface Historique, art. 3.
■• Vertot, Dissertation sur la Succession h, la Couronne de France, in the
M^moires de I'Academie des Inscriptions, vol. vi. of the edit, in 12mo. and
vol. iv. of the edit, in 4to. The opinion of this author is adopted by Velly,
Montesquieu, Hallam, De Saint- Victor, Gaillard, De Chateaubriand, Moeller,
Guizot. See especially the work of this last author, Essais sur I'Histoire de la
France, 4th Essay, ch. iii. p. 218. See also some elucidations of this point in
No. 7 of the Confirmatory Evidence at the close of this volume.
* Lenglet-Dufresnoy, Methode pour Etudier I'Histoire, part iv. ch. v. art. i.
(vol. vi. of the 12mo. edit.). Pfeffel, Abr^ge de I'Histoire de I'Allemagne,
passim. See, in the inde.x of this work, the words Election, Electors, &c.
Hallam's Europe, &c. vol. iv. pp. 11, 19, 33, &c.
CHAl'. I.] OVER SOVEllEICJiNS. -!'
carefully examined the history of the different states which
we have named. In supj><)rt of our exposition it is enoui^h to
cite the opinion of M. Guizot, in his Essais sur I'llistuire de
France, in which he compresses into a few words the researches
of the most celebrated authors on this subject, lie regards aa
an incontestable fact, "the mixture of the hereditary and
elective principles in royal succession, during the earlier times
of modem monarchies. Hence, he says, this almost universal
fact, that the election was never made except among the
members of the same family, invested with the privilege of
giving kings to the nation." '
Not satisfied with asserting this principle, as a point of law
common to all the Germanic nations, M. Guizot establishes it
especially with regard to the kingdom of the Franks. " So far,"
he observes, " as we can judge, in the absence of ancient and
original documents, the principle of election prevailed among
the j)rimitive Franks. Still, the most ancient authorities which
Bpeak of the election of Frank kings, assert, at the same time,
that it raised to the throne a family already distinguished by the
exclusive privilege of wearing long hair, whence these kings
were afterwards denominated ' Che veins.' ^ After the terri-
torial settlement, and when Clovis had rallied almost all the
Frank tribes under his sceptre, the hereditary principle of royal
succession began to prevail. This was the inevitable conse-
quence of the preponderance actually possessed by the royal
family, and of the independence which the greater lords enjoyed
of the regal power. Some could not contest the royal pre-
eminence ; others did not trouble themselves about it. In such
a state of affairs, it is ridiculous to look for a principle clearly
acknowledged and fornially csta})lished ; it is useless to expect
public institutions skilfully combined, and consistently main-
tained. The Franks no more dreamed of solemnly disposing of
the throne at each vacancy, than they woiUd have tolerated
their kings in assuming that they were the owners of the nation,
and of the supreme power. Things were ordered in a manner
both more regular and more simple. Royalty was neitlier
elective, nor emancipated from all chances of disorder, and from
' Guizot, E«ais sur I'lliatoire de France, 4th Ensay, ch. iii. p. 219.
» Ibid, p. 2-20.
so POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
stipulations of liberty. On the death of the king, his sons
inherited his titles, like his domains : the common impression
was, that they had a right to one as well as to the other : but, in
order to receive power with their title, they generally found
themselves necessitated to seek a recognition of their right by
some assembly, more or less numerous, of the chiefs and people
whom they were to govern. Thus the hereditary principle sub-
sisted, but under the obligation of frequently soliciting a recog-
nition ; the Franks did not elect for themselves a new king,
but recognised, very generally, the natural successor of the
deceased king. Neither the idea of legitimacy, nor that of
election, was well defined and eflFective. The throne belonged
by inheritance to one family ; but the Franks belonged to them-
selves, and, except in cases of violence, these two rights mutually
acknowledged each other, by both asserting themselves when
necessity required it.* These are two facts, attested undeniably
by those contemporary historians who have been cited by some
to prove the hereditary succession, and by others the popular
election of the French kings.- The violation of the hereditary
principle by the election of Pepin, ^ did not prevent it from
prevailing once more, and without dispute, in favour of the
Carlovingians. Pepin had made the French swear that they
should never elect kings spning from the blood of any other
man. He exacted this oath rather as a protection for his
descendants against the pretensions of the dethroned family,
than as a restriction of a constitutional right, of which, in
truth, no person dreamed. The election of kings was not more
real under the second than under the first race. The authorities
which refer to it, merely indicate, as under the Merovingians,
the recognition of hereditary rights, a sort of national accepta-
tion of the legitimate successor. This acceptation took place,
sometimes, after the reimino; king-'s death, sometimes duringr
his life, and at his own request : this was an effort of the heredi-
tary principle to establish itself in a disorganized and anarchical
' Guizot, Essais sur I'Hist. de France, 4th Essay, ch. iii. p. 221.
- Ibid. p. 222, note 1.
* M. Guizot supposes here that Pepin was not of the royal stock of the
Merovingians. We have elsewhere stated that this point is not certain. See
No. of the Confirmatory Evidence at the close of this volume.
CUW. l] OVER SOVERF.iaNS. .'> I
State of sociL'ty, but not a true election. As the revolution, how-
ever, whieli niised the Carlovinpuns to the throne, had, l»y its
very nature, infused a new, thoui^^h not permanent, vij:;our into
the German institutions and liberties, the adhesion of the peophj
to the right of the king's sons was more regularly insisted on,
more formally expressed, and it answered, at least in form, more
the appearance of a national choice." *
25. The A uthority of the Sovereign restricted by the General Assembly of the Nation.
In all the new monarchies, the authority of the sovereign
was limited by the general assembly of the nation.^ All mat-
ters of great importance were regulated by this assembly ; its
powers were very extensive, and were, perhaps, never determined
with precision ; which was one of the most prolilk causes of
the tumults and disorders which so often convulsed society at
this period. " Here," observes M. Guizot, "we shall look in
vain for some principle, some rules of prerogative and limita-
tions, I do not say, respected, but even recognised. Tlie throne
passed without di.spute from the father to the son : but the real
and actual power of its possessor was more a matter of fact
than of right. Not that I mean to say, it was absolute : I
mean only, thai it was variable and undefined : immense to-day,
powerless to-morrow ; sovereign in this place, ignored elsewhere ;
almost always and everywhere at war with those over whom it
was to be exercised ; strong or weak, just as the chances of war
were against it, or in its favour." ^
But however difficult, or even impossible it may be, especially
at this time, to ascertain the limits of the power attributed by
the constitution of the state to the general assembly, it is at
least certain, tliat from the very nature of elective governments
it could prescribe conditions in the election of the sovereign,
make him responsible for his acts, and even, in certain cases,
depose liim for the violation of the conditions stipulated at the
election.* It is, in truth, generally acknowledged, that in elective
' Ouizot, p. 223. The principal testimonies of the ancient authors in sup-
port of hia opinion arc given in M. Guizot'w work.
' See the authors cited in the preceding notes (supra, p. 28).
' Guizot, ubi supra, p. 22(3.
* It may not be useless to remark, that mixed monarchy, such as we expLiin,
does not necessarily suppose the principle of the n<jvcTcignty of the people ; it
32 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
governments, the authority of the sovereign coiild be so restricted
by the general assembly of the nation. The following are the
views on this subject of a judicious author, speaking of the
conditions imposed on the Gothic kings of Spain in the seventh
century. "Our reasoning with regard to elective monarchies
must be very different from that regarding hereditary monar-
chies. In the latter, there is no right to impose on the
sovereign any other conditions except those prescribed in the
establishment of the monarchy. But wherever there is a right
to elect a king, there is a right to name the conditions on which
he is to be elected, especially when they are proposed in the
general assembly of all the orders of the kingdom, and in the
name of all the people."^ A celebrated writer of the last
century establishes the same principles, when treating of the
imperial capitulation, signed by Charles V. at the time of his
election in 1519.- "The emperor," he states, "binds himself
by oath to observe all the articles of this contract. By ^^olating
them he absolves his subjects from their oath of fealty ; he
loses all the rights which he had to the empire, because the
empire was conferred on him only on condition that he should
observe these articles. They are not always the same ; they
change according to times and circumstances : they may be
increased or diminished, as it may be deemed necessary for the
safety of the empire : very different, in that respect, from the
oaths which hereditary monarchs usually make at their corona-
tion. The articles of these oaths, when once agreed on by men
who subject themselves to a particular family, remain ever after
the same ; and are liable no more to the revision of the subject :
God alone is their judge. But the oaths of elective princes,
being covenants which the commonwealth changes, reforms,
interprets, restricts, or extends, according to its pleasure, are
always subject to its judgment. The chiefs whom it has selected
are always responsible to it for their observance ; and it has, at
supposes merely a fundamental law of the state, in virtue of which the power
of the monarch is more or less limited. — Pey, De TAutorite des Deux Puis-
sances, vol. i. part ii. oh. iv.
' Note by Pfere Charenton, Jesuit, on Mariana's History of Spain, vol. i.
book i. n. 32.
* In another place we shall discuss more fully this capitulation. Inlra,
ch. iii. art. ii. § 4, n. 288.
CHAP. I.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 3.^
all times, the right to compel them to obsen'c them, or to pro-
nounce their deposition if they do not observe them." '
2(3. Sti-ict Union of RtUgion and Oovemment in these Monarchic^.
In all the monarchies of the middle ages, relijrion was reirarded
as the basis and indispens;ible bond of society. The first dnty
of the prince, and uf all who shared his authority, it wjis believed,
WIV3 to respect and to make others respect religion ; so that
the sovereign or magistrates who neglected this essential duty,
proved themselves, by the very fiict, unworthy of their title, and
deserved to be deprived of it. These principles are clearly
enounced in the legislation of the different states of which there
is tpiestion, and especially in the legislation of France". We
find on that subject, the following declaration in the "second
addition to the Capitularies," in accordance with many mixed
councils or assemblies held in France during the ninth century.
" The king (;•*./•), is so called from his acting well (nrt^
agendo) : for if he acts justly, piously, and clemently, he is
deservedly styled a king ; but if he has not these qualities, he
is not a king, but a t^Tant. The principal duty of a king is, to
govern and conduct the people of God with justice, and to
labour for the maintenance of peace and concord. Above all
things, he ought to be a defender of the churches and of the
sen-ants of God, of widows, of orphans, of the other poor, and
of all who are in affliction." *
• Lettrcs, Memoires, et Actes concemant Li Guerre pr(?sente (the war of the
Spanisli succession), Basle, 1703 and 1704, vol. iii. p. 14*i. Tliese anonymous
letters, which form eight volumes duodecimo, were written by Jean de la
Chapelle, secretary of the prince of Conti. He died in Paris, a.D. 1723. In
continnatiou of his views on the nature of elective govenimentw, the rea«ler
may consult Bossuet, D*'fense de I'Hist. dea VariationH, n. .I, 13 ((Kuvres de
B<)8suet, vol. xxi.) ; Pey, De I'Autorite des Deux Puissances, vol. i. p. 271 ;
Lenglet-Dufresnoy, Slethode pour Etudier I'Histoire, [>art iv. ch. v. art. i. ;
vol, vi. of the duodecimo edit. ]>. 333.
' " Rex, a recti agendo vocal ur. Si eiiim pib et justb et misericorditer apit,
merits RtJC appellatur ; si his caruerit, non rex, sed tipannua est. . . . liogale
namque ministerium specialiter est i>opulum Dfi gtjl>ernare et regcre cum
Ki|uitAte et justitiA, et ut i>acem et concordi.im h.ilioant studere. Ipse enim
debet prim?) defensor ease ecclesiarum et sen-orum Dei, viduarum, orjihano-
rum, ceteronannjue p.'iuperum, necnon et omnium indij^entium." — Capitul.-ir.
Additin 2, n. 24, 25 (Baluze, Capitular, vol. i. p. 1140, &c.). Tliese |>a.'<sage8,
taken from the sixth Council of Pari«, held in 829, and from the second Coun-
cil of Aix-la-Chapelle, held in 836, are found also, with some motlifications, in
a Council of ifayence, held in 888, and in Hincmar, Opusc. de Divortio Lo-
tharii (Oper. torn. i. p. 693).
VOL. II. h
34 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
These principles are laid down mih. the same precision in the
contemporary legislation of Spain, of England, and of Ger-
many ;^ we shall see that to enforce their observance, it was
successively established in these different states, that the sove-
reign should not be elected except on the express or tacit
condition of professing the Catholic religion, and of defending
it with all his might against the attacks of heresy and impiety.^
27. Union of these two Powers.
In all the monarchies of the middle ages, the union of the
two powers was regarded as the natural consequence of those
principles, and as essential for the general welfare of society.
In support of this assertion, it were easy to cite a host of
authorities, besides those already given. Remarkable provisions
are found on this subject in many capitularies of Charlemagne ;
one of them, published in 805, in the Diet of Thionville, pre-
scribes, "that all our subjects, from the highest to the lowest,
shall be submissive to the ministers of rehgion as to God
himself, whose place they hold in the Church : for we can have
no dependence on the fidelity of those who prove themselves faith-
less to God and to his priests ; nor can we have any confidence
that they will be obedient to us and to our officers, who are not
obedient to the ministers of religion in the affairs of God, and
in the concerns of the Church. "We order, therefore, that all
shall obey them, in all things pertaining to the exercise of their
ministry and to the punishment of the wicked. As for those who
prove themselves negHgent or disobedient in this matter, were
they even our own children, let them know that they cannot
hold any office in our empire or in our palace, nor have any
communication with us or with our subjects, but that, on the
contrary, they must be punished severely — publicly branded
with infamy, deprived of their properties, and sent into exile." ^
' Lex Visigothorum, lib. xii. tit. ii. n. 2 (Canciani, Earbarorum Leges,
torn. iv. p. 185). Leges Angliae (ibid. pp. 311, 337, &c.). Juris Alamannici
seu Suevici prsefamen, n. 21-24 (Senckenberg, Corpus Juris Germanici, torn. ii.
p. 6, &c.).
2 Infra, ch. ii. art. i. iv. ; ch. iii. art. ii.
' "Volumus atque prsecipimus, ut omnea suia sacerdotibus, tarn majoris
ordinis quKm et inferioris, a minimo usque ad maximum, ut summo Deo, cujus
vice, in Ecclesia, legatione funguntur, obedientea eristant. Nam nullo pacto
CHAP. I.J OVER SOVEREIGNS. 35
Similar provisions are found in a ilLscourso of Edgar, king of
England, to St. Dunstan, archbishui) of Canterbury, and to
other bishops of that province (in i)Gii), exhorting them to
reform the abuses which then disfigured the English church.
"It is time," the king declares, ''to rise against the transgressors
of the lawr of God : the sword of Constantino ia in my hand ; the
sword of Peter is in yours ; let us take hands, and join sword to
sword, and expel the lepers from the camp, and cleanse the
sanctuary of the Lord. Tiie royal power shall never be wanting
to you, to expel scandalous sinners from the Church, and to
protcH-'t the just."'
The discourse of the emperor Henry II. to Pope Benedict VIII.
i3 not less remarkable. It was delivered in a council held at
Pa via, about the year 1022. The pope having requested the
emperor to confirm the decrees of this council, Henry answered
in the following terms : " Most holy father, I can refuse you
nothing, because I owe all things to you in Jesus Christ.
Whatever your patenial authority has ordained in tliis council
for the reform of the Church, I commend it, I confirm it, 1
sanction it, 33 your son : — my will is, that it shall be all
observed for ever, ranked among the rules of government, and
solemnlv inserted in our hiws."^
agnoaeere poacmmns qualtter nobis iideles existere possunt, qui Deo infideles,
et Buia sacerdotibus ajiparuerint ; aut qualiter nobiH obedientcs nostrisque
inini.<!tris ac legatis obteinperantes erunt, qui illis, in Dei causis et Ecclcsiarum
utilitatibus, non obttniperant Jul)emu8 (ergo) ut oinncs eis, pro viribus,
tu\ eorum jv-ragenda luinistvria, et a<i ni:ilos et peccatores atque neglijjentf.'i
homines (iistriii^trndos, suniniopere ol>edieute8 existant. Qui autc-m in Lis,
quod abi^it, negiigentea eis<iue inobedicntes fuerint inventi, sciant se nt'C in
noetro imperio nonores retinere, licet eti.im filii nostri fuerint, nee in j)alatio
locum, neque nobiscum aut cum nostriH societateui aut communionem uUam
habere, sea magis sub nuignd districtione et ariditato p«rnas lucre . . . ; 8e<l
eti&m in&mes atquc reprobi manifest?- apparentes notabuntur, eorumque do-
mus publicabuntur, et ij>>n exiliabuntnr." — Capitulum Imperatorin, ajnid Theo-
donis Villani (ann. 80r») (Baluze, CapituLvr. torn. i. p. 437). Capitular, lib.
Tii. n. 390 (ibid. p. 1109).
' "Tempus e.xt instirgendi contra eos qui diMiparunt legem Dei. Ego Con-
stantini, vo« Petri gbv<:lium hal)etiB in manibuH ; jungamus dexteras : gladium
gladio copuleniii.'*, ut ejici.intur extra costra leproNi, ut purgotur sanclu.arium
Domini. . . . Non deerit tibi pote«ta« rejria. . . . ut et cpiucopali ceuHunl, et
ret:' itate, tuq>iter vi%-ent»is do ecr! ;mtur, et ordinal^ viventes
intr> ir." — Oratio E<lgari KegiH ad I' iin (Labbe, Coiicil. torn. ix.
p. 697). J-'leury, Hint. Ecde«. vol. xii. book Ivi. n. 80.
* " Nihil til>i, sanctissime |>af>a, possum negarc, cui per Deum fimnia debeo.
. . . Omnia quidem, qu» pro EocleKiH' necessariA rcparalione, pynodaliter insti-
tuit et reformavit Patemitas tua, ut filiua laudo, confirmo, et approbo ; . . .
D 2
36 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
28. TTiis Union more strict at this Pmod than under the First Chriatian
Emperors.
These principles, which had generally been the groundwork
of the legislation of the Christian emperors after Constan tine's
conversion, were more uniformly the rule of the governments of
the middle ages, and were much more frequently applied. We
have seen the Christian emperors, in accordance with these
principles, openly protecting the public exercise of religion,
granting to its clergy numerous prerogatives, and very extensive
jurisdiction even in the temporal order, confirming by their
edicts the divine and the ecclesiastical laws, and enacting severe
penalties against the crimes of heresy and impiety.^ But the
prerogatives of the clergy, and their influence in all the depart-
ments of the civil administration, were still further extended by
the generosity of sovereigns in the new monarchies which arose
after the fourth century on the ruins of the Roman empire.
In them the clergy were generally regarded as the first order in
the state, and summoned, in that capacity, not only to the
councils of kings, but to the general assemblies of the nation
in which the sovereigns were elected, and the most important
matters discussed. This pre-eminence of the clergy was not
peculiar to any particular country, as some modem authors
appear to suppose, by confining it to France or Spain : it was
common to all the monarchies established after the fourth cen-
tury. This is manifestly proved by a vast array of authorities
still extant, and especially by many mixed councils or assemblies
held since that epoch in all the Catholic states of Europe ; in
which councils the two powers regulated in concert all that
related to the good of religion and of the state."
et in jeternum mansura, et inter publica jura semper recipienda, et humanis
legibus soleniniter inscribenda, . . . coram Deo et EcclesiS ita corroboramus."
— Henrici Augusti Responsio ad Bened. VIII. (Labbe, ibid. p. 831). Fleury,
ibid, book Iviii. n. 47. This testimony and the preceding appeared so remark-
able to Bossuet, that he cites them literally in his Discoura sur I'Unit^ de
I'Eglise, at the end of the first part.
' See the details given on this matter in our Introduction, art. ii. § 2.
^ M. Sismondi, following some modern writers, asserts that the summoning
of the prelates to political assemblies, a measure whereby the influence of the
clergy was so much increased under the Carlovingian kings, was an innovation
of Pepin. (Sismondi, Hist, des Frangais, vol. ii. part ii. ch. i. p. 175; Hist,
des R^pub. Ital. vol. i. ch. iii. p. 139, &c.) This is an enor. In summoning
the prelates to political assemblies, Pepin only followed the practice long esta-
CHAP. 1.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 37
29.'/niuerux of tA< Clergy in Public AJairt in consequence of this i'nion.
Under such a form of government the clergy slioulJ inevitably
take a considerable part in public affuirs, and exercise a great
influence by the natural ascendancy of their intelligence and
virtues, combined with their religious and political character.
It must, moreover, be acknowledged, with Fleury and our best
historians, that in attending political assemblies in which such
public affairs were debated, they merely performed their duty ;
for, being summoned as well as the other lords, " they could not
avoid taking a part in them." * Superficial or prejudiced minds
may condemn this order of things ; but no impartial and upright
person can fail to recognise that it was perfectly legitimate,
because founded on the constitution of the state itself ; and that
in these mixed assemblies already mentiuned, the clergy exer-
cised no influence except in concert with the other lords.-
bUahed in France, .•uid in all the Catholic states of Europe. With rf<,'ard to
Frmnce in pjirticular, this paint of history has been soljjly di>cus.«ed liy the
Alt' 1 in hi.s Dissertation sur I'Etat dcs Evoquea en France, ««>urt U
I*r< ,.i«c de nos lv<iis. Tliis Di.siiertation makes jvirt of the collection
entiile<l I'l.-svrtations sur la Mythologie Fran^aiso, et sur plusieurs Points
Curieux de IHistoirt; do France, hy the Ahlw? Bullet. Pari.s, 1771, duodecimo.
Ptre Berthier has also treated the subject, more briefly but verj' ably, in the
third article of hi.s Discours sur les A.<.<emblet.-8 de I'Egli.-je CJallicane, prefixed
to vol. xvii. of his Hist, de lEglise Gallicane. With regard to other states,
see Thomaiwin, Ancien. et Nouv. Discipline, vol. ii. book iii. ch.xliv. xlvi. and
following ; Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. 3rd Disc. n. 9, 10 ; Mocurs des Chre-
tiens, n. 5S ; Lingard, HLst. of England, vol. i. ch. vii. ; Mariana et Ferreras,
Hist. d'Eapagne, 6th and 7th century ; Perez Valiente, Appar. Juris Publici
Hispan. vol. iii. passim ; Pfeffel, Abregd de rHistoire d'Allemagne, articles
Bishops, Clergy, &c. in the Index.
' Fleury, ubi supra, 3rd Discourse, n. 9.
* Fleury, ibid. It is astonishing that the author, in the very Discourse in
which he expressly acknowledges the nature of those mixe<l assfniblies, and
the obligation under which bishops as well as lay lords were of attending' them,
censures severely this union of the spiritual and temjKiral in thi-.st- a.-M-inblit^,
and roundly accu.ses the clerg)- of intioiiling thenasclves into secular affairs, and
of judging kings. (Ibid. n. 9, 10.) Tlie bUhojw were legitimately sunmioned to
these assemblies with the other lords ; and as Fleur)- himself admits that
they could not avoid " taking f>art " in them, is it surprising that they should,
in concert with the other lords, regulate all that rvh»te«l to the ten){»ciral
government ; and that in some cases they i<hould have even judged kinj^s, who
were then responsible for their acts to tluit general assembly, in accordance
with the principles of elective governments '
These obt*' • ■ m.iy serve to correct •. • • umlier of jiaf«fv.-iges, not only
in Fleury 's 1 ' ■ ■*, and in hi.-i Hist. Iv jue, but nl^> in a crowd of
mo<lem authors, wiio, from not attending to this twtifuld character, [H>litical
and ecclesiastical, of many councils of the middle ages, have cen'>'ured much too
thoughtlessly the conduct of bisho^is in those c<»uncils. Pere Ixmgueval him-
self, PJre Daniel, and many otherwise most respectable writers, are not exempt
from ccn.sure on this sx)re.
38 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
Such was, in reality, the character of the numerous councils
held at Toledo during the seventh century, and especially of
the fourth, held in G33 ; which ordained, that after the king's
death, his successor should be elected by a council of lords and
bishops.^ Such was the council held at Calcuth, in England, in
787, which declares (Can. xii.), "that kings, to be legitimate,
must be chosen by the bishops and lords."- Such, likewise,
were many councils in France, under the second race of kings,
in which the bishops sometimes disposed of the crown with
absolute authority.^
30. Influence of the Pope the natural Consequence of similar Circv/iMtances,
This great influence of the clergy in the political affairs of
the different states of Europe, should naturally augment, at
least on many occasions, that which was already vested in the
pope, either by the authority which his sacred character gave
him in the eyes of princes and people, or in virtue of the tem-
poral power possessed by him since Italy had shaken off the
yoke of the Eastern empire. The position as princes which
the popes had acquired by that great revolution, their special
right over the new empire of the West,^ the interests of religion,
of which they were the guardians in all places, the authority
vested in them by the venerable title of head of the Church, for
watching over the preservation of faith and morals in all
Christian states ; for keeping princes in peace, and for pre-
venting or correcting public disorders, naturally empowered and
' " Defuncto in pace principe, primates totius gentis, cum sacerdotibus,
successorem regni, concilio communi, constituant." — Concil. Tolet. iv. can. 75
(Labbe, Concil. torn. iv. p. 172i). Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. viii. book xxxvii.
n. 50.
* " In ordinatione regnm, nullus permittat pravorum pnevalere assensum ;
sed legitime reges a sacerdotibus et senioribus popull eligantur." — Concilium
Calchutense, can. 12 (Labbe, torn. vi. p, 1867). Fleury, ibid. vol. ix. book
xliv. n. 41.
^ We shall mention in particular the Councils of Aix-la-Chapelle in 842, and
of Savonnibre in 859, of which more detailed notice is given in another place
(ch. ii. art. ii. n. 131) ; the Council of Mante or Mantelle, near Vienne in Dau-
phiny, which elected Boson, king of Provence, in 879 ; Forcheim, in which
Louis, son of Arnulph, was elected king of Germany, in 900. See, on these
two latter councils, Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xi. book liii. n. 10 ; book liv. n.
81 ; Hist, de I'Eglise Gallicane, vol. vi. p. 334.
■• We shall see in another place the origin of these rights. Infia, ch. iii.
art. ii. § 2.
CUAP. I. I OVER SOVKUEIQJJS. V/J
often cumpelled them to intiTtVrc in tlie jrovenuuent of kiiiir-
doms, and to take, in matters of importanee, a very aetive part,
not merely by their eounsels and exhortations, but also by just
protests and strong remonstrances, whenever there was a (question
of preserving tjjose rights which their position as temporal princes
conferred on them, as well as on all other sovereigns. One of
the most illustrious orators that appeared in the jiolitical world
in Kngland at the close of the last century, has described most
faithfully these relations of the pope with other sovereigns.
" As temporal prince," Burke observes, in one of his speeches
in Parliament, " the pope is equal to any other prince ; but if
to this we add his title of supreme head of Christendom, he baa
no equal." It is manifest, that this observation of Burke's
on the position of the popes, even in those latter times, applies
with far greater truth to their position during the middle ages,
especially from the period ^vlien the clergy were summoned, in
all ftie Christian states of Europe, to exercise so great an influ-
ence in all departments of the ci>il administration. "What
could be more natural than that princes and people, who reposed
eo great confidence in the clergy, should much more willingly
accord it to him whom they venerated as the head of all bi.><hops,
and as the centre of Catholicity. It was impossible that the
clergy, while taking so great a i>art in public aflairs, and in tlic
government of states, should not often appear as the agents and
ambassivdors of him whom they regarded as their head, and their
oracle in all that regarded the good of religion, so closely con-
nected with the good of the state.
31. Errors of many modem Writerg on this Point.
From not having correctly appreciated this position of the
popes, a great numljcr of modem writers attribute to ambition,
to exaggerated pretensions, and to a purely mundane policy,
those measures of the popes which were l>ut the natural conse-
quences of the state of things just described. By that combi-
nation of circumstances, especially must be explained the
cond<ict of Popes Gregory IV., Nidiolas I., and Adrian II., so
bitterly censured by many othenvisc excellent historians, who
did not comprehend sufficiently the motives by which the pope
was obliged to interfere in the disputes between the French
40 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II,
princes, during the reigns of Louis le Debonnaire and of
Charles the Bold.^ The sequel of our inquiry will give us an
opportunity of demonstrating, that the reasons which authorized,
and often necessitated, this intervention of the popes in the
government of states, and in the public affairs of Europe,
became more and more numerous and urgent in the course of
the middle ages, and especially during the Crusades."
ARTICLE II.
State of Society during the Middle Ages. — Advantages which it derived from
Eeligion and the Clergy.
32. Picture of the State of Society during the Middle Ages.
The common good of society in the middle ages, and especially
during the first centuries of that period, should naturally concen-
trate in the clergy this great influence over temporal affairs. To
be convinced of this truth, we need but consider, on the one hand,
the deplorable state of society at this period ; and, on the other,
the immense resources which religion and the clergy supplied
against all the evils with which it was afflicted.
Let us reflect, for a moment, on the character of the
barbarous hordes, which, after the close of the fourth century,
partitioned among themselves the members of the Roman
empire in the West.^ Completely ignorant of the arts and
sciences, and of civilization, they knew no other occupation but
hunting and war ; no law but force ; no glory but conquest ;
and far from feeling the inconveniences and disorder of this
savage state, they professed a sovereign contempt for a mode of
life more refined. The Christian religion, which they all
embraced, softened, by degrees, their ferocious manners ; but
this inestimable effect of their conversion was slow and insen-
' These observations may be useful on many points against a great number
of modern writers. We shall mention only a few of the most distinguished.
Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xi. books li. lii. passim ; vol. xiii. 3rd Discourse, n. 10,
&c. ; Daniel, Hist, de France, vol. ii. pp. 426, 468, 475, et alibi passim ; Hist.
de I'Eglise Gallicane, vols. v. and vi. passim.
- Infi-a, art. ii. n. 51, &c.
3 Fleury, Mceurs des Chretiens, n. 57 ; Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. 3rd Discourse.
CHAP. I.J OVER SOVEUEIQNS. H
siblf : the majority of them lon^ retained their ancient habits,
that is, their inconstant, violent, and ungovernable tcnijRT ;
their passionate taste for hunting and war ; their jirofuund
contempt fur the arts and sciences ; and especially the spirit of
insubordination and of independence, which seemed to be the
most deeply marked trait in their character.
83. Ignorance and Barbarism of ihU Epoch.
The natural influence of the character of the dominant race
on that of the con([uered people, could not fail to introduce
among the latter the decay of enlightenment and of civilization.
Hence, ignorance and barbarism are generally considered the
distinctive characteristics of the state of society in the middle
ages ; and though this description does not apply equally to all
parts of that period, though it has often been exaggerated by
passion and malice, it must be admitted, that the middle ages,
compared in re.>^pect of enlightenment and civilization with
those that preceded and followed them, present a really sad and
afflicting spectacle. We will not undertake, in this place, to
describe all its features : it is sufficient to say, with all his-
torians, that however deplorable the state of society was, in
regard of the arts and sciences, it was still worse in point of
civilization and morals. In the latter view, the history of the
middle ages, especially during the earlier centuries, presents a
spectacle of uninterrupted disorder and calamity. With the
exception of some intervals of repose and tranquillity, procured
by the influence of some sovereigns more energetic and politic
than others, we see in every place society without order, govern-
ment without power, laws without authority, and corru[»tion of
morals without restraint. The jrlorious reign of Charlemagne
seemed destined to put an end to these disorders ; but the hopes
which he might have inspired were soon blasted by the imbecility
of his successors, by the abuses of the feudal system, and by the
new irruptions of barbarians over all parts of Europe. This
unhappy concurrence of circumstances replungcd society into
the barbarism from which it was beirinnin'; to emertjo, and
completely obliterated the faint remaining traces of llonian
civilization.
42 POWER OF THE POPE [PAllT II.
34. Disorders of Society in the Time of Gregory VII.
Hence, nothing can be more saddening than the picture of
the disorders to which society was a prey during the three cen-
turies after the rei2;n of Charlemaime. It was drawn in the
following colours by an author who was contemporary of Gre-
gory VII. "The world," exclaims St. Peter Damian, "is
violently plunged into the abyss of every vice ; and the nearer
it approaches to its end, the more enormous becomes the accu-
mulation of its crimes. Ecclesiastical discipline is almost
universally contemned ; the clergy are no longer held in the
reverence due to them ; the sacred canons are trampled under-
foot ; and the ardour which should be devoted to the service of
God, is wasted totally on earthly passions. The legitimate rule
of marriages is neglected ; and it must be confessed, to the
dishonour of the Christian name, they live like Jews, who bear
the name of Christ. Is not rapine universal, and theft ? Who
fears to commit perjury, or impurity, or sacrilege ? Who have
any horror of the most atrocious crimes ? We have long since
renounced the pursuit of virtue, and pestiferous vices, Hke wild
beasts, have started up around us.^ Now, assuredly, the evil
spirit urges on the human race with more than usual violence
into the abyss of vices, and diffuses on all quarters hatred and
jealousy, the causes of discord. Wars, armies, hostile invasions,
are multiplied to such a pitch, that the sword destroys more of
the human race than the sickness and infirmities to which
human nature is subject. The whole world is like the sea torn
with tempests : discord and dissension, like agitated waves,
convulse every heart. The restless murderer penetrates all
• " Totus mundug, pronus in malum, per lubrica vitiorum, in praeceps ruit ;
et quanto fini suo jainjam vicinus appropinquat, tanto graviorum super se
quotidie criminum moles exaggerat. Ecclesiaslici siquidem genii ubique pene
disciplina negligitur ; debita sacerdotibus reverentia non praebetur ; cauonicae
sanctionis instituta calcantur ; et soli terrenaj (cupiditati) inhianter explendae
digna Deo cura servitur. In fa?derandis porri) conjugiis legitimus ordo con-
funditur : et, o nefas ! ab eis in veritate judaic'e vivitur, qui, superficie tenus,
Christiano vocabulo palliantur. Euinivero ubi rapinse desunt ? ubi furta
caventur ? Quiperjuria? qui lenocinia ? qui sacrilegia metuunt ? qui denique
perpetrare qurelibet atrocissima crimiua perhorrescunt ? Jamdudum plan^
virtutum studiis repudium dedimus, omniinnque perversitatum pestes, velut
inipetu facto, feralitcr emerscrunt." — S. Petri Damiani Epist. lib. ii. ; Epist. i.
ad S. R. E. Cardinales ; initio.
CHAP. I.J OVKH SOVKUKIONS. W
places, ami ra;j;os throuLrh tho whole world, as through a field, to
deposit everywhere the livid tseeds of hate." '
35. TJuM Ditordtrt often fomaitcd by the Rrarnpk of Princes.
Princes and lords, as wc learn from the same author, far from
repressing or resisting these disorders, fomented them hy their
example. We find them in all quarters rising up, and cxteniling
their territories at the expense of their less powerful ncighhours,
deirradintr their dignity hv all sorts of excesses, and harassinff
their people with multiplied oppressions. " The churches,"
observes St. Peter Damian,'^ "are afflicted with calamities so
grievous, that they are, as it were, encompassed by the armies
of Babylon, and resemble Jerusalem when besieged with all its
citizens. Laymen usurp the rights of the Church, seize its
revenues, invade its possessions, and deck themselves in the
' " Malignus plnn^ ppiritus bumAnum gonu.s nunc H<)lit<i veheniontitifl per
omnia vitiorum al)ru]it.-\ pnucipitat, truculentihs tAmon udioruni, ac siuiultatuni
oinnos livoro pi-rturb.-it. Tot eiiini i]uotiilie lioUa ilo^Tviunt, aniiaUi- acics pro-
ruunt, hniitilfs inip.tiw inliorrcscunt, ut de niilitarilnis <iuidem viriH ]>lurc8
((ladiu.'i viJiiitur absuiuere, <{U?un in graljatuliH nuicscentos, corj)oreic cou-
tlitionis .•P),Titu<lo fiiiire, ut propemcxiuni maris nioro goratur liic nniiidu.-j. . . .
l>i-cMnlia' yiFDcellis cunct-'i hnuilnuni cHinla vex;intur, et taniquani npunioHis
tlui'tibuii Uliduntur. Instabilii^ cnini Imuiicida omnia scrutatur, oninia mundi
velut unius agri loca j>crluHtrat, ne quid infu.-cundum a lividi fomitis satione
pra'tereat." — Ibid. Ei)i3t. lib. iv. ; Epist. 9, ad Oldericum Episcopum Fir-
uuuium, p. 51, col. 2.
' " Tarn immanis prcKsurrc calainit.o.s iiieumbit ecclesii.i, ut tamqiiam Riby-
lonica) legionis aciea circumfusa, et Hierusalcm cum civibus suis vidcatur ob-
8€8da. Saeculares occleiiiastica jura cornulunt, Halaria nubtraliuut, jKjsseasionea
invatlunt, et sic stipendia pauperum, velut hoBtium se rcportare manubi.iH,
gli)riantur. Ip«i quo<|ue B^i-culares nihilomiuus inter Be proprii juris bon.i
diripiunt, alt«r alteri Hupcrgredientea impingunt ; et . . . quia soli es.se nc-
quount, mutu.-'i se pors'asione collidunt. >Iox arundineas rusticorum s»'geteB
aggrtnliuntur exurere, et fel atroeisHimi livori.K, qucnl suiii titiquo noqticunt
inimicis invomere, imhellibus non erubescunt nistiris ]>ro]>inare. . . . Fortic ac
ingenuurt quisquc bellator vitat inermeni, impetit advershm so tela vibrantom,
. . . i.sti verb adversijs inemies arma corripiunt, et dum fluant hostcs, vapulant
innocentes. . . . Totus itaquc niundun, hoc tempore, nihil est aliud nisi gula,
avaritia at^^jue libido ; et sicut olim trifariam divisus est orbis, ut tribus simul
prineipibus subjaceret, ita nunc genus humanum, ln-u jimh dolor ! his tribus
\'.tii-< -.-rvili.-i coUa aubstemit, eonmnjue qua.><i totidcm tjTannonim lc;,nbuH
(.bt» iii[M>n\iiter olietlit." — S. Petri Damiani Kpint. lib. i. Ejiist. l.";, ad .Mexau-
druni II. Ivnmanum Pontificcm, {tasxim, p. 12, &.c. All tlicne jjajwagen in
the letters of St. Peter Damian, and many othere e<jually remarkable, have
been collectc<l by Voigt, History of Grt«gory VII. biwk ii. p. 57. It would l>e ejisy
to confirm them by many others, from the letters of (Irogory VII. and from
other Cf>nten»porary iloctuntiit*, as the same historian ol»«>nre«. See especially
Gregory VII. Epist. lib. ii. epist. 40 ; Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ixii.
n. 54 ; D. Ceillier, ILst. dca Auteurs Eccli-s. vol. xx. p. 6C3, &c.
44 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
substance of the poor, as if they were the effects of an enemy.
At the same time, they pillage each other indiscriminately ;
they assault each other ; and as if each wished to he sole
master of the world, they strain every nerve to supplant their
competitors. Then they bum the cabins of the poor villagers,
and vent on these poor creatures the fury which they could not
discharge on their enemies. A brave and honoui'able soldier
never attacks an unarmed man : he is satisfied with repulsing
his assailant ; but these take arms against defenceless men, and
slay the innocent when they cannot destroy their enemies.
Hence, the whole world, in our days, is one scene of intem-
perance, of avarice, of libertinism ; and as it was once subject
to three princes,* so the whole human race is now governed by
these three vices, and obeys, like a slave, the mandates of these
tyrants."
The most powerful kings were often the most scandalous.
Philip I., king of France, made a shameful traffic in bishoprics
and abbeys, encouraged by his example debauchery and pillage, and
carried his violence to such excesses that, by his orders, foreign
merchants were pillaged on their way to a fair in his kingdom.*
What might we not say of the emperor of Germany, Henry IV.,
whom all historians agree in representing as one of the most
cruel and depraved princes ever mentioned in the annals of
history, and who is described by his contemporary St. Anselm,
archbishop of Canterbury, as " a worthy successor of Nero, and
of Julian the Apostate ? " '
' Tlie author alludes to the time when the Eoman empire was divided
among Ctesars.
* Gregorii VII. Epist. lib. i. 35; lib. ii. 5, 18. Fleury, Hist. Eccl.
vol. xiii. book Ixii. n. 6, 16 ; Hist, de I'Eglise GaUicane, vol. vii. ann. 1073,
1074, pp. 504-508. In another place (ch. ii. art. i. n. 108, &c.) we shall give
some other details on the character and conduct of Philip I. Is it not, then,
surprising to find respectable authors censuring severely the conduct of Gre-
gory VII. to this prince, and extenuating with that view disorders which they
cannot deny ? See Hist, de I'EgUse GaUicane, ubi supra, p. 509 ; Daniel, Hist,
de France, vol. iii. ann. 1073, pp. 377, 453.
' " Scienti breviter loquor," wrote Saint Anselm to the bishop of Neubourg ;
" si certus essem prudentiam vestram non favere siu:cessori Jidii CcBsaris, et
Navnis, et Juliani Apostatce, contra successorem et vicarium Petri apostoli ;
libentissimfe vos ut amicissmium et reverendum episcopum salutarem." — S.
Anselmus, De Azymo et Fermentato, praef. (Oper. p. 135). See also Noel
Alexandre, DeuxiSme Dissert, sur I'Hist. Eccl^s. du Onzi^me Sifecle, art. i. ;
Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ixi. n. 31 ; Voigt, Hist, de Gregoire VII.
pp. 69, 110, 133, &c. ; De Maistre, Du Pape, book ii. ch. xii. p. 358, note 1.
CHAP. 1. 1 OVER SOVEREIGNS. 45
36. A Respect for Rellffion still surriring in the mUht of these Disorders.
Nevertheless, it would be a very false estimate of the middle
ages, to suppose that a general neglect and contempt of rcliginn
was the necessary consequence of the ignorance and barbarism
whidi we have just described.' On the contrary, it is certain,
that amidst the decay of enlightenment and civilization during
those ages, there still remained in the hearts of the people
generally, a profound respect for religion and for its ministers.
In the gloomy darkness with which society was enveloped, faith
Btill lived in all its integrity and ardour. No one dreamed of
doubting the truths which it taught : heresy and impiety were
held in general horror ; and the respect of the people for religion
manifested itself in all the Cliri.stian states of Europe, by the
honours and prerogatives conferred on the clergy. In those
times, it was of course inevitable, that the clergy, as well as
the other orders of society, should sometimes be the victims of
violence and injustice, the invariable concomitants of anarchy ;
but, as a general nde, these violences did not spring from a
contempt of religion and of its ministers ; they almost always
arose from outbursts of passion, which the criminal himself
deplored and pubhcly condemned, when his anger had subsided.
37. The Clergij dUtinrptished at ail Times by tlieir Enlightenment.
The clergy were really entitled to this general respect, by the
enlightenment and virtues of which the body always preserved
the tradition, and which were conspicuous in many of its mem-
bers. Notwithstanding the abuses, and the relaxation of dis-
cipline which had crept in amongst them, as among all other
state.-^, their habits and daily occupation preserved them much
more than the rest of society from the general ignorance and
barbarism.- Whatever little science and learning then remained
in Europe, was concentrated in the Church and tlie monastery ;
these were almost the only schools ; and the benefits conferred
' Fleiin-, Mtrurs <les Chrt'ticns, n. 52, 61, &c.
* Flcur)', Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. 3nl discourse, n. 21, 22. Ryin, RcnefitH of
Christianity, ch. ill. Lingard, AntiquititH of the Anglo-Saxon Clnirch, p.'u*.«im ;
see especially ch. iv. De St. Victor, Tableau de Paris, vol. i. p. 194, &c. De
Montalembert, Hist, de Sainte Elizabeth de Hongrie, Introd. p. T^^i &c. V'oigt,
Hist, of (".regory VII. vol. i. p. 204, *c.
46 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
on society, in this way, especially by the monastic institutions,
were incalculable.^ Wliile they were thus centres of learning and
of civilization, they, moreover, presented to the world moving
examples of virtue, and the most powerful bulwarks against the
universal depravity. Nowhere were so many models of all
the Christian \artues to be found, and especially of that spirit
of charity, which, from the commencement, had distinguished
the monastic state. These striking and numerous examples
caused it to be generally regarded as a state of perfection and
sanctity. Hence, under the monarchies of the middle ages,
as well as under the Roman empire, it often happened, that
monks were taken from their monasteries and raised to the priest-
hood or to the episcopacy : a great number of clerics, more-
over, combined the exercises of the religious life with their
ecclesiastical functions.'- The faithful of every age and rank,
who had an ardent desire of perfection, knew no surer means of
attaining it than by entering a monastery. There might be
seen young children, whom their parents had there consigned, to
preserve them from their tenderest years from the dangers of
the world.^ Old men, who desired to end their days in holiness ;
' Besides the authors cited in the preceding note, see Bergier, Diet. Th^ol.
art. Moines ; Mabillon, Prsef. in Ter. Stec. Bened. § 4 ; Praef. in Quar. Ssec.
part. i. § 8 ; Thomassin, Ancien. et Xouv. Discipline, vol. i. book iii. passim ;
De Hcricourt's Abridgment, part ii. ch. vi. n. 3.
* Thomassin, Ancien. et Nouv. Discipline, vol. i. book iii. ch. iv. xiii. &c.
De Hcricourt's Abridgment, part i. ch. xxii.
^ The ancient custom of offering children to God, in the monastic or the
ecclesiastical state, without waiting for their own consent, has been ^'iewed in
very different lights by authors ancient and modern. The majority of the
ancients considered it a very laudable and pious custom ; they regarded it, as
a modem writer observes, " as a sort of ransom which men in the world paid
to God for their sins ; as a vessel of election which themselves devoted volun-
tarily for the sanctification of their family." (Nettement, Vie de Suger, p. 6.)
Most of the moderns denounce the custom as utterly inexcusable, and opposed
to that liberty which parents are bound to allow their children in the choice of
a state of life, and especially of certain states which impose obligations most
painful to nature. (Nettement, ibid. Nisard, Histoire de la Eeine Blanche,
p. 83.) We are far from wishing to defend manifest abuses of this custom,
which were often the occasion of introducing relaxation and scandals into the
ecclesiastical and monastic states. But on this, as on so many other questions,
may we not draw a distinction between the custom itself and the abuses of
which it has been sometimes the occasion or pretext ? Unquestionably it is
a palpable and gross abuse to constrain the liberty of children with regard to
the grave obligations of the monastic and ecclesiastical state ; and hence this
abuse has been repeatedly denounced by the Church, as may be seen especially
from the 23rd Canon of the Coimcil of Mayence, held in 813, which expressly
CnAl'. l] OVEU .SOVEIIEIGNS. 17
married persons who, by common consent, had renounced the
world to consecrate themselves in solitude to a more jierfiet lite ;
princes and princesses of the highest rank, some of whom came
here to acquire that preciouij treasure, an education suitable to
their rank;' while others, disabused of the illusions of the
world, voluntarily renounced their temporal honours and pro-
perty, to seek in retreat a more solid happiness ; sometimes,
al:>o, scandalous sinners, who, touched with remorse, retired to
practise in solitude a penance which they had not the courage,
or perhaps liberty, to practise in the world.
38. Edifying SjHctacle pmciited hy the principal Religious Orders.
This affecting spectacle, presented to the world by the first
religious orders established after the persecutions in the East
and West, was freijuently renewed in the middle ages, even in
times and in countries which witnessed the most general corrup-
tion of religion. Such, especially, was the spectacle presented
in the ninth century, by the foundation of the monastery of
Aniane in France ; in the tenth century, by the establishment
prohibits the ecclesia-stical i>r monastic tonsure to be given to any person what-
soever under the canonical aj^'e, and without his free consent. (Labbe, Concilia,
vol. vii. p. 12-18.) But \-iewing the thing in itself, a parent nio.st certainly has
a right of consecrating his children to God in their infancy, reserviii;,', liow-
ever, to them the right of annulling or ratifying this oblation when they are
of an age to make a reasonable clioice. It was with this understanding tiiat
chiMrc-n were fonnerly offered to convents and churches. The laws of the
Church did not consider this engagement as irrevocable, but as a sort of uovi-
ciate not always ending in a profession. It was a sure and easy meau.s of
securing a good education for the child, and of preserving him, at least for a
time, from the dangers and contagion of the world. For a development of
these ol>servations, see Mabillon, I'nef. in Ter. Siec. Bened. g 1, n. 17, &c. ;
Pr«f. in Qua. Saec. part. ii. cap. vii. n. 100 ; Pnef. in Sex. Sa?c. part. ii. § 11 ;
Mbge, Comment, sur la Kegle de St. Benoit, ch, i. p. 50-52 ; Fleury, Ilist.
Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ixiii. n. .18.
' P^re Mabillon, in his Acta Ordin. S. Bened. mentions many princes of
the blood royal of France, who received, at different perioils of French history,
their first education in mona-stenes of that order. Among others he mentiims
Lothaire, son of Charles the Balii, who w.as e<lucate<l in the monastery of St.
Citnnain Auxerrc ; Tliierrj' III. in ChcUts ; Louis VI. and many others, in
St. Denis ; as well as Pepin the Little, the founder of the second race, and
Robert, the second king of the third race. (.^L•lbillon, I'nef. in Ter, Sjec.
Bened. § 4, n. 40.) It was during his residence in the monastery of St. Denis
that Louis VI., sumamed the Fat, first became acquainted with the abbot
Suger, then a simple monk in that abltoy ; but whom he soon distinguished
aVxive all the others, and for whom he conceived the high esteem, of which
Suger rendered himself so eminently worthy by the services which he subse-
quently rendered to his prince, and to all France. — Nettement, Vie de Suger,
pp. 11, 12.
48 POWER OF THE POPE [PART TI.
of the order of Cluny in France, and of the Camaldolese in
Italy ; in the eleventh century, by the foundation of the
Chartreux ; in the twelfth century, by the foundation of the
monasteries of Citeaux and Clairvaux ; in the thirteenth century,
by the foundation of the orders of St. Dominic and of St.
Francis. Each of these establishments became, as it were, a
new centre of enlightenment and virtue, whose influence was
felt through the whole frame of society, and which preserved, in
the midst of the universal ignorance and disorder, the ancient
tradition of learning and morality ; so that the founders of these
different orders, St. Benedict, St. Odo, St. Romuald, St. Bruno,
St. Bernard, St. Dominic, St. Francis of Assisium, and so
many other founders or reformers of religious orders, indepen-
dently of those personal virtues which have entitled them to the
public worship of the Church, have lasting titles to general
homage and admiration, for the beneficial influence which they
exercised on all society, both in regard of enlightenment and
civilization, and of virtue and pubhc morals.
39. Tlie Disorders of tlte Middle Ages ojteix exaggerated by Modern Authors.
It evidently follows from all these facts, according to the
remark of Fleury himself,' otherwise so prone to exaggerate the
abuses and disorders which disfigured the Church in the middle
ages,*^ that even the darkest and most unhappy centuries were
not so bad as they have been represented : that, notwithstanding
the progress of vice and ignorance, they were not devoid of
learning and virtue : finally, that the clergy and the religious
orders were then, as at all times, as much distinguished among
the other orders of society by their learning and virtues, as by
the sanctity of their profession.
40. Jliis important Fact admitted hy Authors least liable to the Suspicion of
Partiality.
Such is the character generally given of the clergy of this
' Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. 3rd Discourse, n. 25 : McBurs des Chretiens,
n. 61.
* In another place we have noticed some of these exaggerations (supra,
n. 29, note 1) ; the sequel of our inquiry will furnish an opportunity for point-
ing out many others (infra, n. 57, notes ; and Index to Fleury).
CJIAI'. 1.] OVKU SOVEHKIGNS. V.\
pfriotl. by tlu' ino.st juitlu-ntic luuimnuMit.s i.l' historv. liy the
must judicious WTitors of modern tiujcs," and often l»y those Kiist
su-speeted of partiality to the clcr;xy, find most 0])posed to thtir
temporal power. \V'e give the following extract from a modem
author, whose notorious pnjudices against the Catholic Church,
and especially against the religious state, make his evidence les.s
e.\ce])tionalile tiian any other, in the favourable testimonies which
Sometimes escaj>e him.
41. Rdinarkable Admissions of Ilallam on Oiis Point.
" The bishops," ho writes, " acquired and retained a great
jtart of their a.scendancy by a very respectable instrument of
|K>wer, intellectual superiority. As they alone were acquainted
with the art of writing, thev were naturally intrusted with
political correspondence, and \nth the framing of laws. As thev
alone knew the element"* of a few sciences, the education of
royal families devolved upon them as a necessary duty. In the
fall of Kome their influence upon the barbariaris wore down
the asperities of conquest, and saved the provincials half the
shock of that tremendous revolution. As captive Greece is said
to have subdued her Roman conqueror, so Home, in her own
tun* of servitude, cast the fetters of a moral captivity upon the
fierce invaders of the north, chiefly through the exertions of
the bishops, whose ambition may be forgiven for its eft'ects:*her
religion, her language, in part even her laws, were transplanted
into the courts of Paris and Toledo, which became a degree less
barbarous by imitation."*
42. Serrices rtnclaed to Society by the Monastic Orders, accordinrj to this A uthor.
" If it be demanded by what cause it happened that a few
sparks of ancient learning survived throughout this long winter,
we can only ascrilte their preservation to the establishment of
Christianity. Religion alone made a bridge, as it were, across
the chaos, and has linked the two periods of ancient and modern
civilization. Throughout the whole course of the middle ages,
there was no learning, and very little regularity of manners
' See the authors cited in notes, ch. i. n. 87.
' Hall.im, State of Europe during the Middle Ages. vol. ii. p. 150,
VOL. II. E
50 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
among the parochial clergy. Almost every distinguished man
■was cither the member of a chapter or of a convent. The
monasteries were subjected to strict rules of discipline, and held
out, at the worst, more opportunities for study than the secular
clergy possessed, and fewer for worldly dissipations. But their
most important service was as secure repositories for books.
All our manuscripts have been presented in this manner, and
could hardly have descended to us by any other channel : at
least, there were intervals when I do not conceive that any
royal or private libraries existed.* A salutary influence, breathed
from the spirit of a more genuine religion, often displayed itself
among the corruptions of a degenerate superstition. In the
original principles of monastic orders, and the rules by which they
ought at least to have been governed, there was a character of
meekness, self-donial, and charity, that could not wholly be
effaced ; — in the relief of indigence it may, upon the whole, be
asserted, that the monks did not fall short of their profession.
Nor do we find, in any single instance, during ancient times,
if I mistake not, those public institutions for the alleviation of
human miseries, which have long been scattered over every part
of Europe." The ^irtues of the monks assumed a still higher
character, when they stood forward as protectors of the oppressed.
By an established law, founded on very ancient superstition, the
precincts of a church afforded sanctuary to accused persons.^
How must tliis ri^ht have enhanced the veneration for rehmous
institutions ! How gladly must the victims of internal warfare
have turned their eyes from the baronial castle, the dread and
scourge of the neighbourhood, to those venerable walls, within
which not even the clamour of arms could be heard to disturb
the chant of holy men, and the sacred service of the altar. The
protection of the sanctuary was never withheld. A son of
Chilperic, king of France, having fled to that of Tours, his
father threatened to ravage all the lands of the Church, unless
they gave him up. Gregory the historian, bishop of that city,
replied in the name of his clergy, that Christians could not be
' Ibid. vol. iii. pp. 291, 292.
* See, in confirmation, the details given in the Introduction to this work
(n. 81), and the authors cited in our notes.
^ See Bergier, Diet. Th^ol. art. Asiles.
I MAI'. I.] OVFll SOVEKi:inNS. ;"; I
guilty of an act unlioard of amoiijf painms. The kinfj ^va^s as
good as his word, and did not spare the estate of the Church,
but dared not infriiiire its privileges." ^
43. Ailmiisiuits of M. Guizot. — Ii\fiwnce of the Clevgy on Civilization in Europe.
M. (Juizot's language on this sulyoct is not less remarkable.
He not only acknowledges the happy influences of the Christian
Church on society, under the first Christian emperors,- but
demonstrates, moreover, that this influence was equally bene-
ficial in the new monarchies, which rose in the West on the
ruins of the Roman empire, after the fourth century ; and he
hesitates not to assign this salutary influence as one of the prin-
cipal causes of European civilization from the fifth to the tenth
centun,'. " The Church," he says/ " was a regularly organized
society, having its principles, its rules, its discipline, and ani-
mated with an ardent desire of extending its influence, of
conquering its conquerors. Among the Chri.stian3 of this
period, among the Christian clergy, there were men who had
reflected on all subjects, on all moral and political subjects ;
who had formed on all points fi.xed opinions, energetic senti-
ments, and an ardent desire of propagating them and making
them triumphant. No society ever made more vigorous efforts
to make her influence felt, and to mould to her own form the
world around her, than the Christian Church, from the fifth to
the tenth century. She had, in a manner, assailed barbarism
on all points, to civilize by subduing it. In Spain, it was the
Church herself that commenced the revival of civilization.
There, instead of the old German assemblies, the assembly
which takes the helm is the Council of Toledo ; and thout'li
distinguished laymen assisted in it, the bishops were the ruling
spirits. Open the code of the Visigoths ; it is not a barbarian
code : it was manifestly digested by the philosophers of the day,
by the clergy. It is replete with general principles, and with
theories utterly unknown to barbarian customs. The Visigoth
' Hallam. ubi supm, vol. iii. pp. 291, 292, 301, 802. For this feet, see
Gregory- of Tours, Hi.tt. de France, book v. ; Daniel, Hist, de France ; and
P^re Longueval, Hist, de I'Eglise Gallicane, ami. r>7^).
' See our Introduction, n. 33.
' Guizot, Hist. G4a. de la Ci\nli«ation en Europe, 3rd Le^on, pp. 86, 90,
E 2
52 POWER OP THE POPE [PART II.
code, in a word, bears the impress of a learned, a social, and a
systematic character. It is manifestly the work of the same
clergy which guided the councils of Toledo, and had so powerfid
an influence on the government of the country."
A little farther on, the same author sums up in the following
terms, what he had developed more fully in his preceding lectures
on the salutary influence of the Christian Church on European
society after the fifth century. " At a single glance," he says,
*' we arc struck with an immense difierence between the state of
the Church in the fifth century, and that of the other elements
of European civilization. I have mentioned, as fundamental
elements of our civilization, municipal government, the feudal
system, royalty, and the Church. Municipal government in
the fifth century was but a v^TCck of the Koman empire, a
shadow without life, and without defined form. The feudal
system had not yet come forth from chaos. Iloyalty existed
only in name. All the civil elements of modem society were
either in their infancy or in decrepitude. The Church alone
was young and organized : she alone had acquired a settled form,
and retained all the vigour of her prime : she alone had both
activity and order ; energy and a system, that is, the two great
means of influence. Is it not, I ask you, by moral life, by
internal activity, on the one hand, and by order and dis-
cipline, on the other, that institutions take root in society ?
The Church had, moreover, agitated all the great questions
which concern man : she was solicitous about all the problems
of his nature, about all the chances of his destiny. Hence,
her influence on modern civilization has been immense, greater
perhaps than has ever been imagined by her most ardent adver-
saries, or her most zealous advocates. Absorbed either in her
defence or in aggression, they considered her only in a polemical
point of view, and they have failed, I am convinced, in judging
her with fairness, and in measuring her in all her dimensions."^
44. Salutary Influence of the Cliurch on Social Amelioration,
In the course of the same work he illustrates more fully the
salutary influence of the Church on social amelioration. " The
* Guizot, ibid. 5th Le9on, p. 132.
CHAl'. I.) OVER SOVKRETONS. ')t]
Cliuix-Ii," he observes, "contributed in u most cffieaeiuus manner
to the amelioration of the social state.' Unijuestionably, she
laboured obstinately against the gjeat defects of the social state ;
for instance, airainst slavery. No person can doubt that she
used all her influence to repress it. Of this fact there are un-
deniable proofs. Most of the forms of manumission at dillerent
periods are grounded on motives of religion ; it was in the name
of religion, of hopes beyond the grave, of the equality of men in
the eyes of religion, that freedom was almost invariably con-
ferred. The Church laboured likewise for the extirpation of a
mass of barbarous practices, and for the amelioration of criminal
and civil legislation. You know how absurd and injurious that
legislation then was, notwithstanding some principles of liberty.
You know that foolish ordeals, judicial combats, and the mere
oath of a few persons, were then regarded as the only means of
ascertiiining the truth. The Church laboured to substitute in
this place forms more rational and more legitimate. I liave
already dwelt on the difference between the code of the Visi-
goths and other barbarian codes. No one can compare them
without being impressed with the immense superiority of tlio
principles of the Church in matters of legislation and the ad-
ministration of justice, the discovery of truth and the destiny of
man. Most of these princij)les were no doubt borrowed from
Iloman laws ; but they would have been lost had not the Church
preserved, and defended, and laboured to propagate them.
" In the institutions of the Church there is one fact, which
generally has not been sufficiently studied ; namely, her peni-
tential system. If you study the nature of those ecclesiastical
punishments, that is, public penances, which were her princi{)al
mode of punishment, you will find that their principal object
was to excite repentance in the heart of the criminal, and the
moral terror of example in the hearts of the spectators.
" In fine, she likewise uses every possible means of preventing
recourse to violence, and continual wars. Every one knows the
Truce of God, and a number of similar measures, by which the
Church contended against the empire of force, and endeavoured
to introduce more order and gentleness into society. Factd of
' Guizot, ibid. 6th Le^on, pp. 172178»
54 POWER OF THE POPE [PART JI.
this kind are so well known, that I may well be dispensed from
entering into any details."
The inference which the author draws from these principles is
as honoui'able to the clergy as it is rigorously demonstrated by
histoi7 : " Such, gentlemen, are the principal points which I
have to submit to your reflection, on the relation of the Church
with the people.^ It remains for us now to deduce, by inference
and speculation from what we know, her general influence on
civilization in Europe ; a work which is abeady done, or at least
considerably advanced ; for a simple statement of facts, and of
the dominant principles of the Church, explains and manifests
her influence. The results and the causes have been clearly
passed in re^-iew before you. All things considered, the influence
was beneficial ; it not only kept alive and fecundated intellectual
activity in Europe, but the system of doctrines and of precepts,
in wliosc name it imparted this activity, was far superior to all
that the ancient world had ever known. There was not only
activity, but progress."
45. Admissions of Voltaire. — Usefulness of the Jieligions Orders.
To these remarkable admissions, may be added those of
Voltaire himself, who, notwithstanding his notorious hatred
against religion and her institutions, admits, in many of his
writings, the absurdity of the satires which himself published
against the clergy in general, and the religious orders in par-
ticular— satires echoed by so many other writers.- " It was,"
he observes, " for a long time a consolation for the human race
to have asylums opened for all those who wished to fly the
oppressions of the Goth and Vandal governments. Almost all
who were not lords in their castles, were slaves ; the mildness of
cloisters aiforded a refuge from tyranny and war. The little
knowledge that remained among the barbarians was preserved
by the cloisters. The Benedictines transcribed some books ; by
degrees they made some useful inventions. These monks,
moreover, cultivated the earth, sang the praises of God, lived
frugally, were hospitable, and their example might serve to
' Guizot, ibid. pp. 178-1 SO.
^ Voltaire, Essai sur les Mceurs et I'Esprit des Nations, ch. cxxxix. (CEuvres
completes, 8vo. vol. xviii. p. 235, &c.).
CHAP. I.] OVKR SOVEREIOXS. 55
Soften ferocity in thorfe days of barbarism. It cannot be denied
tliat there were great virtues in the cloister. Tlure is hardly
one monastery at present that does not contain some adiuirable
souls, who are an honour to human nature. Too many writers
have made it their bujiiness to hunt out the disorders and vices
with which these asylums of piety were sometimes disgraced.
It is certain, that the secular life has been always more vicious,
that greater crimes were not committed in monasteries, but that
they have been more remarked by the contrast with their rule —
no state of life was always pure. The Carthusians, notwith-
standing their great wealth, have devoted themselves, without
relaxation, to fasting, to silence, to prayer, and solitude : tran-
quil on earth in the midst of so many agitations, of which the
rumour hardly reaches them, and knowing nothing of kings
except in the prayers offered up for them."
46. Unjuet Declamations of sonu A uUiors on this Point.
The same writer, speaking of some modem authors who have
declaimed excessively against religious orders in general : "It
should have been acknowledged," he observes,' " that the Bene-
dictines have published many valuable books, that the Jesuits
have rendered great services to literature ; blessings should
have been poured out on the brothers of Charity, and on those
of the Redemption of Captives. The first duty is to be just.
It must be lulmitted,'- notwithstanding all that has been said
against their abuses, that there were at all times among tliem,
men eminent for learning and virtue, and that, in general, they
were more to be pitied than blamed. Institutions consecrated to
the relief of the poor,' and to attendance on the sick, were less bril-
liant, but are not less respectable. Perhaps there is nothing greater
on this earth, than the sacrifice made by the tender sex, of their
beauty, of youth, and often of high birth, to console in the
hospitals those masses of human miseries, the very sight of
which is so humiliating to human pride, and so revolting to
our delicacy. Nations separated from the communion of Home
have imitated but very imperfectly this generous charity. There
' Diet. Philos. art. Apocalypse ((Euvros compll'tex, vol. xxxvii. p. 409).
» Voltaire, ibid. art. Biens de rEglise (vol. xxxviii. p. 297).
' Essai sur les Mceurs, ubi supra, p. 249.
56 POWKR OF THE PUPK [I'ART II.
is another congregation more heroic — for so we may style the
Trinitarians for the Redemption of Captives. During five
centuries these religious have devoted themselves to hreaking
the chains of Christians held captive by the Moors : in paying
the ransoms of those slaves, they spend their own revenues and
the alms which they receive, and carry in person to Africa.
Of such institutions no complaints can be made."
Such admissions must undoubtedly be sufficient to establish
the important facts recorded in this article, on the immense
resources which religion and the clergy presented to society
during the disorders of the middle ages. Avowals so unex-
ceptionable cannot be counterbalanced by the invectives and
declamations of a host of authors against the monks and clergy
of that period ; declamations the more unjust, as being, for the
most part, founded either on malignant conjectures, or on
occasional abuses, from which the noblest institutions cannot be
entirely exempt.
47. First Inference from, the preceding Pacts: Influence of the Clergy in the
Temporal Order during the Middle Ages,
From these details, it evidently follows, that the general
interest of society in the middle ages imperatively called for the
influence of the clergy in the temporal order. What, in truth,
could be more natural, than that princes and people should be
most anxious to intrust their interests to that, among all the
orders of the state, which, by its intelligence and virtues, proved
itself most worthy of their confidence, and whose authority was
the chief mainstay of society, and the firmest bulwark of
public order. It was the great object of sovereigns especially,
to increase the power and influence of the clergy. An order so
respected by the people was, from its doctrine and example, the
firmest support of the throne, so frequently endangered in those
times by the insubordination and the revolts of the barons.
The doctrine of the Church on the obedience due to princes,
imprinted as it were on the foreheads of kings a sacred cha-
racter, which made them more venerable in the eyes of their
subjects. According to "the principles of Cliristianity, princes
are the representatives of God on earth, and the depositaries of
his power. It may be easily understood how important, in
CHAT. l] OVER SOVKUKIOSS. r>7
a political view, this doctrine, constuiitly tiiuj^lit by the
Church, uuLst have appeared, in a period of disorder and
anarch}', and amonj; barbarous nations, who acknowledged, so to
speak, no other rein but religion. Ecclesi:istics preached this
doctrine the more eflicaciously, as they generally enforced it by
their example. Amongst them the sovereign found his most
faithful and devoted subjects. The influence of the clergy, as a
recent writer has observed.' aided without endangering the royal
authority ; and if they sometimes are found in the rebel ranks,
it was because they were compelled, for the moment, to be the
tool of passions which they were destined to resist. Their errors
Were not obstinate, as we find from the history of Louis le
Debonnaire ; the bishops who had favoured the revolt of his
children were almost instantly punished by their own brethren
in the episcopacy.*
48. Second I nferenct : Origin of Ecclesicutical Pnncipalities.
So connnced were Charlemagne and his successors of tliis
happy influence of the clergy, in supporting and maintaining
their authority, that one of the principal objects of their policy
was, the multijilicationof ecclesia-stical principalities {stiqnetiries)
in those parts of the empire which were the most diflicult to be
kept in submission.' " Charlemagne and his first successors,"
observes Montesquieu, " were apprehensive that the ofiicers
whom they ])laced over distant territories might revolt ; they
believed that more submi.><sion might be expected from eccle-
siastics ; hence, they established in Germany a great number of
' Bemardi, De I'Origine et des ProgrJa de la Li^gislation Fran9ai8e, book i.
ch. xi. page 7-J.
* Fleurj", Hist. Eccl. vol. x. book xlvii. n. 47. D.iniel, Hist, de Franco,
voL Li. ann. 835. Hint, de TEgluse Gallicine, vol. v. ami. 833.
* " Carolua Magnus, pro coutundenda gentium illarum \CJennanise) feroci.^,
omnes peno tcmw Ecclesiis contulerat ; consiliosissimt; perpendens nolle sacri
ordiniR homines, tam facili* quhm laicos, fidelitatcm Domini rejicere ; pnetcrea
si laici rel>«llarent, illos posset cxcommunicatioiiia aucU^ritate, et potcntiae
hcveritate conipestcere." — (Julicl. de Malni''nl)Urien. Dc Oentis Anglonim,
lib. V. (apud Hen. Savillium, Anglicarum n rum ScriptorcH, Londini, 1596,
fol. p. 16G). See, in support i<f this tt-stiniony, Tli<>ma»<in, Aiicien. ct Nouv.
Discipline, vol. iii. l«>jk i. ch. xxviii. xxx. ; Mt-moirc.^ dc I'Acadt'niie dcs In-
8cription.s, vol. ii. 4to. p. "11 (vol. iii. 12ino. p. 442) ; Maimbourg. Hist, de la
D6cadence de I'Empire de Charlemagne, book iii. p. i. et seq. ; Gaillard, Hi.it.
de Charlemagne, vol. ii. p. 124 ; Hallam, Europe in the Middle Ages, vol. ii.
pp. 145, Jkc. ; Nettement, Vie de Suger, pp. 11, 32. 37, 46, et alibi paasim.
58 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
bishoprics, and annexed to them extensive fiefs. These were the
advanced guards wliich they set against the Saxons. What they
could not expect from the indolence or neglect of a lord {leude),
they believed they had reason to expect from the zeal and
vigilant attention of a bishop : the former, moreover, instead of
being of use to them against the vanquished people, would, on
the contrary, have need of them to resist that people." ^ This
is the real origin, or at least one of the principal causes, of the
establishment of tliose ecclesiastical principalities which con-
tributed so efficiently to augment the temporal power and wealth
of the clergy in all the Christian states of Europe during the
middle ages. This is more especially the origin of the great
ecclesiastical fiefs of the German empire, which lasted until very
lately, with all the rights and prerogatives conferred on them
by the ancient constitution of the state.^
49. Third Inference : Influence of the Pope in the Government of States.
The same circumstances which necessitated the interference of
the clergy in the temporal government of states, also brought in
the exercise of papal influence. In the midst of the disorders
of all kinds, which disfigured society, the princes saw in the
Holy See, a centre at once of religion, of enlightenment, and
of civilization : still more, they saw in it the most powerful
protection which they could invoke against the usurpations of
their neighbours, and against the rebellions of their vassals.
There was, then, no other authority acknowledged universally but
that of the pope ; and being thus the most respected of all, even
by the most violent and barbarous men, is it surprising, that the
sovereigns should be solicitous to have the Holy See as the
arbiter of their differences, as a mediator and guarantee of their
treaties, and sometimes, even to do homage to it for their king-
doms, in order to secure more effectually the aid which they
required ? How strongly must they have been confirmed in
those dispositions by the firmness with which the Holy See
asserted the rights of those sovereigns who had recourse to its
' Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois, book xxxi. ch. xix.
' See, on the ancient constitution of the German empire, Lenglet-Dufresnoy,
M^thode pour etudier I'Hist. vol. vi. 12mo. edit. ch. v. art. 4 ; Diet, de
Moreri, art. Allemagne et BuUe d'Or.
CH.vr. l] UVEK SuVKUKIONs:. o!>
tutehiry power. Whcuevcr a usurper attempteJ to seize the
territories of a prince who was a vassal of the pope,' he was
instantly intimidated, and often stopped in his career, by the
remonstrances and threats of the pope, tellinji; him, as St. (ire-
gory VII. did to Vezelin, the leader of a hand of rebels a^'ainst tin-
king of Diilmatia, " We are exceedingly astonished that, after
having long since promised to be a vassal to St. Peter and to us,
you attempt now to rise up against him whom the apostolical
authority has appointed king of Dalmatia.- We, therefore, in
the name of St. Peter, prohibit vuu to take arms against that
king, because whatever you do against him, you do against the
Holy See itself If you have any grounds of complaint, you
should ask justice of us, and wait fur our decision : otherwise,
know that we will draw against thee the sword of St. Peter,
to punish thy audacity, and the temerity of all those who shall
favour thee in this enterprise."'
50. FuurUi Injaaux : Ri<jh( of Soimi'jnli/ of l/tc Holy See over many Staid.
This has invariably been the language and conduct of the
' In the style of the middle nges, a feudatory or vassal was a lord subject to
another, as his .suzerain or liege lord, from whom he held hLs fief or domaiu.
Tlie right of the liege lord over his vassal w;us called the right of suzerainte.
• Demetriui», or Zuitennir, king of Dalmatia, had freely acknowledged him-
self a vassal of the Holy See in lU76. (Baronius, ann. 1076, n. (J5, GO.) llie
fre*iuent revolutions in Dalmatia at thiH period, incline us to believe that this
act of Demetrius was suggested by the desire of procuring peace for his do-
minions, as the same thing was often done subsequently by many other sove-
reigns. It appears that hitherto the king of Dalmatia had been vas.sal of the
emperor of Constantinople ; but the weakness or timidity of those emperors
not inspiring Demetrius with a hope of that protection and succour which he
nee<led, induced him to renounce allegiance to the emperor, and to place him-
self under the pnjtection of the Holy See. See Ducange, Hlyricum A'etus et
Novum, sen Hi^t. Dalmatiie, &c. Posonii, 17-16, fol. ; Georges Pray, Annates
Reg. Hungar. Vindolx)nse, 1764, fol. vol. i. p. 76.
• " Scias nos de prudentiA tuA nmltum mirari, ut qui to esse dudum l.>eato
Petro et nobis fidelem proraiseris, contra eum quern in Dalmati/l rogem auc-
toritas ajKJstolicA constituit, tu m<xlo coneris iuburgere. Quapropter nobiliU'item
tuam monemu.<, et ex j^>arte W-ati Petri pnccipimus, ut adversiw jam dictum
regenj <leinceps amia capere non pnesumas ; sciens quod quidcjuiil in ilium
ausas fiicris, procul dubio to in apustolicam sedem facturum. Si ver6 atlverstis
ipaum ali<iuid tc fortl- dicLs habere, a nobis judicium deUts expetere, et expcc-
tare juHtitiam, potius quhin contra eum, ad injuriam sedis apostoliai-, manus
tuas armare. Qucxi si te tutu temeritati.s non jMinituerit, sed contra mandatum
nostrum contumaciter iro tentaveris, sciaa indubitanter, quia gladium beati
Petri in audaciam tuam evaginabimus, et eo<lem pertinaciam tuam, et omnium
qui tibi in ea re faverint, nisi rehi[>i8ca», mulctabimus." — Gregorii VII. Epist.
Ub. vii. epist. 4 (Baronii Annales, ann. 1079, n. 29).
60 POWER OF THE POPE [PART 11.
popes of the middle ages against usurpation : they employed
their ascendancy, and their spiritual arms, in the defence of
those who had placed themselves under their protection, as tem-
poral princes employed the force of arms in defence of their
vassals. This explains the conduct of so great a numher of
sovereigns, who, from the tenth century, hecame, of their own
free will, vassals of the Holy See. Such a measure, however
extraordinary it may appear at present, was not on their part
merely an act of religion, inspired by a profound respect fur the
Church and the Holy See : it was, moreover, a measure of
policy, grounded on the temporal interests of the kings and
their subjects.' It is easy for superficial or prejudiced writers
in modern times to attribute to papal ambition the really pro-
digious power vested in the popes by this combination of cir-
cumstances ; but omittina; altoircther the fact, that this state of
things was entirely independent of their will, is it not a palpable
injustice to attribute to their ambition a power which was freely
conferred on them by sovereigns, as much from motives of
interest as from motives of relicrion ? Far from meritino; these
censures, would not the popes have been far more re])rehensible,
if they had refused an authority so necessary at the time for the
good of society, and the tranquillity of kingdoms ?
51. Tlie Influence of the Pope more frequently exercised, and more extensive^
during the Crusades.
The intervention of the pope in the public affairs of Europe,
already so common, in consequence of the circumstances just
stated, and of many others mentioned in a preceding article,
became much more so in the time of the Crusades ; because it
was then more than ever necessary for the management and
success of those expeditions, in which the common interests
of Christendom were so much involved.^ This truth was
' See, in support of these observations, Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. i.
sec. i. cap. xiv. ; Lingard, Hist, of England, vol. iii. oh. i. ; Affre, Essai His-
torique sur la Supr^matie Temporelle du Pape et de I'Eglise, ch. xviii. p. 309,
&c. ; De Montalembert, Hist, de St. Elisabeth de Hongrie, Introd, p. xxvL
&c. ; Jager, Introd. h, I'Hist. de Gr^goire VII. pp. xxi.-xxiii.
* Many modern authors, especially during the two last centuries, have
regarded the crusades merely as wars undertaken through a misguided zeal
for religion. It would be difficult to compress into fewer words a more com-
plete defence of these expeditions than the Abb^ Cambacerfes pronounced iu
CHAP. I.] OVER .SOVKHKIQNS. (II
felt by the sovereijpis tlu-msi-lvcs, who soon ni^anU-d iinaniiuously
the pope ;is the soul and priiicijial sujiport of thcrfc great cnter-
prbes. '' Every one knowd," obsi-rves Bossuet, " that, at this
time, Christian sovereigns were perfeetly satisfied with having
the pope supremo in all matters relating to the holy wars, in
order that they should be carried on with more concert and
respect for religion. Often the kings and princes who enrolled
themselves in tiie holy war, placed their persons and their pro-
perties under the protection of the pope. A brief allusion only
is renuired to recall these certain and notorious facts. Nor was
it in the holy wars alone, but also in all others, that sovereigns
by their treaties of peace submitted themselves to the authority
of the Holy See, to confirm and to insure the execution of their
treaties ; thus they called in religion to their aid : whence it
happened, that the most important political affairs were arranged
at Home, in presence of the pope. By this means, the spiritual
power u.surped many rights of sovereigns ; and though the
Cliristian princes were aware of the fact, they did not always
1763, in his PanegjTic on St. Louis: "To transport beyond the sea factious
and rebel v.-w«aU, and thereby to restore peace to the stitc ; to turn at,'!iiii.''t
the liarljarians the fury of those tameles.s lions who were destroying their own
country, and thereb}- to give the i)eople some rest ; to occujiy their anna
against a distant enemy, that they might not tuni them against their kings,
and thereby to consolidate the throne ; to stifle civil wars by foreign exj)e-
ditions, — there is their [KAUiccU object. To fight a ferocious |)eople, who ranked
the extermination of the Christians as one of their articles of faith, who
ha<l carried their ravages into Spain, into Portugal, into Germany, and even
into France ; who were preparing the subjugation of all Christendom, if reli-
gion had not combine<l all Christian jjrinces against those rajjid concjuerors,
and by the crusailes delivered Asia and secured Euroj)e, — there in thiir juMicc.
Ijci U8 then be bold enough to defy prejudice, anil to picture to ourselves these
holy wars with the success which might have crowned them. Asia would not
now l)e a prey to barbarians : the law of the Gospel would have made men and
morals there, where the law of an impostor has engendered a state of morals
disgr.iceful to humanity. A-ia, Africa, and Kurope would be, so to speak,
only one people and one religion ; the sea would be without pirates, commerce
without an obstacle, the Christian name without enemies : millions of hapless
beings, our brethren ami felloweountrj-men, wovild not now Ik; groaning, to
the disgrace of nations, under the chains of the infidel ; and thus beholding the
world enuinci]>at«d from the Ottoman yoke, instead of saying, ' What a folly
were these cru8a<les,' we should exclaim, ' What a misfortune to the world
that the crusades have not succeeded.' Tliia is their defence."
In corroboration of this opinion, see the following works : Bergier, Diet.
Theol. art. Croisa<les ; Feller, I>ict. Histor. art. I'ierre I'Ennite ; De Maistre,
Du Pape, book iii. ch. vii. ; De Choiseul <l'Aillecourt, De I'lnfluence des
Croisades, p. [» ; D'Exauvillez, Hist, de (Jo<lefroy de Bouillon, Introd. p. 29,
&.C. ; Frayssinous, Pan«^gyrique de Saint Louis, part iii. (Discours In^lits,
p. 433, &c.).
()2 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
manifest any repugnance : frequently they approved it, by their
consent, their permission, or their silence." '
52. Memarkable Examples of this Influence.
From the history of those ages, an immense number of facts
might be selected, to confirm those assertions.^ During all the
Crusades, and especially during the first, sovereigns and their
armies were often seen placing themselves almost in absolute
dependence on the pope. At the voice of the head of the
Church innumerable hosts of Crusaders were seen assemblinor
from all quarters, arming and marcliing for the East. In
concert with, and even at the request of, the Christian princes,
the pope watched over the prompt and faithful accomplishment
of their vows, examined and pronounced on the causes of
exemption, ordered contributions and taxes for the expenses of
the holy war, directed in person or by his legates the march of
the armies, and the negotiations of the Chiistian princes with
the infidels. So fully did the Crusaders profess their depen-
dence on the pope, in the true spirit of their pious enterprise,
that they sometimes pressed him to come and lead them in
person : ' and, on one occasion of imminent danger to Christen-
' " Neminem, credo, latet (ecclesiasticam potestatem multa sibi vindicasse
civilia, principum concessione aut consensione), sacrorum belloruni, qute cruci-
atas vocaut, tempore, sive illte in Saracenos recuperandae Pahestinae gratia,
sive ill hiBreticos susceptse assent. Placebat enim Qiristianis regibua, in illis
sacris bellis, praeesse omnibus pontificiam potestatem, ut et conjunctioribus
aniinis, et majori religionis reverentia rem gererent. Saepe etiam reges ac
principes, bellum sacrum inituri, se suaque omnia pontificibus tuenda com-
mendabant. Haec obvia et nota tanttim referimus. Neque duntaxat in sacris,
sed etiam in omnibus bellis, pacto de pace fcedere, hujus firmandi et exequendi
gratia, sedi apostolicae se ultro submittebant ; aliisque multis modis se reli-
gionis nomine ac reverentia tutabantur ; quibus fieret ut saecularia negotia
maxima, Romae potissimtim coram pontifice tractarentur. Per eam interim
occasionem, spiritualis potestas multa regum jura invadebat ; ctunque id per-
spicerent boni ac pii principes, non semper repugnabant. . . . sed (in hia om-
nibus) diligentissimfe secemenda quae a Christo concessa sint (Ecclesiae), ab iis
quae reguni auctoritatc, consensu, 2ienn>ssu, connivcntld, silent io denique, gesserit
aut habuerit." — Bossuet, Defensio Declar. lib. iv. cap. v.
^ Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xviii. 6th Discourse, n. 7, S. De Choiseul d'Aille-
court, De I'lnfluence des Croisades, pp. 83, 84. Michaud, Hist, des Croisades,
vol. vi. book xxii. ch. vii.
* See the letter of the cnisaders to Urban II. after the capture of Antioch,
in 1098. This letter has been preserved to us by Foiicher de Chartres, Gesta
Pei-egrin. Francor. (vol. i. of the Collection by Bougars ; Gesta Dei per Fran-
cos, Hanoviae, 1611, 2 vols. fol. ; vol. iv. of Duchesne's Collection of Histo-
rians of France). An extract from this letter is given in tlie work, .already
CHAP. f.J OVKR SOVKUEIONS. Gli
dom, a po|>o sixty years of ajro tOdk tliat extraordinary resolu-
tion, which ikath alone prevented hiiu from aeeoinjilishin;^.'
We should far exceed our prescribed limits, were we to
attempt collecting the innumerable proofs scattered in every
page of the history of the Crusades, of the extraordinary influ-
ence exercised by the popes in the government of kingdoms, and
in the general atVaii"S of Europe, by the very necessity of tlic
times, and with the express or tacit consent of sovereigns.
We must content ourselves with citing especially the (,'ouncil of
Clennont, held under Pope Urban II. in 1().')5, which proclaimed
the first Crusade : the first general Council of Lateran, held in
1 1 23 ; and many other general or particular councils, whose
decrees on tem})oral matters, and especially on all that concerned
the holy wars, were approved by the sovereigns who assisted
either in {»erson or by their ambassadors at these councils. We
should bear in mind al-^o, the details of the regency of the
abbot Suger in France, during the absence of Louis the
Young ; the history of the assault and capture of Constantinople
by the Crusaders in 120I-, and the principal events connected
therewith.- All these events, and many others to which we
cannot even briefly refer, supply manifest proof of our exposition
of these matters, which justified, and often imperatively required
the inten'ention of the popes in the political affairs of Europe.
They also furnish a natural explanation of a great number of
facts, which, from not having been considered in their true point
of view, have been judged so differently by modern authors, and so
malignantly interpreted by the enemies of the Church and of
the Holy Sec.'
citetl, of Choiseul d'Aillecourt, De I'liifluence des Croisadea, pp. 84, 281 ; ami
in Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ixiv. n. 58.
' On this extraordin.-»ry resolution of Pius II. Bee Michaud, Hist, dea Croi-
■idea, vol. v. book xx. ann. \\>'>'i, p. 37*J, Ac. ; De ChoiHeuI d'Aillecourt, ubi
■upra, p. 281 ; Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xxiii. book cxii. n. 98, &c.
' For detailed accounta of these events, see especially Fleury, Pdre Daniel,
Pere Longueval, Hist, des Croisadt-s, Michaud, &c. With regard to the abbot
Suger'a regency in particular, see Nettement, Vie de Super, pp. 184-187, 2tJ8-
278, 31 S, &.C. On the Hiege aru! capture of C<in.stantinople by the CruaaderH,
see Hurter, Hi«t. of Innocent III. vol. i. book vii. viii.
' These ol>«er\-ati<>ns may Im very usefiU in explaining the conduct of Inno-
cent III. to the kings of F'rance and England (in 1199) ; that of Gregory IX.
and of his succes-sors to Frederick II. (1239-124.'») ; that of IJonifiice VIII. to
Philip the Fair (1296 and 13o2) ; and, in fact, many authors have justified that
conduct on these principles, at leant on many points, as we shall 30on have
occasion to show (infra, ch. iii. art. i.).
G4 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
53. Necessity of the Influence of the Clergy in the Middle Ages acknmdedged by
unexceplionahie A uthorities.
All the observations made in the course of this article to
explain the frequent intervention of the popes and councils in
the political affairs of Europe during the middle ages, were
already felt, even in those later days, by a great number of
writers who were otherwise opposed to the prodigious develop-
ment of the temporal power of the clergy. Notwithstanding
their notorious prejudices on this subject, these authors have no
difficulty in acknowledging that the influence of the clergy on
the temporal governments of those times was rendered imperative
by the deplorable situation of society ; that princes and people
were equally interested in acknowledging and maintaining this
influence : and that the power of the Holy See, in particular,
was a kind of dictatorship necessary for the defence of society
against the universal anarchy which threatened it with utter
ruin. We have already cited, in support of these assertions,
many remarkable testimonies.^ We subjoin others, which seem
equally entitled to attention.
64. Testimony of Bossuei.
Bossuet, in his Defence of the Declaration, explains, in the
following terms, the origin and progress of the temporal power
of the Church and the Holy See, from the conversion of Con-
stantino until the election of Charlemagne to the empire of the
West. " Every one knows," he observes, " the judicial powers
of the bishops in the earlier ages of the Church. Without
entering into a detail of all the laws of princes, which prove
this assertion, we need but read what is said on the point in the
Justinian code, under the title, ' De Audientifi Episcoporum,' -
and we shall at once see how powerful the bishops were, even at
a time when they had as yet no civil ofiices.^ Even the tem-
' See (supra, n. 18) the testimonies of Voigt, Hurter, and of many other
Protestant writers.
* Cod. Justinian, lib. i. tit. iv.
' It is not correct to say that at this epoch, that is, in the reign of Justinian,
the bishops had as yet no civil offices ; on the contrary, it is certain that, even
before this time, the bishops already occupied, by concession of the emperors,
many important civil offices. See details on this subject in the Introduction
to this work, art. ii. §§ 5, 6.
I IIAl'. l.J OVER SOVEUKIU.NS. !•"«
|M.>ml assiiitance which they hivishc-d on their Hocks with a truly
patcnial charity, made them be roj^arded, not only U8 the
ornaments, hut still more, a.s the defenders and the support of
tlie state. Under this conviction, kings and people conceived so
much esteem and veneration for them, aa to consider them tho
first order, and, as it were, the first barons of the state. Many
of them oven became, in course of time, lords and temporal
princt« of their cities. This power, added to their sacred cha-
Hicter, and founded even on the ditriiity of that character, is
Very different from what they possessed by virtue of tli<ir
original institution. In ecclesiastical power, we must, tlierefore,
distinguish what is essential to its institution, frt;m what iuis
been subsequently superadded to it : what is primary, from what
is only secondary ; what is essential, from what is purely acci-
dental. The more e.valted was the dignity of the popes, either
as the successors of St. Peter, and in this capacity having no
superior, or as bishops of the capital of the world, the great«T
was the extent of this secondary and accidental power with
which they were invested. From that moment, the Holy See
began to exercise a great influence, not only in ecclesiastical
affairs, which naturally belonged to its sphere, but also in civil
affairs : especially from the time when the emperors, finding
their power annihilated in the West, had no other means of
supporting their dignity there, than the respect and fidelity
which the popes retained for them."'
' " Quid enim episcopi, primiB Eoclesiae temporibus, in judicii.i potiierint,
ncminem latet, probatque tituluM do Ji/iUcopaii auditiitid, in Codice, ut hie
alia priniipum constituta omitUimiis. Tant-* potorant, cfini necduin aliquid
publici muneriH atti>fi.s.-<ent. C'iiin auU-m c-<)nimis»a.H greges, juittTnil earitate,
etiam in ne(r<)lii.'< .seculariliUH aiijuvarent, ipsique n-ipublicu;, nun tautiun cuiia-
mento, vertm etiani tutela- a^' tiniianicnto essent, fos tnnta rrf/iim ai- rirlum
carilat et reveretitia prraecula rst, ut jam reipublicce }>ars tmurima, interque apti-
raatet primt habtrmtur ; niulti etiam, lapKU ternporiH, HUarum urbiuin princi-
patuin ditionemque obtinerent ; quse sarro conjuncti ordini, et ejus diyiiitafe
taniquam fundiniento nixa, longt; tamen absunt ab iis ({uae priniiu institutionis
ease constat. Distinguamus itariue, qu.i' hi tituliouU sint, (juie Hint anrjuiioniii ;
qiue primari't, qua; .•urtiiKlaria ; qu:r intiata, qua? aniw.ra Hint. Pontifices
Romaiii', quo altiore k>c<> erant, Petri nomine ac inaje«iate priniuni, qiiai po«t
Christum erat maxima, turn domina* urbis nplcndore comnu'iniati, hn'c ainuj-a
et teciindaria longJ" cminentihs obtinebant. Ca-pit ergo Romana (x-des, non
niod6 in eccleHiasticiii, quod et ipsi innatum. Bed etiani in civilibuH niajeHtatem
habere negotiis ; eo maximb tempore, quo iniperatorec, wdulA in Occidente
imperii vi, Rnmannrum pontificum Mf atque olistTv.-inliA singulari, .su.im dig-
nitatem in hi- partihus siistentaljant." — Hosnuet. ])efeDHio l)eclarat. lib. ii.
cap. xxxvi.
vol.. II. r
GG POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
55. Testimony of Bernardt.
A legal writer of our times, who has made the legislation of
the middle ages his particular study, adopts fully the explana-
tion of Bossuet, and applies it to account for the extraordinary
increase of the temporal power of the clergy in all the Catholic
states of Europe. After the reign of Charlemagne, "sovereigns
themselves," observes Bernardi,^ "derived advantage from the
great temporal power of the clergy. The great men of the
state were exceedingly untractable ; they submitted reluctantly
to the laws. To consolidate the throne, and to protect them-
selves from the insults to which they were continually exposed,
kings were compelled to throw themselves into the arms of the
clergy, among Avhom they found their most enlightened and
most loyal subjects. The intelligence of the clergy was, more-
over, useful in all departments of the administration, in which
it was found necessary to employ them. From all these circum-
stances arose the credit which the clergy enjoyed, from the very
birth of the European monarchies ; the inspection which they
exercised over the civil judges ; and the authority which they had
in the different branches of the public administration, the true
rules of which were known to them alone : hence, also, the
frequent use of canonical punishments, which alone could influ-
ence men who defied all others."
56. A dmissions of M. Hurler.
In his History of Innocent III., M. Hurter, as we have
already seen, not only applies these principles to explain and
vindicate^ the frequent interference of the Holy See in the
political affairs of Europe during the middle ages ; but acknow-
ledges more especially the importance and good results of that
interference during the Crusades. " We cannot," he observes,
" estimate too highly the services rendered by the papacy in
combinino; the forces of the West ao;ainst that torrent of bar-
barian hordes, which threatened to overwhelm Europe. " Who
knows whether it is not to these Crusades, that this part of the
' Bemardi, De I'Origine et des Progres de la Legislation Fran9aiae, Paris,
1816, 8vo. book i. ch. xi. pp. 71-75.
* Supra, n. 19.
CUXW I.] nVJK SSOVKUFUIXS. (;7
wiirlJ owes its preservation from an irrn|)(ion a.'^ »lisa.strons a.s
those of 7I<> and of 1G.S3 ^ And if we cast a ^lam-e hack
from the year \.'r2\) to the fonr preceding centuries, must we not
conchule that it is to those who directed the forces of Europe
agtiinst tlie Moshni territories, that Kurope owes its escape from
the invasions of the followers of Mahomet ? " '
57. Jiiojtisistencifg of innnij M'nUrn Wrilos on tJiU Subject.
It were superfluous to add more citations on this suhject.
We shall merely call attention to the natural inferences from
the facts and testimonies collected in this article, against the
imputation of ambition and usurpation thrown by so great a
number of modem writers on the clergy of the middle ages, and
principally on the popes, for the extraordinary power with which
lisage and the custom of their times had invested them.-
\S hat semblance of probability is there in assigning so dis-
graceful an origin to a power, exercised from the fii-st by so great
a number of popes, distinguished by the eminence of their
virtu'-'s ; a power which princes and people had freely conferred
on the clergy, and which was in general used in a manner so
commendable, and so useful to the general good of society ?
ARTICLE III.
Legislation of the MiiMle Apes on the Temporal Consequences of Public
Penance and of Excomniunicationa in the Case of Private ludividuala.
58. Origin of this Lcrjiilal ion.
The intimate union of the two powers, in all the Christian
states of Europe during tiie middle ages ; the pre-eminence
enjoyed by the clergy among all orders of the state ; the pro-
found respect of the people for religion, which was then generally
regarded as the basis and indispensable support of government ;
all these circumstances combined, shoiild naturally introduce
the custom of confirming the divine and ecclesiastical laws by
the authority of princes, and by the sanction of temporal
punishments. This custom, already established by the Chri.-tian
' Hurtcr, History of Innocent III. vol. ii. p. 518.
' See note 1. n. 17.
r '1
68 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
emperors from the time of Constantine's conversion,' should
appear the more natural in the other states, as in them the
union of the two powers was far more strict, and the rudeness of
the people made the use of temporal penalties far more neces-
sary for the maintenance of public order. This is the real
origin of the temporal penalties enacted by the legislation of
all Christian states during the middle ages, against heresy,
apostasy, blasphemy, and many other crimes contrary to reli-
gion.^
From the exposition given in the Introduction to this work,
of the principal provisions of the Roman law against heresy,
a sufficiently accurate knowledge may be had of the laws of
the middle ages on the same subject ; for they were adopted
without any change from the Roman law. To avoid, therefore,
a useless repetition, we shall confine ourselves, in this third
article, to the temporal effects annexed by the laws of the middle
ages to public penance, and to excommunication. These effects
we shall consider principally as they regarded private persons,
reserving for the following chapter their application to sove-
reigns.
{;} 1 . Temporal Ejects of Public Penance.^
59. Ancient Discipline of the Church on Public Penance.
The origin and progress of this custom are the more worthy
of attention, as it appears to have insensibly paved the way for
' See the details on this subject in the Introduction to this work, art. ii.
§2.
^ With regard to French legislation on this point, see especially the Analyse
des Capitulaires, in the Hist, des Auteurs Sacrt^s et Eccle's. by D. Ceillier,
vol. xviii. p. 380. This analysis is scattered through vols. ix. and x. of
Fleury's Hist. Eccl. ; in vols. iv. and v. of I'Hist. de I'Eglise Gallicane ; in the
Annales du Moyen Age, vol. v. book xvii. p. 69 ; vol. viii. book xxvii. p. 47 ;
book XXX. passim. For English legislation, see Lingard's Anglo-Saxon Church,
ch. V. and History of England, vol. i. ch. ii. ; Leges Ethelberti, Inse, &c.
(Wilkins, Concilia Britanniae, vol. i ) ; Alban Butler, Lives of Saints, Oct. 28,
note on Alfred the Great. For the legislation of Spain, and of other countries,
see in D. Ceillier's work, 1' Analyse des Conciles ou Assemblies mixtes, held in
these different states, since the sixth century, vols. xvii. xxii. xxiii.
^ This historical fact, which is in general not much known, was carefully
treated by Pere Morin, in his work, Commentarius Historicus de Disciplinfi
in Administratione Sacramenti Poenitentise olim observ-ata, Paris, 1651, fol.
lib. v. cap. xviii.-xxv. ; lib. vii. cap. iv.-vii. A long analysis of this work is
given in the Biblioth^ut des Auteurs Eccl^s. du xvii. Si^cle, by Dupin,
part ii. p. 254.
CHAP. I.J OVEU SUVKIIKIUNS. ij'J
the discipline of the miiKlle ages, on the temporal effects of
t'Xcomuiuniciition.
From the time of the persecutions, the Church prescribed
various practices of external and public penance for sinners
guilty of certain enormous crimes, such as apostasy, murder, and
fornicatiun.' Great disputes, it is true, have been raised among
the learned, on the origin and variations of this ancient disci-
pline, and especially on the class of crimes subjected to public
penance by the laws of the Church. All mortal sins, however
secret, were, according to some authors, subject to it ; others
assert, that it was not imposed on secret sins, nor even on
public sins, except those of a singular grievousness. But what-
ever may be thought of those discussions, which do not affect
our object, it is certain, and generally admitted, that many
gri.evous sins were, from the time of the persecutions, subjected
to public penance, both in the East and in the West : that this
discipline was generally enforced, with more or less rigour, until
the eighth century, in the Western Church, where it gradually
fell into disuse between that period and the twelfth century ;
finally, that while this ancient discipline was in force, and i)rin-
cipally from the fourth to the eighth century, the course of
public penance was practised not only by public and scandalous
sinners, but also by a small number of pious Christians, who
subjected themselves to it voluntarily, either for the expiation of
some secret sins, or simply from devotion and fervour.
From the fourth century, the di.scipline on this matter was
much more severe in the West than in the East. In addition
to those painful and humiliating exercises, which invariably
accompanied public penance, the usage of the Latin Church
annexed, moreover, from that period, many temjionil effects,
unknown in the Greek Church, and on which the discipline of
the Latin Church itself varied considerablv, according to times
and places. We shall trace here, in a few words, the principal
variations of this discipline.
' On this jwint the rea<ler may con'nilt P. Morin, ubi Rupra ; Siniiond, IIIhI.
de la Penitence Publitjue ; Nat. Alexander. DLstwrt. vi. ot mcmj. in Hist. Pk-clea.
Seculi Tertii ; Bingliain, Originiw »ive AntiijuitaU!-* Eccle«. toni. viii. lib. xviii. ;
Billuart, Digressio Hist<iri«.», ad calceni TracUitilH de PffnitentiA ; Kleury,
Hiat. Eccl. vol. ii. l>ook \-i. n. 20 ; vol. iii. lK>ok x. n. ."S ; M(».urs den ('lirt-tiens,
n. 25, 2ti ; Marchetti, Critique de Fleury, part i. § 6 ; Muzzartlli, Ivcinarques
sur I'Hist. Eccl. de Fleury, §§ 8, 9, 10 ; Alhan Butler, Moveable Feaflts, 5th
Treati.xe, cli. viii.
70 POWER OF TUE POPE [PAKT II.
60, Temporal Effects of PMic Penance in tlie West after the Fourth Century.
I. From the fourth to the eighth century, public penitents in
the West were generally prohibited to marry, or to live with
their wives, or to accept any secular office dangerous to salvation,
such as in the army, or on the bench, and many others.* This
discipline, it is true, was not observed with uniform strictness in
all places : some churches considered it not obligatory as a precept,
but rather as a matter of devotion, and a mere counsel :* others
admitted it, but with restrictions more or less important.^ Still,
it appears certain, that from the fifth to the eighth century, it
was generally considered obligatory in the West, and especially
in France and Spain. According to the discipline of these
times, the temporal effects above mentioned were annexed to
public penance, whether prescribed for some public crime, or
voluntarily embraced, either for some secret sin or purely from
devotion. These temporal consequences, moreover, were in-
curred, not only while the public penance lasted, but also after
it had been finished, and during the life of the penitent, so that
public penance was then considered as a perpetual engagement
to a life of retirement and of perfection. A detailed history of
all the variations of discipline on this point would caiTy us too
far, without being useful to our purpose. We shall therefore
merely cite the principal authorities which prove the existence of
this discipline, principally in France and Spain, from the fourth
to the eighth century.
61. Meviarkahk Testinwny of St. Leo on this Point.
One of the most remarkable is that of St. Leo, in his letter
' Morin, De Pcenitentia, lib. v. cap. xviii.-xxiii, Duguet^ Confi^rencea Eccl^s.
vol. i. Dissertation xxx. p. 511.
^ In confirmation of this assertion, Pfere Morin cites Sermon 58 De Tempore,
attributed to St. Augustin. It appears this sermon was by St. Cae-sarius of
Aries ; it is the 25Sth sermon in the Appeudi.x of vol. v. of St. Augustin's
works, edit. Bened.
' This discipline, it appears, was not admitted in England without many
restrictions. There are, however, some traces of it in the statutes drawn up,
about the year 6S0, l)y Tlieodoi-e, archbishop of Canterbury, and in those of
Egbert, archbishop of York, about the year 750. These two prelates adopted
on public penance, and on many other points, the milder discipline of the Greek
Church. See in vol. vi. of Labbe's Concilia, pp. 1616, 1877, the statutes of
Theodore, n. 51, 53, et alibi passim, and those of Egbert on Penance, n. 3.
See also Lingard, Anglo-Saxon Church, ch. vi.
CHAP, l] OVER SOVKUKIONS. 71
to Rusticus of Narbonne, about the year 4.")(). This prelate
had consulted the pope on the conduct to be observed to those
who, after having completed the course of public penance,
ventured to plead in the courts, to embark in commerce, to
return to the army, or to marry. The pope declares all these
things contrary to the common custom, but not absolutely for-
bidden, except returning to the army, which could not be done
without danger. " It is entirely contrary," he answers, " to the
rule of the Church, to return to tlie army after having gone
through public penance. Whoever returns thus to the warfare
of the world, entangles himself in the toils of the devil."'
Here it must be remarked, first, that St. Leo not only speaks of
penitents who are actually engaged in a course of public penance,
but also of those who have completed it ; secondly, that the
then existing discipline on the temporal effects of public penance
was in force before the pontificate of St. Leo, since he describes
it as founded on more ancient ecclesiastical rules. Fleury has
been, therefore, grievously led astray by supposing, in many parts
of his history, that the effects of which we speak were restricted
to the period during which the public penance was performing.-
We may add, that whatever may have been the primitive usage
on this point, Ave shall find the discipline becoming much more
severe after St. Leo's time, and the temporal effects of public
penance remaining even after its exercises had been finished.
62. Canont of different Councils on the same Subject.
The second Council of Aries, laid in 4.52, prohibits, under
penalty of excommunication, married persons who had been
' " Contrarium est oninino eccIeAiaiiticis reyiilis, post pa>nitenti:e actionem,
redire ad inilitiam itecularL-iu ; ciun apostolus uicat, Nemo militans Deo iinplicet
$e negotiU tendaribut. Uiiile non est liljer \ Ia<{(iei8 dia)x)li, qui se militiil
mundanft voliierit implicare." — .S, Leonia Epist. 2, ad Riisticum, iiuiui.*. Ui,
11, 1'2, 13. Heury, Hist. Ecol. vol. vi. lxM»k xxvi. n. 53. A lon^ exjiositioii
of this pa.sRAge of St. Leo's is given in the al>ove-cited work of Murin, ubi
supra, cap. xxiv.
' Fleury, Ili.st. Eccl. vol. x. bo<jk xlvii. n. 40. In support of his opinion,
he cit«« the 12th canon of the Council of Nice, and the 5th article of the letter
of St. Siridus to HinicriilH. bi.>ihop nf Tarragona, in Spain ; but it is clear that
he has nii-Uiken the - " ' ,. two pa.s.4agL-s. .See, on the 12th canon of
Nice, PJ-re jr>rin, 1 ' , .. lib. v. cap. xix. n. 8, 9 ; I), t «illier, Hist.
des Auteurs Eccle-;. vol. iv. p. .'i!'>. &c. On the letter of •Siriciu'* to Hiinerius,
see D. Constant, Episiolw Roman, roiititicuni, p. 628, text and notes ; D.
Ceilljer, ibid. rol. viii. p. 165.
72 PUWKIl OF THE POPK [p.VUT 11.
sn^jected to public penance, from contracting a new marriage
after the death of their partner. It also prohibits married
persons from being subjected to public penance without their
mutual consent, in consequence of the obligation of perpetual
chastity, then annexed to public penance. Finally, it threatens
with excommunication those who, after having embraced public
penance, resume the secular habit, that is, a secular life, according
to the interpretation of critics.^
The third Council of Orleans, in 538, forbids public penance
to be imposed on young persons, or on married persons unless
they mutually consent, and be of full age. This canon is
grounded on the same motive as the canon of the second Council
of Aries, which we have just cited. Another canon of the same
Council of Orleans excommunicates those who, after having
received the penitential habit, resume the habit and the warfare
of the world.'^
The lirst Council of Barcelona, in 540, enters into remarkable
details on this subject. It orders |)ublic penitents to shave their
hair, to dress plainly, and to employ their time in fasting and
prayer : it forbids them to assist at feasts, or to engage in
secular affairs : in fine, it ordei*s them to observe retirement, and
to lead a simple and frugal life.^
' " Pcenitens qujecumque, defuncto viro. alii nubere praesunipserit, vel sus-
pects vel interdicts familiaritate cum extraueo vixerit, cum eodem ab Ecclesiie
liminibus arceatiir. Hoc etiam de viro in pcenitentia posito placuit observari."
— Concil. Arelat. ii. can. 21.
" Pcenitentia conjugatis non tiisi ex consensu danda." — Can. 22.
" Hi, qui post sanctam religionis professiouem, apostatant, et ad ssecalum
redeunt, et postmodum pcenitentise remedia non requirunt, sine poenitentiS
communiunem peuitiis non accipiant. Quos etiam jubeiiius ad clericat<is offi-
ciuni non adraitti ; et quicumque ille, post pcenitentiam, habitum saecularem
non praesumat. Qn^d si praesumpserit, ab EcclesiS alienus habeatur." — Can. 25
(Labbe, Concil. toni. iv. p. 1013). Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. vi. book xxviii.
n. 48. Hist, de I'Eglise Gall. vol. ii. book iv. p. 74.
' " Ut ne quis benedictionem poenitentiae juvenibus personis credere prae-
sumat ; certfe conjugatis. nisi ex consensu partium, et setate jam plena, earn
dare non audeat." — Concil. Aurel. iii. can. 24.
" Si quis, pcenitentiae benedictione suscepta, ad saecularem halntum raili-
tiamque reverti pra^sumpserit, ^-iatico concesso, usque ad exitum excommuni-
citione plectatur." — Ibid. can. 25 (Concil. vol. v. p. 302). Hist, de I'Eglise
Gall. vol. ii. book vi. p. 443.
* " Ut pcenitentes epulis non intersint, tiec negotiis operam dent hi datu it
acceptis ; sed tantiim iu suis domibu.* vitam frug.ilem agere debeant." — Concil.
Biircinonense 1, can. 7, 8 (Labbe, ibid. p. 370). Ferreras, Hist. d'Espagne,
vol. ii. ann. 510. Thi.<^ council is not mentioned in Fleury's Eccles. Hist.
t^llAl'. I. I OVER SOVEKKICJNS. 73
In iMiKsequciicf of tlii'se ancient rej^ulations, tlie second
Council of liarccl(»na, held in aDD, cxcoumiunicatcs those wlio
mairieil after having made a vow of virginity, or of tlieir own
free will solicited puhlic penance.' The fourth Council of
Toledo, in (!.'>;], exconiniunicates, as apostates, the penitents who
resume the lay hal)it and state ; as well as the virgins and
the widows who, after having consecrated themselves to God,
abandon their sacred hahit, and presume to marry.* This canon
was confirmed by the Council of Toledo (a.d. 638),^ so far as it
regards public penitents.
63. T^cse Effecti attached to Public Pnuince, even when accepted out of mere
Devotion.
These councils, it will be perceived, make no distinction
between penance accepted voluntarily and from devotion, and
penance imposed by the Church in punishment for sin : but they
attribute the above-mentioned eft'ects generally to all public
penance. This deci.-^ion is found in many councils, which
clearly suppose the custom of admitting to public penance per-
sons soliciting it purely from devotion.* Besides the councils
already cited, the twelfth Council of Toledo, in (JSl, declares
even those persons subject to the effects of public penance who
' " Si qua virpo, propriA voluntate, ahjecUl laicali vcste, devotaruin moi-o
iiiduta, cadtitatein Bervare prumiserit ; vel hI qui liuiiiiiiuiii utriuM(|ue sexfiH,
ptenitentiae V>enedictionem expeten<lo a sacerdote j)ercfperiiit, et ad terruna
connubia aponte tranaierint ; aut violentcT alistractie feiiiiiia; a pudicitiic vio-
latnre sf sequeHtrare nolucrint ; iitrique ali Ecclesiriniin limiiiil)ii.s expul«i, itji
at) hoininuni aatholicurutn coiiuiiiiiiioiie Hint H«?paniti, ut miU.-i |iri>r>iiis eis vel
colloquii consolatio sit relicta." — Coiicil. l'>arcin. ii. can. 4 (l>abbe, iliid. p. 1606).
Fleury, Hint. Eccl. vol. viii. hnok x.xxvi. n. 12. Ferrunw, ibid. ann. .'iyi*.
* " Qiiicumque ex saecularibus, accipientes poenitentiara, totonderuiit se,
et nirsus pncvaricaiites Liici efferti sunt, coinprcJiensi ab ej>i8c<>j>o suo, imI
pcenitentiain, ex qu.l refeH!<erunt, revocentur. (^ufxl h\ alii{iii per p<pnitentiaiii
irrevocabiles sunt, nee :ulini>niti revertentur, vert- ut apoHtata;, coram Eccle,-iiii,
anatbeinntis sententia condeiimentur. Non aliter et hi (jui detonHJ a paren-
tibuB fuerint, aut spontc suil, aniissiH parentibus, scipwoH religioni devuverunt,
et poHtea habituin ssecularein minipserunt ; et iidem a sacerdote comprehenKi,
ad cultuni religioniH, acti prihn ]KX>nitentiA, revocentur. QuM si reverti non
poeaunt, vert ut apostatx, anatlieniatiH nententix Hubjiciantur. Qua- funn.i
servabitur etiam in viduin vir(jinibu«i|ue .^acriw, sic j)ccnitentibn8 fieininiH, (juji!
Ranctimoiiiak-m habituin induerunt, et po«tea, aut ve8t»>m mutaverunt, aut ad
nuptia.4 transienint." — Concil. Tolet. iv. can. SS (Lablje, ibid. \>. 1718).
Fleury, ibid, book xxxvii. n. 4ft.
* Concil. Tolet. vi. can. "■ p. 1744. ncurj-, ibid, bor.k xxxviii. n. 14.
* See especially canons already cited, of the firet Council of Barcelona, and
of the fourth and .-ixth of Toledo.
74 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
had received it during sickness, through devotion only, and at
the request of their friends, according to a very common practice
of tliose times.*
Not long before this council, King Ervigus attempted, against
all the rules of equity, to apply that principle to his predecessor
Wamba.*^ Instigated by a lust of power, he administered a poi-
sonous draught to Wamba, in the hope of either killing him, or
at least making him so sick, that the archbishop of Toledo
would, according to the custom of the time, give him the peni-
tent's habit, with the last sacraments ; which would disqualify
him for all civil functions, even should he be restored to health.
The event turned out as Ervigus calculated. The archbishop of
Toledo, believing Wamba on the point of death, administered the
last sacraments to him, and invested him with the penitential
habit. Secret emissaries of Er^^gus, who were in the palace,
suggested to the king to appoint Ervigus as his successor, which
he did by signing a paper presented to him. Next day, Wamba,
having completely recovered, was greatly surprised on being told
what had happened. Still, looking on the event as a special
dispensation of Providence for his salvation, he ratified all that
had been done in his illness, and retired to a monastery, where
he consecrated the remainder of his days to God. From this
statement, it is e\ndent that Ervigus was guilty of manifest
injustice, in applying to the case of Wamba the general princi-
ples regarding the temporal effects of public penance ; and that
the abdication of the crown, made in such circumstances, would
have been null, if he had not voluntarily ratified it after his
recovery. But the intrigues of Ervigus on this occasion mani-
festly suppose the principle, then generally admitted in the
West, and especially in the kingdom of the Goths, that public
penitents were disqualified for all civil offices.^
' " Sicut baptismum, quod, nescientibus parvtdis, .sine ulla contentione, in
fide tanthm proximorum accipitur ; ita et poenitentise donum, quod nescien-
tibus illabitur, absque ullii repuguantia in^^olabilite^ hi, qui illud excejierint,
observabunt." — Concil. Tolet. xii. can. 2 (Concil. torn. vi. p. 1226). Fleury,
Hist. Eccl. vol. ix. book xl. n. 29.
In those days the faithful frequently received from devotion the penitential
habit, during sickness, as they received, from the same motive, in similar cir-
cumstances, the religious habit in later times.
^ Julian of Toledo, Hist. Vambs (vol. i. Recueil des Hist, de France, by
Duchesne, p. 821, &c.). Mariana, Hist, of Spain, book vi. aun. 6S0, 681.
' Fleury and some other modern writers suppose that the application of this
CHAl'. l.J UVEK SUVEU1;I0NS, 75
The thirteenth Council of Toledo, held in GS.S, presents tliis
principle in a new light by its conduct in the ciise of (Jiiudentius,
bishop of Valencia, who. during a severe illness, had accejited
pubhc penance, from devotion. This ])relate consulted the
council whether he could resume his functions after havinir
received penance. The council decided in the atlirmative,
because public penance, being a state of perfection, was incom-
patible, not with sacred functions, but with civil or secular
offices.'
64. TVjm Cuttom sancthiud hy Hie Two Powers in the Kingdom of the Gotfts.
From all these facts it follows dearly, first, that from the
fourth century public penance, even when accepted voluntarily,
and from mere devotion, was generally considered in the West
a sacred and perpetual engagement to a life of perfection and
retreat, to the observance of chastity, and to a renunciation of
all profane amusements, and of all secular offices ; secondly,
that this discipline, which at first was established by church
authority alone, was, from the si.xth century, recognised and
sanctioned by the temporal power in tlui kingdom of the Goths.
In tnith, those Spanish councils which we have just cited, from
the time of the fourth Council of Toledo, in ()33, were, as we
have already remarked," mixed assemblies, in which the two
powers combining regulated together the afiairs of church and
state.
principle to Wainba was ina<le by the twelfth Council of Toledo, which thus
entahlirht-d tin.- first precedent of a jirince deposed under pretence of public
penance. — Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. ix. book xl. n. 29 ; vol. xiii. 3rd Discourse,
n. 10. Annale.1 du Moyen Age, vol. v. book xix. p. 498. Bi.inchi, Delia
PotesitJk della (.'hiesa, torn. i. lib. iii. § 2, n. 6. Mam.ichi, Orijpnes et Antiquit.
C'hrint. vol. iv. p. 187. Tliis BUpiKwition U not correct. The twelfth Council
of Toledo doeji uot apply the i»rinciple to ^^',-lnll>a ; it merely ratifies the elec-
tion of his successor, Ervigus. in accordance with documents presented to the
council, attesting that \Vauiba h.id received the religious habit, and had
appointol Ervigus a-s his succesjior. — Concil. Tolet. xii. can. 1, apud Labl>e,
Concil. torn. vi. p. 1225. This decree of the council, therefore, does not de-
pose Waniba ; it simply sup|)08es that he had voluntarily abdiuited the throne,
which is the fact, tm all historians assert he did after having recovered his
health. See, on this subject, Nat. Alexander, Dissert, iv. in Hist. Eccles.
Sicculi vii.
' " Poenitens abstinere k jieccatis paritcr et iiegotiorum tumultibus <iebet,
non ab iis quse sancta videntur, et suninia se abslnihere, quie u|>erantem plug
expiant, quhm commaculando deturpant." — Concil. Tolet. xiii. can. 10 (Concil.
toui. vi.). Fleury, ibid, book xl. D. 30.
^ See supra, n. 28, 29.
76 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
We m\\ not venture to assert that this discipline, of which
we speak, was at that period confirmed by the temporal power
in any other country except Spain ; but we shall soon see the
custom of Spain equally sanctioned in France, and in all the coun-
tries subject to Charlemagne's sceptre.
65. Decline of Public Penance from the Seventh to the Twelfth Century.
II. From the seventh to the twelfth centurv, the custom
of public penance, even for public - crimes, having gradually
fallen into disuse, new regulations were published, with the design
of retaining it in certain cases, and of substituting for it, in others,
some equivalent mode of punishment* It was enacted, there-
fore, by a great number of councils and capitularies, — First, that
the temporal effects, annexed anciently to public penance, should
be henceforward incurred in the case only of certain enormous
crimes, such as adultery, incest, rape, parricide, the murder of
a bishop, a priest, or a deacon, whether the criminal performed
public penance for these crimes, or was content with doing
private penance.^ Secondly, that in certain cases, when these
crimes were to a certain dcOTee notorious, the criminals should be
compelled, by excommunication, to \indcrgo public penance,
according to the ancient custom ; and that, if they refused to
submit, they should be forced to do so by the temporal power.
Thirdly, in fine, that if dukes and counts refused their co-ope-
ration in such cases, they should themselves incur excommunica-
tion and temporal penalties, which might even deprive them of
their dignities.^
*o
' Morin, De Poenit. lib. v. cap. xxii. ; lib. vii. cap. iv. v. vi.
* " De incestuosis et parricidis, ut canonic^ coerceantur ; sicut de illo judi-
catum est qui materterae suee filiam stupravit, ut conjugium ultrk non repetat,
et militiae cingulum derelinquat, et aut monasterium petat, aut si foris rema-
nere voluerit, tempora pcenitentiae secundilm canones pleniter exsolvat." —
Capitular, lib. vi. n. 71.
" Si quis sacerdotem, vel levitam aut moiiachum interfecerit, vel debilitaverit,
juxta statuta priorum capitulorum, quae legi Salicse sunt addita, componat ; et
insuper bannum nostnam, id est, sexaginta solidos, nobis persolvat, et arma
relinquat, atque in monasterio, diebus vitae suae, sub arduii pcenitentiS, Deo
serviat, nusquam postmodum seculo vel secularibus militaturus, neque uxori
copulaturus." — Ibid. n. 98. Morinus (lib. v. cap. xxii.) has collected on this
point a great number of testimonies from the councils and capitularia of the
eighth and ninth centuries.
'' " Si quis, in his supradictis sanctorum canonum nostrique decreti sancti-
onib\is [jxenitcntiam puhlicam spectantihusi], episcopis inobediens et contumax
CHAP. I.j OVEU SOVERKIGNS. 77
66. Iti Temporal Effrcts maintalntd in France, and in other Placet, hy tht
A uthority of the Tvoo Power ».
From these details we find, first, that notwithstanding the
decline of tiie ancient discipline of public penance, its temporal
effects were still in force in the ei«i:hth and ninth centuries,
in the countries subject to Charlemagne's sceptre, that is,
especially in France, Germany, and Lombardy. Secondly, that
in all these countries, as well as in Spain, the temporal effects of
public penance were expn^sly sanctioned and confirmed by the
temporal power ; as they were })romulgated in the capitularies by
the authority of the two powers, and formed part both of the civil
and of the ecclesiastical code.
67. The Custom of thote Ages illugtrated in the Case of Loa'u le Dibonnaire,
The history of the deposition of Louis le Debonnaire, in 833,
would of itself alone explain what was the discipline then in
force in the French empire.* Lothaire, his eldest son, having
openly revolted against him, and obtained an irregular sentence
of deposition against him in an assembly of the principal lords
of the rebt'l armv, endeavoured to fjet himself acknowled'^ed in
a more CDnstiiutimial furm, by a general assembly of the nation.
He accordingly summoned, for tlie 1st of October, at C'ompiegne,
which was attended by a great number of bishops, abbots, and
barons devoted to his interests. Many of them, with Ebbo,
archbishop of Rheims, at their head, suggested to him to subject
Louis to trial for various crimes against the Church and the state ;
after which they could condemn him to public penance during
extiterit ; primilin canonicft Bententift [i. e. excommunication's] feriatur ; deinde
in nostro regno Keneficiuin non halicat, et alodiH ejw* in lianniiin niitUittir [i. e.
pradia et pouestiitue* rjiu in tiJiri jioftttaton rijvniantur] ; t-t ni .tniiuni ut diem in
uostro )>aiino pemiaiiserit, ad Khcumi nostrum redij^tur ; et captud in exilitun
religetur ; et ibi tainditi cu8to<liatur ot conHtrinjjatur. donee coactus Deo et
Hanctee Ecclesite satiHfaciat (|Uod pritis satinfacere noluerat."' — Capitui. Tribur.
ann. 822, n. 6 (vol. i. of the Collection by iJaluze, j). tVl'Ji).
" (juicumi|ue, propria uxore derelicUi. vel .sine culpa interfectil, aliani duxerit ;
amiis depoflitiH. publicam agiit pci-nitontiani ; et «i contuinax fuerit, conij)re-
liendntur a coniite, et ferro vincijitur, et in cuHt<Mliani miltatur, donee re8 ad
Dostrani notitiam detluantur."— Capitular, lib. v. n. 300 (ibid. p. 886). See aLto
lib. vii. n. 258, 4.'i2, 433, et alibi }>a<iHim.
' See, on this extraonlinarj- fact, Fleury, Pfere Daniel, Pere Longueval,
snn. 833 : Nat. Alexander, Di^wert. ii. in Hi.'<t. Eccl. ssec. ix. ; Bosouet, Defena.
Declar. hb. ii. cap. xxi. ; Bianchi, Delia Pote^nta della Chie^a, t<>ni. i. lib. iii,
§ 3 : Mamachi. Origin, et Antiquit. Chrim. torn. iv. p. 189.
78 POWER OF THE POPE [PART 11.
the remainder of liis life, and enforce against liim those canons
which forbid penitents to carry arms or take any part in public
aff}\irs. This expedient was acted on : Louis was accused
before the bishops, and pronounced guilty of the crimes charged
against him : he confessed them publicly, and solicited public
penance as a favour — it was instantly gi'anted ; he resigned his
sword, and accepted the habit of the penitent ; after which he
was conducted in ceremony to a little cell in the monastery of
St. Medard de Soissons, to spend there in penance the remainder
of his life.^
The public penance thus imposed on Louis, and the enforce-
ment in his regard of the canons which forbade penitents to
carry arms, or to take part in public affairs, were undoubtedly a
manifest injustice, in which the bishops were involved by the
spirit of rebellion which Lothaire had infused into them. It
must, however, be remarked, that those contemporary authore
who are loudest in their censure of the deposition of Louis, do
not deny the existence of canons dis(|ualifying public penitents for
secular offices ; they rather suppose the existence of those canons,
and merely condemn their application in that particular case, for
crimes of which Louis had not been convicted, and for which he
had already done voluntary penance in the Council of Attigny.-
68. This Custom gradualli/ falls into desuetude after the Ninth Century.
It was, nevertheless, about this very period that these canons
began to fall into disuse. A letter from Nicholas I. to Rodolph,
archbishop of Bourges, about the year 86(), supplies the first
instance, in our opinion, of the relaxation of the ancient dis-
cipline of the Latin Church on the temporal effects of public
' However reprehensible this conduct of the bishops to Louis may have
been, it must be observed that, strictlv speaking, they did not depose that
prince ; they merely approved his deposition, which had already been decided
by an assembly of the principal lords of the rebel army of Lothaire. This is
the necessary inference from the uniform statements of contemporary historians,
as the authors cited in the preceding note have remarked (especially Nat.
Alexander, ubi supra). Suiticient attention has not been paid to this fact by
many modern^ writers, who attribute to the Council of Compi^gne the depo-
sition of Louis le Debonnaire. (P.ianchi and Mamachi, ubi supra.)
^ See especially. Eginhard's Chronicon, and the anonymous author of the
Life of Louis le Debonnaire, ann. 833. Both these works are published in
Bouquet's Recueil dea Historiens de France. The pa.'tsages referred to by us
are cited by Nat. Alexander, and by Bianchi, ubi supra.
CUM'. I.] OVKIl SOVKUF.IONS. 7!>
penance. "The penitents," the poite states, "who nttirn to
the army, act contrary to sacred canons : hut since yon ilechare
tluit this ]trohil)ition drives some of them to despair, and otliers
to take refuge among the pagans, we give you liberty to act in
this matter according to what seems most advisahlc in the
pnrticuhir circumstances."' 8imiUir motives induced the same
pope, on another occasion, to depart somewhat from the ancient
discipline, in favour of one Weimar, who had killed his three
sons. In compelling him to undergo public penance, the j)ope
forbids him ever to bear arms during his life, except against the
pagans.*^ A council held at Rheims, in 924, earned its indul-
gence still farthei-, and dispensed from the exercise of j)ublic
penance all who were actually engaged in war.^ Gregory VII.
endeavoured to maintain the ancient disciidine on this point,
with the relaxations tolerated by Nicholas I.,* but notwith-
standing his efforts, public penance and its effects gradually fell
more and more into disuse, in consef|uence of a custom then
introduced, of compensating for it by other penitential works,
Buch as alms, flagellations, and pilgrimages.^
' " De his \er>> qui pro criiiiinihutu i>a?nitentiani jjerunt, et ad cingiiiuni
militia.' revertuntur, constat eos contra naciTus ivf^ulas agere. Vertini, <juia
criiuina non a.'<jualia sunt, ]>erliilH-s(iue alios horuni, propter niniiuin liebe-
turlineni, in despenitioneui adiMse, alios ob hoc ail paganos fugisse, tihi hoc
committitnus decemenduin, niniirum qui loca et tempus regiouis illius, mo-
duinque culpa.', necnon et pccnitentiani, et gemitus honiiiiuni ad confessionenj
venientiuni, pnesens positus inspicere vales." — Nicolai 1. E|)ist<)la \'J (alias ;'{•),
su\ K»Hlolphuni, u. 4 (Labbe, C'oncil. toin. viii. p. 5uo). Fleurj-, Hist. Eccl.
vol. xi. l>ook li. n. 8.
' " Usque ad diem mortis suae perseveret in jam dictil iMinitenti.1, atqitc
arma, niiri contra po'/atios, non feral." — Nicolai I. Epist. 17 (alias 5), ad Rivo-
latlrum Episcopum (Lablie, ibid. p. 503).
^ "Similiter (|>anitentiam agant) . . . omni HextA feri.'i per totum annum,
nisi re<lemerint, aut festivitaA Celebris ipsA clie accident, vel cum iiifirniitate
tire miiitiii dtUntum e-ue conti'jerit." — Concilium JJcmenHe, ann. I'^-l ^Labln),
Concil. tom. ix. p. 581), Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xi. b<x)k liv. n. 57.
* " Quicunque miles, vel negotiator, vel alicui officio de<litus quod sine
peccato exerceri non jiossit, si culpis gravioribus irretitus ad ptenitontiam
venerit. vel qui bona altorius injuste <letinet, vel ([ui odium in corde gt-rit, et
recognoHcat se venim pfenitenti.am non posse peragere, jkt quam jwl ii'tornanj
vitam valeat per^-enire, nisi arma deponat, ulteriustjue non ferat, nisi couHilio
religiosorum episcoporum pro defendendA justitiA ; vel negotium <lerclinquat,
vel officium deserat, et o<Hum ex cortle dimittat, bonaque qua- injustii .ibstulit
restituat." — Concilium Rom. ann. 1U78, can. 5 (alias »i), (Labbe, Concil vol. x.
p. 373). See, for an explanation of this canon, Christianus Lupux, Decreta et
Canones, tom. v. p. l.'il, &c.
* Morin, De PipnilentiA, lib. vii. cap. 7, et seq. Flcurv', Mo-utm des Chrt?-
tiens, n. C3. Several of Kleurj's .i.tsertions on this matter must be corrected
after the works of Marchetti and of Muzzarelli, cited above, p. 69, note.
80 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
69. ThM Cwtom was fminded neither on the Divine Law nw on the A tUhority of
the Cliurch alone.
A plain statement of those variations of the ancient eccle-
siastical discipline, on the temporal effects of public penance,
must at once, we trust, enable the reader to distinguish in this
matter, what belongs to the divine law and to the law of the
Church, from what was founded purely on the free will and
voluntary concessions of princes. The Church, unquestionably,
has by divine right, and by the institution of Jesus Christ him-
self, the power of inflicting on sinners penances proportionate to
the grievousness of their crimes This power has always been
regarded in the Church as the natural and immediate conse-
qucnce of the power of binding and loosing sinners ; ' whence it
follows, that sinners are bound in conscience to perform the
works of satisfoction which the Church deems expedient for the
remission of their sins. According to these principles, public
penitents in the Western Church, from the fourth century, were
certainly bound in conscience to avoid certain ci\'il acts and
offices, which the Cliurch deemed it right to prohibit, as not
being consistent with the spirit of public penance. But how-
ever rigorous this oblij^ation was in conscience, it involved of
itself the loss of no civil right, until that obli<xation had
received the sanction of the civil power. For how could effects
so variable as those which we have described be founded on the
divine law : effects which were never known in the Eastern
Church, nor in the Latin Church itself during the first five or
six centuries, and which, even while they were enforced, under-
went so many modifications and variations, according to times
and places ? How is it possible that the Church, without the
co-operation of the temporal power, could have annexed to
public penance the loss of civil rights, from the fifth and sixth
centuries, whilst at that very time, and long after, the Church
manifestly proclaimed tlirough her councils, and holy doctors, and
the popes themselves, the distinction and the mutual indepen-
dence of the powers, and represented each as equally sovereign
in all that belonged to its own spliere ; as independent of each
other, to such a degree, that the ecclesiastical power has no more
' Matt. xvi. 19 ; xviii. 18. See on this point, Morimis, De Poenitentiil,
lib. i. cap. iii. &c.
CHAP. I.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 81
rii^ht to rojjiilatc the concerns of tlie temporal order, than the
tcnipi»ral power has over sjiiritual concenis.'
We infer, from these observations, that public penance did not
of itself entail the forfeiture of any civil right, until the disci-
pline of the Church, or its temporal consequences, had received
the sanction of the civil power : a sanction which was not given
apparently before the seventh century."
§ -. Temporal effects of ETCommnnication.^
70. Temporal Effects of ExcommuniccUion from tlie Origin of Christianity.
The custom of attaching certain temporal consequences to
excommunication can be traced back to the first establishment
of the Christian religion : the sole difference between the disci-
pline of the primitive ages and of the middle ages on this
point, consists in this, that the former was much less rigorous,
and founded solely on the authority of the Church and of her
l)ivine Founder ; whilst the second was established by the con-
current authority of Church and state. We shall now give a
rapid sketch of the origin and progress of this discipline, which
was so long enforced in all the Catholic states of Europe during
the middle ages.*
' We have already seen the facte which establish the existence of this ancient
tradition, ivirt i. ch. i. n. 9, 10, 15, 28. It sJiall be confirmed still further Id
ch. iii. of this second part, art. i.
* From these observations we may estimate the value of the reasoning of
Borae ultramontane the<>lo),'ians, who imagine<l they could pro\c at least an
in<lirect juriwliction of the Church over temporal affairs, by the power which
Jesua Clirist conferred of instituting public jienaiicc. ^lamachi iwloptti thia
line of argument, Origines et Anti({uitate8 Christiana', vol. iv. p. 188. Also
Bianchi, Delia Polizia et della Po<lest,H della Chicsa, torn. i. lib. iii. § 2, p. 453,
&c. Itohrbacher, Des Rapports Naturels entrc les Deux Puissances, vol. i.
ch. xiii. p. ISO.
-* Excommunication is a spiritual punishment, inflicted by a sjiiritual supe-
rior, or by the laws of the Church, which deprives a Christian of all or of some
spiritu&l benefits enjoyed by members of the Church, such as the particijiation
of the sacraments, pulilic prayers, &c. In every 8<>ciety the 8<jvcTeign, and the
magistrates who atiniinister justice in his name, can inflict i>enalties on guilty
subjects, deprive theiu of the ttenefits enjoye«l by olx:dient subjects, and even
expel them from its communion, for grave crimes. Tliese plain jirincipk-s of
common sense at once show tliat the Church ought to have the |Kjwer of
exp>eUiiig from her communion obstinate sinners. For more ample develop-
ments of this subject the rea<ler may consult, besides the divint-s and canonists,
Pey, De I'Autorit^ des I)eux Puissances, vol. iii. part iii. ch. v. § 2, p. 471 ;
Bergier, Dictionnaire Theologique, art. Excommunication.
* We are not aware that any author has treated this subject historically at
VOL. II. a
82 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
From the ostablishmcnt of Christianity, excommunication,
according to the institution of Jesus Christ and of his apostles,
deprived the Cliristian not only of the spiritual goods peculiar to
members of the Church, but also of some acts of civil intercourse
dependent on the will of private persons, and from which they
could abstain without violating any right ; such, for instance,
are many ordinary marks of civility or friendship, such as
sitting at the same table, familiar conversation, mutual saluta-
tions, &c.^ Numerous evidences of this ancient discipline occur
in the ecclesiastical authors of the primitive ages, who regarded
it as equally useful to preserve the faithful from the contagion of
bad example, and to excite sinners to repentance by a salutary
humiliation. -
71. Hcasons why Ecclesiastical Caisures became in Course of Time so freqwnt,
and their Temporai Effects so nu7nerom.
From the seventh to the twelfth century, the custom of public
penance having gradually fallen into disuse, and disorders be-
coming every day more general, in consequence of the anarchy
which convulsed society, the two powers naturally sought to sub-
stitute some other punishment which might strike with awe their
any considerable length. Van Espen may be consulted on it, — Tractatua
Historico-Canonicus de Censuris EcclesiasticiH, cap. vii. §§ 2, 3 (Oper. tom. ii.) ;
Dupin, Traitu Historique de.s Excommunications, part i. § 16 ; part ii. § 3.
The temerity of these authors on many points relating to the dogma and dis-
cipline of the Church, requires that their works should be read with caution.
Van Espen's treatise was first puljlished in 172S, that is, the very year in
which he was suspended fi-oin his academical functions, by the rector of
Louvain, for his obstinate atUichment to the party of the ap]>ellants. The
second volume of Dupin was suppressed in 1743, by an order of the cnuncil of
state, on account of some pa.ssages which it contained in favour of the same
party. See iloreri's Dictionary, arts. Van Espen and Dupin.
' " Quod si non audierit eos, die Ecclesiae ; si autem Ecclesiam non audierit,
eit tibi sicut ethnicus et publicanus." — Matth. xviii. 17.
" Nunc autem scripsi vobis non commisceri, si is qui frater nominatur, est
fornicator, aut avarus, aut idolis serviens, aut maledicus, aut ebriosus, aut
rapax ; cum ejusmodi nee cibum sirmere." — 1 Cor. v. 11.
" Quod si quis non obedit verbo nostro per epistolam, hunc notate, et ne
commisceamini cum illo, ut confundatur." — 2 Thess. iii. 14.
" Si quis venit ad vos, et hanc doctrinam non affert, nohte recipere eum in
domum, nee are ei dixeritis ; qui enim dicit illi are, communicat operibus ejus
malignis." — 2 Joan. 10, 11. See, on the text of St. Matthew, Maldonatus,
Menochius, &c. ; and on the other texts, Estius and Alauduit^
^ Fleury, Moeurs des Chretiens, n. 24. Bingham, Origines et Antiquitatea
Eccles. tom. vii. lib. xvi. cap. ii. § 11, &c. Duguet, Conf(?rences Ecclesiaa-
tiques, Dissert, xxxiii. § 2. Bossuet, Defeus. Declar, lib. i. sect. ii. cap. xxii. &c.
CHAP. I.] OVEll SOVEUEIGNS. S3
barbarous and intractable subjects. Ilt-lii^ion being ahnost tbc
only autbority wbicb tbey respected, no more eflicacious means
could be devised for keeping tbeni in order, tban tbc xise of
ecclesiastical censures, and especially of excommunication.
Sovereigns tliemselves, as an ancient autlior bas observed, bad
no more effectual means of keeping tlieir rebellious vassals in
subjection ; ' and tbe intimate union tben existing between tlie
two power?, natimilly induced tbem to annex to tliat spiritual
punisbment, tempnral effects resembling those wbicb, during a
long course of ages, bad been annexed to public penance.
This is, in Bossuet's opinion, tbe real origin of tbc temporal
effects consequent on excommunication during tbe middle ages.
" According to the testimony of tbc Gospel and of the apostles,
an exconiumnicated person is outlawed from human society, so
far as human society regards good morals : but he retains all his
civil rights, unless the law has ordained otherwise. If in the
course of time, excommunicated persons were declared infamous,
incapable of making a will, and disqualified for certain func-
tions of civil life, until they returned to their duty ; this arose
from the fact, that princes made their laws as conformable as
possible to the laws of morality, and to the discipline of the
Gospel, and not because excommunication of itself entails the
loss of any temporal right, or any temporal property." -
• See the testimony of William of Malmeabury, cited supra, art. ii. n. 10 ;
St. Victor, TaMeau HiHt'triijue et Pittorusfjue de Paris, vol. i. p|>. 33C-JJ44.
In eonfimi.ition of thefle tewtinionif-s, and of all tiiat we liave said on tlio
efficacy of excoianiiinication in these days, in preveutinvf and repressing' dis-
order, many remarkalile examples might be cited. The history of France
ei()>ecially contains them in abundance. From among them we shall select
that of King Itoliert, who wa« excommunicateil in WS, for his incestuous
marriage with Bertlw ; I'hilip I. cxcommmuc-iteil in lO'Ji, for his illegitimate
nuuriagc with IV-rtnide ; I'hilip II. excommunic-itecl in 1 ll'S, for his adulterous
marriage with AgnJs dc Mrranie. A much great^-r nundn-T of similar exam-
ples, relating to b.irons and persons of humbler condition, might l>e selected.
See, on this subject, I'Hist. de I'EgUse Gallicaue, vol. vii. aim. 913, y^*^, '.>l'ti
(pp. 446, 514, 549), et alibi padsim.
* "Ergo excommunicatus, evanirelic:! at'jue apostolical auctoritato, liunianoi
socictalis cxsors est, (|uatenii-4 hwm;ina socieUis ad bonos metres s|K-ctat ;
mnnentquc Integra <pi;e civili lege continentur, nijii aliur Iru i;<.trt cavrrit.
Qut»<l autem jnistea, inter C'hristianos, excommutncati, nisi resipiscint, siut
infiimeA, int^'.stabiles, ad qusdam vita.- civilis officia inhabiles ; id ex eo ortum
est, quod Cfu'Litiam priwif,fi, rpioad fieri potest, UgfAsmu ad bonus nuirct nOfue.
eraufftlicam ditciiJittam ajtUnt, non quod excommuuicatio pertt ullo temporal!
jure boDoque privet." — Bossuct, Def. Declar. lib. i. sect. ii. cap. xxii. p. 345.
G 2
84 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
72. RemarTcahle Examples iUicstrating this Matter in Prance after tlie Sixth
Century.
The first example occurring in history of this forfeiture of
civil rights by excommunication, is found in a constitution of
Childebert II. published in 59.5, in which he prohibits all his
subjects, and even the French barons, whom he calls the
" long-haired," ^ to contract incestuous marriages. He orders
all who refuse to obey the bishops on this point, and who are
excommunicated for such disobedience, to be expelled from his
palace, and deprived of their property in favour of their legiti-
mate heirs.-
After this constitution of Childebert, in proportion as the
ancient discipline of public penance was falling into disuse, a
great number of similar constitutions were published in France,
and in other countries, by the authority of the two powers, to
extend still further the temporal effects of excommunication.
One of the most remarkable is that of the Council of Vemeuil,
assembled in 755, by order of Pepin the Little, who confirmed
its decrees. The ninth canon of this council, which was after-
wards inserted in the capitularies, prohibits excommunicated
persons to enter the church, or to eat with any Christian : it
moreover condemns to exile all who refuse to observe this prohi-
bition.^ Another capitulary deprives excommunicated persons
' It was well known that, under the first race of French kings, long hair
was a distinctive mark of princes of the blood royal. — Daniel, Hist, de France,
ed. of P. Griffet, vol. i. pp. 73, 112, parti, p. 135. D. Bouquet, Recueil dea
Historiens de France, vol. iii. Preface, p. i. iv.
* "Convenit una cum leudis nostris [id est cum vassalis nobUiorihus sive
optimatibus] ut nullus de crinosis incestuni usuni sibi societ conjugio, hoc est,
nee fratris sui uxorem, nee uxoris suai sororem, nee uxorem patrui sui, aut
parentis consanguinei. Si quis uxorem patris acceperit, mortis periculum
iucurrat. De prieteritis verb conjunctionibus, quae incestae esse videntur, per
proedicationem episcoporum jussimus emendari. Qui verb episcopum suum
noluerit audire, et excommunicatus fiierit, perennem condeninationem apud
Deum sustineat ; et itisupa- de palatio nostra sit omnino extranew, et omnes
faculfates suas parentibus legitimis amittat, qui noluit sacerdotis sui medicamenta
s(4Sti7!«-c." — Childelierti Constitutio, n. 2 (Baluze, Capitularia, torn. i. p. 17).
Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. ^^ii. book xxxv, n. 45. Hist, de I'Eglise Gall. vol. iii.
book viii. p. 313.
3 "Si quis presbyter ab episcopo degradatus fuerit, et ipse per contemptum
postea aliquid de suo officio, sine commeatu (id est, sine licentid) facere pne-
sumpserit, et postea ab episcopo suo correptus et excommunicatus fuerit ; qui
cum ipso coramunicjvverit scienter, sciat se esse excommunicatum. Similiter
quicumque clericus aut laicus, vel foemina incestum commiserit, et ab episcopo
sua correptus se emendare noluerit, et ab episcopo suo excommunicatus fuerit,
CHAP. I.J OVER SOVEREIGNS. 86
of their benefices and of their priviito property, and condemns
them to exile if they refuse obstinately to make satisfaction to
the Church, within a year.' Another deprives them of the
power of bringing an action at law, or of making a defence, and
condemns to exile all who atTect to despise excommunication.*
73. TTie tame Cugtom rp-adually atdblithed in tfu other State* of Europe.
In the legislation of other states of Europe, and especially
in England, about the same time, we find a great number of
similar pro\isions, which prove beyond a doubt, that these tem-
poral effects of excommunication were introduced originally, not
only without any reclamation on the part of jjrinces, but with
their concurrence and express approbation. A constitution of
Ethelred, king of England, published in lOOS, forbids persons
under sentence of excommunication to remain near the king's
residence (and, consequently, to hold any ufhce near his per-
son), until they have given satisfaction to God and the Church.'
A law published some years later by king Canute, '' condemns
to the loss of life and of all his proj)erty, any person giving
refuge to an excommunicated person, or to one under the ban
of the civil power."*
si quis cnm ip.so communicaverit scienter, sciat se excommunicatum esse. Et
ut Bciati.4 quali.4 sit mrxliis istius excomnninicatioiiiH, in eccle«iani non dchet
intrare, nee cum uUo Christiano cibum vel ])f)tum suniere, nee ejus niunera
qiiisquam debet acfij)ere, vel osculum porrigere debet, nec in oratione se
jungere, nec wilutare, aiitequani ab episcopo suo fuerit reconciliatus. (^uod si
aliquis se reclamaverit <|Uod injust^ sit excommunicatus, licentiani hnljeat ad
metropolitanuin episcopum venire, et ibidem Kecnndfim cannnicani institu-
tionem dijudicetur ; interim nuam excommunicatiunem cust<>di:it. (^uod si
aii(|uiM i.sta omnia contvmjiserit, et episfojius emendare niininie jM>tuerit,
rt'iit judirio, cxiUo ajwlciiiiittur." — Concil. Vernens. cjin. ix. (lialuzc, ibid,
pp. 172, 836). Hist, de I'Eglise CJall. vol. iv. p. 398,
' See the Capitulary of Tribnr, which wc have cited in the preceding
article (p. 7t>, n. 3).
* "Omnium anathematum vox, in accu!»atione, vel teHtimonio, aut huniano
judicio, i^enitus nun audiatur ; nec hi accuxare quemquam penmttantur ; se<i si
quis anathematis pcenam parvi duxerit, aut in insulani rvligetur, aut exilio
depntetur, ne p<i9Kit Eoolesi.nm Dei ejusque famulus perturbarc." — Capitular,
lib. vii. cap. ccxv. (Ilaluze, t<jm. i. p. 1071).
' " ^ ■( excomniunii-atus a)>sfine pace sit [i. e. aljtquf rcji/.J iru nhsolu-
tione <■ X non oiromoretur in rvgis TJcinid alicubi, antequam divinam
compensationem diligentcr fecerit." — ..f>thelre«li Hegis Constitutio (Canciani,
Barbarorum Leg«8 Antiquw, torn. iv. p. Ul'l, col. 2).
* " Si quis excommunicatum vel exiegem [i. e. qui hcnrficio Ufji*, jiroindc
juribtu civilifiiLs frird'ar] habucrit et cust^Klierit, luat vilain et omucm bu-ora
possesaiuDcm." — Jugcs Canuti Kcgis (ibid. p. 309, n. 64),
86 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
74. Concwrence of Sovereigns in estaUisking this Discipline.
The concurrence of sovereigns in establishing this discipline
is formally acknowledged by many modern writers, in other
respects most opposed to the maxims and practice of the middle
ages, in this matter. It is observed by the continuator of
Velly, " that Charlemagne, far from being apprehensive of the
power of the bishops, believed that it was his interest to increase
it, that it might serve as a check on that of the barons, who,
being brought up in camps, and having the principal strength of
the kingdom at their disposal, began to grow impatient of the
yoke of authority. Accordingly, not only in the schools which
he founded, but also in the ecclesiastical tribunals whose juris-
diction he extended, and even in the parliaments or general
assemblies, which were the supreme tribunal of the nation, he
ordered new maxims to be admitted, as favourable to the Church
as they were opposed to the rights of sovereigns.^ These germs
were not slow in developing themselves. Kings or em])erors
having communicated a share of their political and civil power
to the bishops, and finding it their interest that the ecclesiastical
judgment should be enforced, had given to excommunication a
far greater reach (than it had in the first centuries of the
Church). An excommunicated person, not applying with
humble submission to be absolved within a certain period, for-
feited all his ci\al rights ; he was proscribed and outlawed
from society, &c." ^
75. Sevei'ity of this Discipline before the Time of Gregory VII.
This severity had gTadually been carried so far before the time
of Gregory VII., that even the servants and near relations of
the excommunicated were forbidden to hold any communication
with him, except for the indispensable necessities of life ; ^
' It is amazing bow the author of this passage can represent " as contrary
to the rights of sovereigns," maxims authorized, according to his own admis-
sion, by the sovereigns themselves, who believed that they had the greatest
interest in recognising them.
* Garnier, Hist, de France, vol. xxi. pp. 201, 208. See, in confirmation,
Bernardi, De TOrigine et des Progres de la Legislation Francaise, book i.
cb. ii. ; book iv. ch. vi. pp. 71, 275, &c. ; Gaillard, Hist, de Charlemagne,
vol. ii. p. 124 ; Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. sect. ii. cap. xxii. versus fiuem.
^ See the complaints of St. Abbo, abbot of Fleurj'-sur-Loire, in his Apology
addressed to kings Hugh and Robert, about the close of the tenth century
CHAP, l] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 87
whence it \\ix& infcrrod, tli;it e.\coiinnuiiii:ition distjiuilif'ml liiiii
for all civil functions, depriveil him of all, even tenii»»nil ilij^ni-
ties, and absolved his suhjeets from all ohlii^ation of ol)ediencc
and tidility to him until he hud uuule satisfaction to the Church,
by obtainini; absolution. The severity of this discipline con-
tinued under the pontificate of (Iregory VII., who merely
confirmed the decrees of liis predecessors, as he expressly declares
in the tiiird canon of the first Council of Rome. " In conformity
with the decrees of our predecessors, we, by virtue of our apos-
tolical authority,' absolve from tlieir oaths all who are under
any engagement to exconnuunii itod persons, even by oath ;
and we prohibit them absolutely t ) observe those engagements."*
It must, however, be remarked, that the sentence of excommu-
nication did not entail the forfeiture of civil rights, except the
criminal obstinately remained under it, during a certain time
fixed by the law or the custom of each country. This condition,
which is clearly proved by the constant usage of the middle
ages, is added exj)ressly to the text of Gregory VI I. in the
Decretum Gratiani.' We shall inunediately give the legislation
of the dilferent states of Europe on the subject.
76. 77(M Sei'erltij moderated by Gregory VII.
The serious inconveniences frequently resulting in the inter-
course of society from discijdiue so rigorous, soon induced the
pope to mitigate it in many respects. Gregory VII. at first
permitted the wives and children and domestics of the excom-
municated to have intercourse with them. This pennission he
(p. 401, AppeixUx to the CiHlex Canonum, pulili»hti<l liy I'itliou, PuriH, li>S7,
foL). Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xii. book l\ii. n. 44.
' Tl>e tenii>onil eff«-ctM of excoinJiinnic«ti<in being then .-i.iiu-tii>riecl liy the
civil power, those exprerisinnB of (Jrtrgnry VII. — " by virtue nf our :i]>ii.stiili«il
authority," must nattimlly Ik; uiuluretood of the (lirective power in the sonse
explaiiifiJ by Feiicloii ^seo f>upra, n. 10, 11, 12, and infra, ch. iii. n. 170). In
another pl.-u:c wo sh.tll atate more in detail the doctrine of Gregory VII. on
thid point. Infra, ch. ii. iii. of thin second part.
' " Snnrtrtnnn pmxl*K"o-w<or\Hn Tio^troriim ■'tntn'n ♦fnont*"', f<oM rpii '•xcom-
111 ■'•'•, a
R- ■ i • pro-
hibemus." — Synodua Itom. iv. sub Ureg. V 11. cap. iii. (Labl>e, Coned, torn. x.
p. 37<n.
' After the text of Gregory VII. citwl by U8, Gratiaii a«ldH thcife wonid •
'' (>uoa<lu.><i|iie i|>.si in s.tti>tfactioneni vetii.-kiit." (jr.'ili:tiii I )ei-retun), ]i;irte ii .
cuus. \o. i(ii;i.'3l. •;. uiu. 4 & 5. L>ecrvlat. lib. v. tit. '61. uip. Graveui. \'.i.
88 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
subsequently extended to all those whose presence would not
tend to confirm them in their obstinacy.^ This decree, which at
Irst was only provisional, was afterwards renewed by the succes-
sors of Gregory VII. ; and it has been inserted in the Corpus
Juris.2 In fine, Martin V. not only approved this relaxation,
but extended it still further in the Council of Constance, by
declaring, that henceforward there was no obhiration of avoidinnr
any persons but those who were " publicly excommunicated, and
denounced by name ;" and this remains, to the present day,
the discipline of the Church.^
77. Excommunication entailed the Forfeiture of all Dignities, even Temporal.
Notwithstanding these different relaxations, the general prin-
ciple remained in force through the whole course of the middle
ages, depriving all obstinate excommunicated persons of all
dignities, even temporal. This was the general belief of pious
and enlightened men, under the pontificate of Gregory VII.,
and from a more remote period, as even those authors admit who
are most opposed to that discipline.*
78. This Discipline sanctioned for many Centuries by the Common Lam of
Europe. — German Law.
This discipHne continued unquestionably, during many cen-
' " Quoniam multos, peccatis nostris exigentibus, pro causa excommunica-
tionis perire quotidie cemimus, partirn ignorantia, partim etiam nimia sim-
plicitate, partim timore, partim etiam necessitate ; de\ncti misericordia, ana-
thematis sententiam ad tempus, prout possumus, opportune temperamus.
Apostolica namque auctoritate, anathematis vinculo hos subtrahimus, vide-
licet: uxores, liberos, servos, ancillas, seu mancipia, necnon rusticos et
servientes, et omnes alios qui non adeo cui-iales sunt [i. e. adeo in omciis curice
t>ersantur], Mi eorum consilio scelera perpetrentur ; et illos qui "ignoranter
excommunicatis communicant, seu illos qui communicant cum eis qui communi-
ca.nt excommunicatis. Quicumque autem aut orator [i.e. qui orationis et
pietatis causd peregrinatur], sive peregrinus aut viator, in terram excommunica-
torum devenerit, ubi non possit emere, vel non habet unde emat ab excommu-
nicatis, accipiendi licentiam damns. Et si quis excommunicatis pro sustentv
tione, non superbiae, sed humanitatis causa, aliquid dare voluerit, fieri non
prohibemus." — Synodus Eomana iv, sub Greg. VII. cap.iv. (Labbe, Conciliorum,
torn. X. p. Sri).
^ Gratiani Decretum, parte ii. caus, 11, quaest. 3, can. 103.
^ Van Espen, Tract. Hist. Can. de Censur, cap. vii. § 5 (Oper. torn. ii.).
Suarez, De Censur. disp. 15. ,
* Bosquet, Defens. Declarat. lib. i. sect. ii. cap. xxiv. ; lib. iii. cap. iv. pp.
348, 357. These passages of Bossuet shall be cited in another place, infra,
ch. ii. art. i. n. 118. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. Discourse iii. n. 18 ; vol.
xvn. Discourse v. n. 13, near the end. Pfeffel, Abn<ge Chronologique de
I'Histoire de I'Allemagne, ann. 1106, 4to. edit, vol, i. p. 228.
CHAP. I.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 89
turies, to fonn part of the common law of tlic Catholic states of
Europe. it wad sanctioned especially, in the most express
terms, by many jirovisions of German law, compiled in the
thirteenth century from the ancient cu-stoms of the empire.*
The law of Swabia has the folluwini; rei^ulation on the point.
" If a person be excommunicated by the ecclesi;istical ju<lge,
and remain in that state during six weeks and a day, he can be
outlawed by the secular judge.^ In like manner, if a person be
outlawed by the secular judge, he can be excommunicated by
the ecclesiastical judge. If lie has been excommunicated
before he was outlawed, he must be absolved from the excom-
munication, (if he is worthy) before the outlawry is reversed ;
and, in like manner, if he has been outlawed before he was
excomumnicated, the outlawry must be reversed before absolution
from excommunication is given. Neither of the judges ought
to free him (from the excommunication or the outlawry), until
he has given satisfaction for the crime on account of which he
has been outlawed or excommunicated.' Should an outlaw or
cxcommunicatetl person bring an action against one in a court
of justice, no person is bound to obey their citation ; but if them-
selves are cited, they are l>ound to answer. The reason is,
because they arc deprived, both in the ecclesiastical and secular
courts, of the right common to all Christians. If a man be
only outlawed or excommunicated, he is to be considered as both
outlawed and excommunicated." '
' The fdllowing is the title of the Laws of Swabia : " H\c incipit liber Juris
jirovinci.-ilirt (_'a>fl.irei, sUntutus et onlinatus a Komani.s imperatoiibus et elocto-
ribus, coiitinens imiiies coiiinuiiics articulun .Iiiris, i|uiilve aj,'einl»iin aut oinit-
temlum nit, . . . communi.s pacis causl, a H.Hcni iriii>crio statutum, it ii/j iiii(ii/uo
trmj»>rr, scrld c»iijirmn(nm." — Pni-fanien Juris Alauiaiinici, sive Suevici (Soiic-
kenberg, Corpus Juris (.Jermanici, torn. ii. p. 1).
' From the text, it is clear, that the " pmstriptio" mentioned here is the
privation of all civil rijjhts. Tliis is more manife-it from a comparison of ch. iii.
with ch. cxxvii., a.-* Senckenlx-rg remarks.
* " Si quis a jutlicio ecclesiastico fuit excommunicatus, et in illo statu mamt
per $rj[ srptimanfti cl uniim diem, tunc jure j>oU-st proscribi ajudicio saKJulari.
Similitt-r, si quis a judicio s-i-culari proscribitnr, jure a judicio ccclesi:i«tico
excommunicatur. Et si prius fut-rAt excommiiiiicatus quJvm proscriptus, priiis
etiain ab excommunicationo absi.jvi deUa (pnustitis pra-standis) ; et vicisnim,
ti prifis fuit pp'.-icnptiis <(u\ni cxcomnuiuicituH, <lel>et etiam jiriiis libcrari ;i
proscriptione. Neuter horuni ju'licum debet ilium absolvere (ab excommuiii-
catione vel proscriptione), priusquam ratione prioris culji* (propter quam jiri-
mum fuit excommunicatus vel proscriptus) Batisfeccrit." — Juris Alaniannici,
caip. iii. (ScnckenlK.T;j, Corj)Us Juris (Jennanici, tom. ii.).
* " rro<>criptis aut excomuiunicatis, si aliquem conveuire couautur, nemo
90 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
79. Enfflish Laws.
With a few sli^rht differences, the le";islation of Eno-land and
of France on this subject was the same, since the tenth century.*
Accordino; to the Eno-lish laws, the excommunicated who did
not adopt measures, within forty, days, for obtaining absolution,
was denounced by the bishops to the royal officers, who cast him
into prison, until he had given satisfaction to the Cliurch and
obtained absolution ; and if he obstinately remained under
excommunication during a whole year, he was declared in-
famous." If he were a baron or other lord, his vassals were
absolved from their oath of fidelity to him, and his fiefs could be
seized by his suzerain lord, until he had been reconciled to the
Church.3
80. Ancient Customs of France confomiahle on this Point to that of other
Countries.
It would be an easy matter to demonstrate, by a great number
of facts, that the custom of France in this matter differed in
no respect from that of other Catholic countries of Europe.*
But to be convinced of the fact, we need only peruse the works
of Ivo of Chartres, the light and oracle of the Church of France,
and even of the whole West during the twelfth century. In
his Dccrctum, or collection of canons, he clearly assumes the
tenetur respondere ; si autem ipsi ab aliis conveniuntur, obstricti sunt ut
respondeant. Hoc inde est quod, iu judicio ecclesiastico et stficulari excliusi
sunt a jure quod Cliristianis ordinarie competit. Si quis est vel soluruiuodo
proscriptus, vel soluinmodo excommunicatus, turn censetur quasi et proscriptus
et excommunicatus esset." — Juris Alamannici, cap. cxx'i'ii. See also ch. i. ii.
' See Ducange, Glossarium Mediaj et Infimje Latinitatis, verbo Excom-
muuicatio ; Idem, Observations sur I'Histoire de St. Louis, by Joinville, p. 40 ;
D. Brial, Eecueil des Hist, de France, vol. xiv. Preface, sect. 1, § 10.
^ Tlie companions of St. Thomas of Canterbury, during his exile, express
themselves on this subject to the following effect, in a letter written to Car-
dinal Albert, in 1170 : "In eo maximb, apud nostrates, justitia viget ecclesi-
astica, quhd qui per annum excommunicationem sustinent, notari solent infa-
mia." — S. Thom. Cantuariens. Epistol. lib. v. epist. xxii. This letter is the
25Sth in the Kecueil des Hist, de France, by D. Bouquet, vol. xvi. p. 419.
* See the councils and other acts of English legislation, cited by Ducange,
ubi supra. See especially the Council of Lambeth, in 1'261, cap. De Excom-
municatis capiendis ; and that of London, in 1342, cap. xiii. (Labl>e, Coucil.
tom. xi. pp. 808, 1897). Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xviii. book Ixxxv. u. 5 ;
vol. XX. book xcv. n. 13. Piynnc, Antique Constitutioues Regui Augliie,
LoaJiui, 1G72, fol. pp. 358, 410.
■• See the authors cited in note 1 to n. 79.
CHAP. I.] OVER S0VEKEI0N8. HI
universal prevalence of the discipline on the temporal effects of
excommunication, and especially the invariable custom depriving
the excommunicated of the riirht of judicial accusation or de-
fence.' But he explains this discipline at much greater length
in one of his letters, addressed to La^^Tence, a monk of La
Charite. It appears to ha-^e been written altout the time when
Po^K." Urban II. excommunicated Philip I., for his scandalous
marriage with Bertrade. Consulted by Lawrence on the conduct
to be observed towards the excommunicated, the bishop of
Chartres recites for him the rules made or renewed on this sub-
ject by Gregt^ry VII. : he cites and explains the canons of the
Council of Rome, mentioned already,- and after having referred
to the prohibition against the excommunicated, of judicial
defence or accusation, he adds, "it has been so arranged by the
laws, human and divine, in order to compel the excommunicated
to enter into themselves, and to repent of their sins."^ We
shall soon have occasion to cite many other letters of the same
prelate, on the scandalous marriage of Philip I., which imjily
that the temporal effects of excommunication were then ad-
milted in France, even in the case of excommunicated kings.
81. TJiis Lcjiilation in force under the Reiffn of St. Louis.
An "ordonnance" published by St. Louis in 1228, establishes not
less decisively the legislation then adopted in France on this subject.
It contains pro>'isions precisely similar to those which we have
just remarked in English legislation.* This " ordonnance" pre-
scribes, " that secular judges shall inflict temporal punishments
acrainst the excommunicated who remain obstinately under ana-
' " DefiniraoB eum rite ad accusationem non adniitti, ([ui postca quhm ex-
•couimunicatus fucrit, in ips;l o/lhuc cxcummuiiicjitioiie con.-<titutiis, sivo clcri-
CU8, «ive Uncus, accusaru voluerit."— Ivtuiid Dccrct. lib. .\iv. cap. Lxix. lice
aUio ch. xcv.-xcvii.
* See aiipra, n. 75, 70.
* " iJivinx- leges jwiritcr et humans refutaiit et vitant corum (oxcommuni-
catoruni) Uwtinionia et judicia ; non (juod non alitjuando vera te«tificentur, et
ju-<ti decernant ; (ted ut, tali repuItiA confiitati, ah errore huo desisUnt." —
Ivonis Kpist. 186 (Oper. part ii. p. 78, col. 2). TliiK letter of Ivo of t'hartros
is not in D. Bouquet's Kecueil, which contains oidy a selection of that pre-
late'sJ letters.
* Tliis ordonnance of St. Loui.-* is fouml in vol. xi. of the Collection of Coun-
cils of P. L;»l)l>e. p. 424. See aLxo I'llist. de TE^^lise liallic:ine, vol. xi. ])p.
569-572 ; Daniel, Hist, de France, vol. iv. pp. 308, 570 ; Ducaugo, ubi supra.
92 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
thema during a year ; in this manner, those who are not moved
by the fear of God, shall be brought back to the Church by the
fear of temporal punishment. " We therefore order our officers,"
the king adds, " to seize, after the expiration of one year, all
the moveable and immoveable property of the excommunicated,
and not to restore it until they have been absolved, and
satisfaction lias been given to the Church : and even in this
case, the restitution shall not be made without our special order." *
Similar provisions occur in many French councils, held about
the same time, especially in those of Cognac, held in 12G2,-
and of Cologne in 1266.^ They are also found in a collection
of laws published about the same time, with the title, " Establish-
ments of St. Louis ;"•* which, though possibly not the work of
that prince, gives at least the legislation of his age.^
82. Circumstances favourable to the EstahUsliment of this Discipline.
However rigorous this discipline may appear to us at the
present day, it was then established with the greater facility, being
in reality a relaxation of the ancient discipline, on the temporal
effects of public penance. The latter, besides the painful and
humiliating practices which it imposed, entailed the temporal
effects now described, even though it had been accepted volun-
tarily, and from mere devotion : and the effects subsisted even
after the performance of the penance.^ But under the new
discipline, the sinner was not subjected ordinarily to the painful
■ " Statu imus, ut excommunicati vitentur, sccimdum canonicas sanctioncs ;
et si aliqui ^'cr annum contumaciter in excotumunicatione perstiterint, extunc
temporaliter conipellantur redire ad ecclesiaaticam unitatem ; ut quos a malo
non retrahit tinior Dei, saltern poena temporalis compellat. Unde pnecipimus
quod balivi nostri omnia bona talium excommunioiitorum mobilia et inmiobilia
post annum capiant, nee eia aliquo modo restituant, donee prredicti absoluti
fuerint, et Ecclesiaj satisfecerint ; nee tunc etiam, nisi de nostro speciali man-
date."— Statu ta Ludovici Regis, pro Libertate Ecclesise, n. 7, 8 (Lab be, Concil.
torn. xi. p. 424).
* Concilium Copriniacense (de Cognac), n. 3 (Labbe, ibid. p. 821).
•* Concilium Coloniense, cap. xxxviii. (Labbe, ibid. p. 854).
* Etablissements de St. Louis, book i. ch. cxxi. This chapter is cited by
Ducange, in his Glossary, ubi supra. The whole text is given in Ducange's
edition of Joinville's History of St. Louis.
* Daniel, Hist, de France, vol. iv. p. 596. Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois,
book xxviii. ch. xxxvii. Bernardi, De I'Origine et des Progrfes de la Legis-
lation Fran^aiso, book v. ch. iv. p. 329.
® See Pfere Morin's work, cited above, n. 59, note 1.
CHAP. II.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 93
and humiliatintr pmcticcs of pultlic penance, nor was cxcomnui-
nieation pronounced except for certain heinous crimes : and its
effects ceased as soon as the offender obtained absolution.
CHAPTER II.
TirE rOWER EXERCISED BY rOI'ES AND COINCIL.'* OVER ROVERETGNS IN THE
MIDDLE AtiE.S GENERALLY ADMITTED BY PRINCES AND I'EOrLE.
83. TIlis (kna-ai Belief undoubtedly existed.
Whatever may have been the orij^in of the extraordinary
power exercised by popes and councils over sovereigns in the
middle ages, the fact is certain, that from the tenth century at
least, and in many states from a much more remote period, a
general belief prevailed in Europe, attributing to the spiritual
power a supremacy over the temponil, in this sense, that a
sovereign could be judged, and even in certain cases deposed, by
the authority of the pope and of a council. Doubts there may
be re<nxrdinf the orijrin and pounds of this belief, which arc
explained differently by different authors, as we have seen al-
ready ; ' but the exi.stence of that behef itself is one of the
most indisputable facts in history.
84. Proofs of this Pact.— Plan of this Chapter.
To arrange our proofs in order, we shall state first those that
relate to Catholic sovereigns of Europe in general ; next those
that relate to France, and to the countries feudally subject to
the Holy See ; finally, those that regard only the empire of the
West. The development of these different divisions will demon-
strate to evidence the truth of this assertion, that the popes and
councils that attributed to themselves the power of judging, and
of deposing temporal princes, and even Gregory VII. himself,
who first exercised that power,- did but act in accordance with
' Supra, n. 2.
' We assume here, as is commonly done, th.at the sentence of deposition
pronounced by Gregory VII. atjainst Ilenrj- IV., emperor of Germany, is the
first instance of the kind. This is not, however, beyond all question ; for it
94 * POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
principles universally admitted, and sanctioned even by the
sovereigns most interested in denying them.
ARTICLE I.
Proofs of this Belief in the Case of Catholic Sovereigns in General.
85. General Belief that Heretical Princes incurred Deposition.
One of the most clearly established facts in the history of the
middle ages is, that from the tenth century at least, the prin-
ciples which had long been enforced against private persons on
the temporal eflfects of excommunication, were generally applied
to the case of sovereigns.
In the first place, so far as the temporal conscf[ucnces of
heresy were concerned, it is certain that, according to the uni-
versal belief and custom, sovereigns as well as private lords
incuiTcd by heresy the forfeiture of their dignity, and could be
deposed by the sentence of the pope or of a council. The fact
is certain on the testimony of Henry IV. himself, who admitted
it at a time when he was less than ever inclined to favour the
pretensions of the pope, and more interested in rejecting them.
Immediately after the Council of Worms in 1076, in which
Henry had pronounced the deposition of the pope, he communi-
cated the result to that pontiff, in a letter couched in the most
insulting terms. Still, even in this passionate document, he
does not absolutely deny that the pope had power to depose
sovereigns ; he only maintains " that, according to the tradition
of the Fathers, a sovereign cannot be deposed for any crime
whatsoever, except the denial of the faith." ' Here is a suffi-
appears certain that the emperor Amolph was crowned emperor in 896, by
Pope Formosus, who substituted him for Lambert, crowned about four years
before by the same pope. The circumstances of this fact are not sufficiently
well known to justify us in inferring from it, that princes and people at that
time generally attributed to the pope the power of deposing the emperor. If
such a persuasion had already existed, it is difficult to suppose that Gre-
gory VII. would not have appealed to it in vindication of his conduct to the
emperor of Germany. In another place we shall speak more at length on the
election of Lambert and of Amolph. For the precise date of these elections,
see especially Pagi, Critic, in Annales Baron, ann. 892, n. 2 ; 894, n. 3 ; 895,
n. 4 ; 896, n. 3 ; 898, n. 7 ; L'Art de Verifier les Dates ; Chronolog. Hist, des
Emp. d'Occideut ; Cenni, Monumenta, torn. ii. pp. 2S, 242.
' " Me quoque, . . . quem sanctorum patrum traditio soli Deo judicandum
docuit, nee pro aliquo crimine, nisi cbfide (quod absit) exorbitaverim, deponen-
CHAP. II. "I OVER SOVKREIONS. 95
cicntly clear admission, as Floury remarks, that, accorJint; to a
iisuiio even then considered ancient, '' a sovereign could justly
be dej>osed for abandoning the faith."
8(5. 77iM Dditf txiaUHij in France under Uie liciijn of St. L^juU.
About two centuries later we find an equally convincing
testiniuny of this belief in a letter of the French barons to
Pope Gregory IX., on occasion of the deposition of Frederick II.,
emperor of Germany. That prince having been e.Kcoramunicated
and deposed by the pope in 1239, the latter ^^Totc an epistle to
St. Louis, informing him of the event, and offering the empire
to his brother, Count Robert.' The king and the French lords
disapproved highly, it is true, of the pope's conduct to Frederick.
But they did nut deny the pope's right of deposing the emperor
in some cases, and especially for heresy. " If," they observe,
" the emperor deserved to be deposed, it should be done in a
council only ; " a precaution which they deemed necessary, to
proceed with greater security in so important a matter. They
added, that to them it appeared the emperor was innocent, both
with regiird to his secular conduct and the Catholic faith ; that
they would, however, send ambas-sadors to him, to examine
carefully his opinions on the Catholic faith ; and that if he were
found guilty on that point, they would make war on him to the
death, as in a similar case they would do against any other, even
the pojjc himself.- It must be remarked, that the bold tone of
this letter, and the offensive terms used to the pope, have led
some authors to suspect that it was addressed to him without the
king's knowledge by the French barons, who were very much
ilum usemit, . . . me, inrjuam, a Deo constitutum inhonora.-*." — Christian.
Untitius, Genn.inia; llist<jrici Illu.stre«, t<jni. i. p. 394. Biirmiii, AniialeH,
torn. xi. ann. 1080, n. 24. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ixii. n. 28.
Voigt, Hist, lie Gr«?goire VII. book viii. p. 377.
' Matthew Pari."), Hist. Angl. ann. 1239. Bo^-^uct, Defens. Declar. iiv. iv.
cap. vi. ix. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vi»l. xvii. Look Ix.xxi. n. 3t), &c. HiHt. de
I'E^'Use (tall. vol. xi. ann. 1239. Daniel, Hint, de France, vol. iv. ann. 1239.
' "Si Fndericus •' ■ ■ ■ ; —-'j, nicritiB exigentibus, dfjioiunidus cuel, non
nisi per generalu • iu.s ju<iicaretur. . . . In.sontem sibi videri
adhuc Fri'i i;i .-.iiL-tri in eo vinuni, vcl in fi'' ' l.iri,
vel in fi<li-' ' 'r'l.H a<l Iiii[Nrat<»reiii, «|iii ijiioni" .;lio.
licA sentiat diligeiiter ini{uirant : turn i/>guiii, iiuo (tiam ij-smu J'ti/xtm, m male
de Deo senserit, u*jue .ad iiiteruecionem jtcrsecuturc'i." — M;itth. Paris, ubi
supra (cited by Bossuet, ibi«l. cap, vi. p. 26).
96 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
incensed at that time against the pope and the bishops.' But
whatever may be the worth of tliis conjecture, the letter itself
is not the less manifest evidence of the principles then generally
admitted on the rights of the spiritual power to depose princes,
and especially the emperor, for the crime of heresy. These
principles must, in truth, have been generally regarded as incon-
testable at the time, since they have been so expressly acknow-
ledged by the authors of a letter so full of expressions offensive
to the pope.
87. Oenei'dl and Particular Coumnls also attest this Belief.
In attestation of this general belief, many councils, both general
and particular, could be cited, whose decrees on this subject were
published in presence of, and with the express or tacit consent of
sovereigns. But the most remarkable of these are the decrees of
the third and fourth Councils of Latcran, about the interpretation
of which there is so great a diversity of opinion among authors who
have not attended sufficiently to the fact that these two councils
were mixed assemblies representing the temporal and spiritual
powers. -
88. Decrees of the Tliird General Council of Latcran.
The first of these councils, held in 1179, revived against the
Albigenses and many other heretics of the time, the principal
provisions of the Roman law, which was then received in all the
Christian states of Europe.' In the preamble to the decree, the
council carefully distinguishes the spiritual penalties which the
Church inflicts on heretics by her own authority, from the tem-
poral penalties which she enacts with the concurrence and aid of
Christian princes. The following are the words of the council :*
* See Daniel and Berthier, ubi supra.
* See, on these different explanations, Tournely, De Ecclesia, torn. ii. p. 447 ;
Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. iv. cap. i. ii. ; Mamachi, Origines et Antiquit.
Christianse, toni. iv. p. 245, note 2.
^ We have explained these provisions in our Introduction, art. ii. § 2,
n. 61, &c.
* " Sicut ait beatus Leo, licfet ecclesiastica disciplina, sacerdotali contenta
judicio, cruentas non efficiat ultiones, Catholicorum tanien principum consti-
tutionibus adjuvatur, ut sspe quajrant homines salutaro remedium, dum cor-
porale super se metuunt evenire supplicium." — Concil. Lateran. iii. can. 27
(Labbe, Concil. torn. x. p. 1522).
CHAP. 1 1. J OVER SOVERi;ir.N'S. 97
" Thoui^'h the Chun-li." as St. Loo ohsiTvcd,' '' is content with the
judj^nuent pronuunccd by her ministei-s, and does not inllict
ponahies of Itlood, she is, nevertheless, aided hy the laws of
Christian princes, in order that the fear of corporal punishment
may lead the guilty to apply f"r the spiritual remedy." Having
laid down this principle, the council decrees both spiritual and
temponil punishments against the heretics. In the first place,
it anathematizes them and their abettors, cuts them (jff from the
communion of the faithful, prohibits the holy sacrifice to be
offered for them, and Christian burial to be given to them.
Then, in virtue " of the aid given to the Church by Christian
princes," it decrees temporal penalties against heretics in the
following terms : — " That all who are bound to them by any obli-
gation, should consider themselves released from every bond of
fidelity, homage, and obedience, so long as they persist in their
heresy. We, moreover, enjoin all the faithful, for the remission
of their sins, to resist courageously the ravages of the heretics,
and to protect the Christian people against them by arms. We
also order their property to be confiscated, and authorize princes
to reduce them to subjection."- The concurrence of the two
powers in the promulgation of this decree, besides being clearly
implied })y the very text which we have cited, is, moreover,
attested by a contemporary author, who adds, after citing these
canons, " that when these decrees were published, they were
accepted by all the clergy and people present."' It is certain,
as Bossuet remarks on this sultject, that, according to the style
of the councils, and of all ecclesiastical authors, the word
' The council cites litonvlh* the wordn nf St. Leo, in liis Letter to Turibiua,
a Spanish bishop, regarding the Priscillianistn who then infestt-d that kingd<iin.
— S. Leooia Epist. 15 (aliaa 93), n. 1. Fleury, Hibt. Eccl. vol. vi. book xxvii.
n. 10.
' " Relaxatos nut«ni «e noverint a debito fidclitatifl et hominii, ac totius
obscquii, donee in taiiU\ iiiiquitiite pirnian."erint, quicumf|ue illJM alir|uo pacto
tenentur .innexi. IpniH auttui, cuncli^<iue fidelibu.s, iu rciniKsioneni peccitorum
injungiinu-x, ut tantiB cladibus Be viriliter opponant, et contra eo« armin popu-
luin Christianum tucantur, confiflcentuniue eorum Ixma, et liberuni Hit prin-
cipibiis huju.smodi homines Hubjicere servituti." — Concil. Lateran. iii. ubi Hupra,
p. 15J3.
' " His itaque decretia promulgatix, et ab univereo clero ac jiopulo circum-
rtante receptis, etc."- -Roger de Hoveden, Ann. Anglican, lib. ii. (Scriptorcs
Angliae, torn. i.). Labbu, Concil. torn. x. p. \[>'25.
VOL. II. II
98 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
'* people" is used here in opposition to clergy, to designate all the
laics present, even lords and princes.^
89. Decrees of the Fourth General Council of Lateran.
The decree of the third Council of Lateran was revived in the
commencement of the following century, in the fourth Council of
Lateran, a. d. 1215. After anathematizing in general, and
without exception, all heresies contrary to the Catholic faith,
the council continues thus : " We order," that heretics, after
' " PopuK autem nomine, ecclesiastico more styloque, la)ci omnea intellige-
bantur, ipsique acleo principes, et eorum legati." — Bossuet, Defens. Declarat.
lib. iv. cap. i. p. 6. See again, in support of these observations, Fleury, Hist.
Eccl. vol. XV. book Ixxiii. n. 22 ; D. Ceillier, Hist, des Auteurs Eccles. vol.
xxi. p. 721 ; Pey, De I'Autorite des Deux Puissances, vol. i. p. 112 ; Thomas-
sin, Traite des Edits, vol. ii. oh. ix. ; Bernardi, De I'Origine et des Progrfe.s do
la Legislation Fran^aise, book v. ch. iii. p. 316.
•' " Damnati ver^, ssecularibus pote.=!tatibus prsesentibus, aut eorum baliris,
relinquantur animadversione debitil puniendi, clericis priiis a suis ordinibus
degra^atis ; ita quod bona hujusmodi damnatonim, si laici fuerint, confiscen-
tur ; si verb clerici, applicentur ecclesiis a quibus stipendia perceperunt. Qui
antem ■ inventi fuerint sola suspidTone notal)iles, nisi juxta con.«iiderationes
susjiicionis, (jualitatemque personre, i)ropriam innocentiam congrua purgatione
monstraverint, anatheniatis gla<lio feriantur, et usque ad satisfactiimem con-
dignam, ab omnibus evitentur ; ita quod si per annum in excommunicatione
perstiterint, extunc velut haeretici condemnentur. Moneantur autem et in-
ducantur, et si necesse fuerit, per censui-am ecclesiasticam compellantnr saecu-
lares potestates, quibuscumque fungantur officiis, ut sicut reputari cupiunt et
haberi fideles, ita pro defensione fidei prrestent publicb jurainentum, quod de
terris suas juridictioni subjectis, universes haereticos ab Ecclesia, denotatos,
bon;1 fide, pro viribus exterminare studebunt. ... Si veri) dominus temporalis,
requisitus et monitus ab Ecclesia, terram suam purgare neglexerit ab hSc
haeretica fceditate, per metropolitanum et cseteros comprovinciales episcopos
excommunicationis ^•inculo innodetur ; et si satisfacere contempserit infira
annum, significetur hoc summo pontifici, ut extunc ipse vassallosab ejus fideli-
tate denuntiet absolutos, et terram exponat Catholicis occupaiidam, qui earn,
exterminatis liKreticis, sine ulla contradictione posside.ant, et in fidei puritate
conservent ; salvo jure domini principalis, dummodo super hoc ipse nuUum
prsestet obstaculum, nee aliquod impedimentum opponat ; eadem nibilominus
lege servata circa eos qui non habent dominos principalea. . . . Credentes verf»
praeterea, receptores, defensores et fautores hacreticorum, excommunicationi
decernimus subjacere ; firmiter statuentes, ut postquam quis talium fuerit
excommunicatione notatus, si satisfacere contempserit infra annum, extunc
ipso jure sit factus infamis, nee ad publica officia seu consilia, nee ad eligendos
aliquos ad hujusmodi, nee ad testimonium admittatur. Sit etiam intestabilis,
ut nee testandi liberam habeat facultatem, nee ad haereditatis successionem
accedat. NuUus praeterea ipsi, super quocumque negotio, sed ipse aliis respon-
dere cogatur. Quod si fortfe judex extiterit, ejus sententia nullam obtineat
firmitatem, nee causje aliquae ad ejus audientiam perferantur. Si fuerit advo-
catus, ejus patrocinium nullatenus admittatur. Si tabellio, ejus instrumenta
confectaperipsumnullius penitus sint raomenti, sed cum auctore damnato dam-
nentur." — Concilium Lateranense iv. can. iii. (Labbe, Concil. tom. xi. part i.
p. 147, etc.). Fleury, Hist. Eccles. vol. xvi. book Ixxvii. n. 47.
'^"AP II.] OVEll SOVEIIEIGN!?. 99
their condemnation, be delivered over to secular princes or their
officers, to be punished according to their deserts ; cure bein'^
taken that clerics shall bo dci^raded before they are delivered up
to the secular arm : that the i)roporty of laics so condemned
shall be confiscated, and that of the clergy applied to the
churches from which they had received their revenues : that,
moreover, all persons suspected of heresy shall be excommu-
nicated, unless they clear themselves in a manner suitable to the
nature of the suspicion and the ([uality of the person suspected :
that all the faithful shall avoid communication with them, until
they have given satisfaction to the Cliureh ; and that, finally, they
shall be condemned as heretics, if they remain under excommu-
nication during one year. All secular powers, moreover, shall
be admonished, and if necessary compelled, by ecclesiastical
censures, to swear publicly to expel from their territories
heretics denounced by the Church. If after the admonition and
request of the Church, any tcmjioral h.rd should neglect to purge
liis territory of heretics, he shall, in the first place, be excom-
municated by his metropolitan and the suffragan bishops ; and
if he does not give satisfaction within a year, the pope shall be
apprised of it, in order that he may declare the vassals of that
lord absolved from their oath of fidelity, and may deliver over
his lands to Catholics, that, after having expelled heretics from
it, they may hold it in peace, and maintain therein the pure
Catholic faith, saving the rights of the suzerain lord ; provided,
however, he places no obstacle to the execution of this decree ;
the same rule shall, moreover, be observed against those who
have no suzerain lord. The abettors and protectors of heretics,
we order, moreover, to be excommunicated ; and if they do not
give satisfaction within a year, they are, ipso Jure, to be
regarded txs infiimous, disqualified for secular offices or councils,
incapable of eitiier inheriting or making a will ; and none .shall
be obliged to answer their citation in a court of justice, though
themselves shall be obliged to answer others. Should a judge
be condemned, his judgments shall not be of force ; if he is a
lawjer, he shall not be admitted to plead ; and if he be a notary,
the deeds drawn up by him shall be null."
II 2
100 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
90. Conrnn-mce of the Two Powers in the Promulgation of those Decrees.
At first sight it might appear that, in publishing those
decrees, the council encroached on the rights of the temporal
power. But, independently of the fact that the consent of the
princes, necessary for those decrees, had been clearly expressed
by the third Council of Lateran, held only a short time pre-
viously, it is certain, that those decrees were not published
without the consent of the Christian princes, who had all been
summoned to this council, and who, in fact, assisted there by
their ambassadoi-s. This is the principle by which Bossuet and
Fleury, and the majority of historians and canonists, especially
in France, explain those decrees, and many others of a similar
kind occurring in the general councils of the middle ages.*
The union of the two powers in these councils has even led
many learned authors to consider them as general diets, or states-
general of Europe, combining in themselves at once the eccle-
siastical council and the political assembly.^ All the Catholic
princes of Europe being, in fact, convoked to them, as well as
the bishops, and assisting at them either in person or by their
ambassadors, the decrees published by them on temporal matters,
emanated both from the authority of the Church and of princes,
and thus became oblig-atory on all the Catholic states of Europe.
91. Confirmation of these Decrees hy tlie Laws of Princes, and by different
Councils or mixed Assemblies.
But, besides this concurrence of the two powers in the third
and fourth general Councils of Lateran, the consent given by
princes to the abovementioned decrees is proved clearly by a
great number of laws, promulgated about the same period by
the temporal power, and by many councils or mixed assemblies
held in different states. We shall notice particularly a constitu-
tion published in 1220, by Frederick II., emperor of Germany,
the very day on which he received the imperial crown from the
• Fleury, ubi supra. Bossuet, Defens. Declarat. lib. iv. cap. i.-v. D. Ceil-
lier, Hist, des Auteurs Eccles. vol. xxi. p. 721 ; vol. xxiii. p. 560. Milner,
Excellence of tbe Catholic Religion, letter xlix. See also the works of the
Abb^ Pey, Tliomassin, and Bernardi, cited in last note to n. 88.
* Thomassin, Traite des Edits, vol. ii. ch. ix. p. 87. Idem, Ancien. et Nouv.
Discipline de I'Eglise, vol. ii. book iii. ch. xlv.-lvii. passim. Bernardi, ubi
supra, p. 316.
CHAl'. 11.) OVER SOVKHKIUNS. lOl
h;iJul:» uf I'l'iio Ilonorius 111. By this con.-^titution, the ciuiKTor
f.xpri'ssly fonlinas the canons of the third and luvirtii general
Councils of Lateran, wliich we have already cited, and which
arc literally inserted in his decree.' Some years later, 8t. Louis,
immediately after ascending the throne, j»ublished a similar
order, to enforce the execution of the same canons in the south
of Fnince, where the heresy of the Albigenses, and the protec-
tion which the count of Toulouse had lonii; iriven them, made
the execution of these canons more ditlicult.'- It was with the
same view that the holv kiu'jr afterwards solicited and obtained
from Pope Alexander IV. the establishment of the tribunal of
the Inquisition in France.'
Amonir the councils or mixed assemblies which nromulirated
similar decrees about the same period, we may menti<»n especially
the Council of Tours, in ll(i^, which was attended by a great
number of bishops and barons of the kingdoms of Kiigland and
France ;* the Council of Verona, in 1 IS4, in which were njany
bishops and biirons from Germany, Lombardy, and from some
other states ;^ and the Council of Toulouse, in 1229, in which
the decrees were revived which had been enacted not long
before against heretics by St. Louis.''
• Constitutio Friderici II. (in the Corpua Juris Romaui, after the Liber
Feud.). Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xvi. book ixxviii. n. 40.
' Constitutio Ludovici IX. \Labbe, Concil. toiu. .\i. jarte priniii, p. 123.)
Hist, de rKgline t;all. vol. xi. book xxxi. p. 31. Daniel, Hist, do France,
P. Griffet'g e<lit. vol. iv. p. 575.
' Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xvii. l)Ook Ixxxiv. n. 15. Tliis exposition in:iy
expUiin or modify the a,-i.-«.'rtion of m.iny French c.inonist.>< of the last century,
" tliat the teniponil pen.ilties decreed by the j)opeH :ij,':iiii.st heretics are not
received in France." — l)e Hericourt, Lois Ecck's. de Fnince, vol. i. \>. 1 19,
col. 1. It i.s certain tliat, under the reij^ of St. Louis, and even lonj; after it,
France a<lopted the same custom on this point as the other states of Europe.
Doubtless, in consequence of tiie j)rogrcKs of the refoniiation in Fnince, the
|>rinci|>al provisions of the cinimon law on this point fell into di^suse ; but most
of these provisions were re-enacted by the revocation of the edict of Nantes, in
1085. See De H<=ricourt, ibiil. i>. 37S, ic. ; DAvrigny, Minioires pour scrvir
h I'Hist. Eccles. du xvii. SiJ-cle, vol. iii. aim. 1685 ; Hist, de Bossuet, by the
Cardinal Bausset, vol. iv. l>ouk xi. n. 15.
* Concil. Turon. (r.MblM, ConcU. torn. x. p. 1411). Fleury, Hist. Eccl.
vol. XV. book Ixx. n. 63.
* Concil. V^eron. (l.M-ibbe, ibid. pp. 1737, 17lfn. Fleiirv, ibid. lKM)k l.\xiii.
n. 54.
• Concil. Tolos. ann. 1229 (Ijibbe, Concil. t'lUi. .xi. prima p.irte, p. 4Ut), &c.).
Fleury, ibid. vol. xvi. book Ixxix. n. 57. Hist, de lEjjtlise (Sail. vol. xi. book
xxxi. p. 35, Ac. For fuller details on this point, consult the authors cited in
the Litroductiou, n. (57, note second la«t.
102 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
All these testimonies must certainly prove the general belief
and custom of the states of Europe, during the middle ages,
on the temporal eifects of heresy, even in the case of princes.
This important point shall, however, be demonstrated more
clearly in the course of this chapter,' by the evidence even of
those sovereigns who were most jealous of their authority, and
most interested in disputing the custom of whose prevalence we
are speaking.
92. General Belief regarding the Temporal Effects of Excommunication in t?ie
Case of Sovereigns.
The temporal effects of excommunication, even in the case
of sovereigns, were not less generally admitted ; and sovereigns
themselves, as well as their subjects, expressly admitted them.
Tlie history of Henry IV., emperor of Germany, would be, of
itself, sufficient to demonstrate the truth of this assertion. We
think it right to discuss that subject in greater detail, both
because it presents us the first case of a sovereign deposed by
excommunication,- and because it appears to us peculiarly
useful in illustrating the main object of our inquiry.^
93. This Belief proved to exi^t from the History of the Emperor Henry IV. —
Cliaracter and Conduct of that Prince.
Historians are unanimous in representing Henry IV. as one
of the most wicked princes that ever reigned over Germany.
Debauch, tyranny, avarice, and simony, made him the scourge
both of the state and of religion ; "* and to such a degree had
his continual oppressions alienated the barons of the empire,
that they had more than once conceived the design of deposing
him in a general assembly of the nation. About the year 1067,
' Infia, art. 4. * Supra, ch. ii. n. 8-t, note 1.
^ For a full statement of the facts which we are alxjut to cite, the reader is
referred principally to the Annalea Baronii (ann. 1073, et seq.), and to the
Second Dissertation of Nat. Alexander, on the Eccles. Hist, of the Eleventh
Century. These two authors cite at great length the principal testimonies of
contemporary writers on the facts of which we speak. See also Voigt, Hist,
de Gr^goire VII. 2nd edit. Paris ; Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. boolc bdi. ;
Receveur, Hist, de TEglise, vol. v. book xx\ii. We have already remarked in
our Preface, tliat this latter work is a usefid corrective for Fleui"y's Hist. Eccl.
and for many others, especially on the character of Gregory VII.
* See the authors cited above, ch. i. n. 35, last note.
CHAP. 1 1. J oVKK SOVEUKIONH. 103
lung U'furi.' the jtuniiliciitc of Gregory VII., they had deter-
mined on the exeeution of tiieir phm. They frequently revived
it, but did not succeed, in conseijuence either of the intrigues
and promises, or of the momentary amendment of Henry.*
Pope Alexander II., in the hope of remedying the evils of
church and state, had already cited that prince to Home (in
1073), to give an account of his conduct, and especially to
answer to the charge of siniuny, the chief cause of the troubles
and scandals wkich then aitiicted the Church of Germany ; but,
the pope dying not long after, the citation was of no eft'ect, and
the emperor's aj)preliensions were removed.* Gregory VII.,
Alexander's successor, had no sooner mounted the papal throne
than he sincerely thought of devising efficacious means to remove
the scandal ; but even the least examination of his conduct
will prove that he was naturally averse to rigorous measures,
and especially against Henry. No person could, in truth,
exhibit greater benevolence, mildness, and compassion, than the
pope did to a ]»rince so obstinate in his disorders ; ' nor was it
until he had exhausted all possible gentle means, both personally
and by his legates, that he at last, against his will, had recourse
to menaces and severity. Even this was not done except on the
re»iuest of the Saxon lords, who had been driven to extremities
by the emperor's oppressions, and who, despairing of the fulfil-
ment of promises which had so often been violatxid, had recourse
to the Holy See as their only refuge, and the only tribunal
capable of checking the despotism and the other crimes of
Henry. After having laid before the pope the wretched con-
dition of church and state in Germany, they furthermore urge,
" that it is not right to tolerate so wicked a prince on the
throne, especially as Rome had not yet conferred on him the
regal dignity ; * that it is proper to restore to Rome her right of
' Voigt, ibid. p. 111. » Ibid. p. 158, &o.
• Voigt, ubi snpra, pp. 187, &c. 3C4, &c. Nat. Alexander, ubi mipra,
art. ii. iii.
* According to the custom and the conHtitutional law of (Jertnany, the elec-
tion made by the (lerman lords of a king of Gorni.iny, did not, properly K]>eak-
ing, confer the imperial dignity ; he could not take the title of em|>eror until
he had been recognised and crowned by the ikijkj (infra, art. iv. and ch. iii.
art. ii. § 2). Henry had never coniplic<l with this l.iHt form.ility, as he had
been crownetl, not by the h^ritini . but only by the anti-jwpe, Gilbert.
Strictly, therefore, ho w.-ui only I. i .cnnany, and enijieror elect, but not
101 POWER 0? THE POPE [PART II.
appointing kings ; that it belongs to the pope and to the city of
Kome, in concert with the German princes, to elect a man whose
conduct and prudence would be worthy of so exalted a rank/' ^
In support of their request, they add, " that the empire was a
fief of the eternal city, and that, consequently, the pope, as head
and organ of the Roman people, should stand forth for the
relief of the empire, in the extremity to which it was now
reduced/'- It must be observed, that the Saxon lords, while
thus urging the pope to severe measures against Henry, were
acting in concert with the majority of the German lords, whose
discontent had been manifested long before, and was still mani-
festing itself on all occasions, except when it was repressed by
Heni-y's power, or calmed by the false promises which that
prince was ever ready to make, and to violate the moment he
could do so with impunity.^
9i. The Pope threatens to cjccommnnlcate him — His insulting An^tcer to that
Menace.
His obstinate persistance in crime, and the general disaffec-
tion, which was every day growing stronger against him, compelled
the pope to use other means than exhortation and paternal
advice ; he accordingly addressed a very strong remonstrance to
him to desist from his crimes, and especially to restore to liberty
some bishops whom he had imprisoned, and to return their
churches and property, which he had unjustly usurped ; in fine,
he ordered the legates to threaten him with excommunication,
emperor. This is the meaning of the assertion of the Saxon lords, " that Rome
had not yet conferred on him the regal dignity."
' " Non decere (Henricum IV.) tam flagitiosum, plus notum crimine qnkm
nomine, regnare ; maximfe cimi sibi regiam dignitatem Roma non contulerit ;
oportere Romse suum jus in constituendis regibus reddi ; providerent Apos-
tolicus et Roma, ex consilio principum, cujus vita et sapientia tanto honori
cougrueret." — Apologia Henrici IV. apud Urstitium, Germanise Historici II-
lustres, Francofurti, 1670, fol. p. 382 (cited by Voigt, ubi supra, lib. viii.
p. 364 : and by Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. i. cap. xii. ; lib. iv. cap. ix. p. 33).
* " Proponuut deinde imperium beneficium esse urbis seternse." — Aventin,
Henrici IV. Vita, ann. 1076 (cited by Voigt, ibid.). The word "beneficium"
in the writings of the middle ages is often synonymous with "feudus." See
Ducange, Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latin, verbo Beneficium. It is so
understood by Voigt and his French translator in this passage. We shall see,
however, that the empire was not a fief of the Holy See, in the proper and
strict sense of the term (infra, art. iv. n. 142).
» Voigt, ubi supra, pp. Ill, 117, 121, 123, 133, &c., 147, &c., 192, &c., 200, &c
CHAP. II.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 1().'>
if he Jill not give imiueiliate satisfaction to the Cliurch.'
IKnry. wounded to the quick by this remonstrance, e.xpelkd tlio
K'gates ignominously, and convoked a council at Worms, which
drew up an accusation against Gregory teeming with the most
infamous cahimnics, and dechiring him deposed from the papul
throne.'-' Henry himself notified this decision to the pope in an
insulting letter, as unbecoming a crowned head as it was dis-
graceful to a Christian. AVhat must be especially remarked in
that letter is, the fear which the writer therein betrays of the
consequences which excommunication might have on his crown.
Though in threatening him with excommunication, Gregory had
not alluded in the least to deposition, Henry manifestly assumes
as certain, that in the opinion of the pope and of many other
persons, excommunication could entail that dreaded eilect, at
least after a certain lapse of time ; for he accuses Gregory of
having attacked him personally, and having wished to deprive
him of his kingdom. " I have been dishonoured by you," he
says, " I who hold my power from God himself; I who,
according to the tradition of the Fathers, have no other jndge
but God, and cannot be deposed for any crime, except apostasy
from the faith." ^ Henry api)ears to deny here that a sovereign
could then be deposed for any other cause but heresy ; a position
wliich, if understood rigorously, is manifestly opposed to the
general belief of his time, on the effects of excommunication in
the case of sovereigns ; a belief which he himself admitted, by
his deputies, in the negotiations which preceded his absolution.
It is therefore prol>able that the words of his declaration are not
to be taken in their literal sense ; and that, in accordance with
the usage of ancient ecclesiastical authors, he took the word
** heresy" in a general signification, including not only heresy
strictly so called, but certain crimes which madC a sinner, be
susjKicted of heresy ; such, for instance, as simony, which was
one of the principal grounds of Gregory's complaint against
Henry.'
' Voigt, uhi sTipra, p. 364, 4c. N. Alexander, ubi supra, art. iii.
* Voigt, ubi aupra, p. 369, &c. N. Alexander, ibid.
* Supra, n. 85, note 1.
* See on thi.-< subjtx-t, L.iiinoi, De Simoni.i, obbvrv. 3, i, 5, 11 (Oper. toin. ii.
part. U.) ; Fleurj-, Uist. Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ixiii. n. 52.
106 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
95. He is excommunicated and deposed by the Pope — Lawfulness of tfiis Sentence.
The violent measures adopted by that prince in the Council
of Worms, could not remain unpunished. The pope, imme-
diately before he was informed of it, had summoned a council,
in which he pronounced against Henry sentence of excommuni-
cation and deposition.^ The sequel of the history, nevertheless,
demonstrates that, so far as the sentence regarded the deposition
of Henry, it was not definitive, nor was it to have its full effect,
except in case that prince should obstinately remain under
excommunication during a year, without taking any measure
for giving satisfaction to the Church.- The sentence, we shall
see, was understood in this sense by the adherents both of Henry
and of Gregory.
The lawfulness of this sentence was acknowledged by the
most pious and enlightened men of the day, such as St. Anselm of
Lucca, Gobehard, bishop of Salzbourg, Domnison, chaplain of
the Countess Matilda, Paul Bcmried, Lambert of Schafna-
bourg, &c.' But, as might natui'ally be expected, the partisans
of Henry censured it severely, as an act dictated more by
Gregory's personal revenge, than by a zeal for justice. To
refute this calumny, the pope wrote to the German lords a letter,
in which he explains, in language becoming his high station and
character, the grounds of his sentence against Henry. From
this letter, it is manifest that, in pronouncing that sentence,
Gregory did not pretend to ground himself merely on the divine
power of binding and loosing, but on the laws both of God
and of man, *' according to which PIcnry deserved, not only
to be excommunicated, but also to be deprived of his regal
dignity." ■*
' Voigt, ubi supra, p. 375, &c. Nat. Alexander, ibid. art. iv.
- Nat. Alexander demonstrates this point solidly, by the testimony of con-
temporary authors, and even by the letters of Gregory VII. (ibid. art. iv.).
Voigt, who asserts the contrary, is in ei-ror (p. 378, n. 3).
•* See their testimonies, cited by Nat. Alexander (ibid. art. iv.), and by
Labbe (ConcU. tom. x. p. 357).
■• " Propter quae (scelera) Henricum excommunicari non solbm usque ad
dignam satisfactionem, sed ab omni honore reg^i, absque spe recuperationis,
debere destitui, dirinarum et humanarum Icgum testatur auctoritas." — Paul
Bernried, De Rebus gestis Greg. VII. cap. Ixxviii. (Muratori, Eerum Ital.
Script, tom. iii. part. i. p. 337, col. 1, D.). Voigt, ubi supra, p. 384. N.
Alexander, ubi supra, art. iv. Fleuiy, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ixii. n. 33.
CHAP. II.] OVER S0VKRKIGN8. I<)7
96. CvtuequctKft of this SenUnce.
These letters of the pope, aided l>y the spiritual peiiulties
with which he threatened the abettors of the schism, and by
the sudden death, wliicli carried off many of Henry's partisans
about the same time, considerably weakened the party of that
prince.' Many even of his most devoted adherents be^n to
have scruples abuut their conduct, and to respect the pope's
sentence ; " on the grounds, especially, that according to the
laws of the empire, an excommunicated person not obtaining
absolution within a year, should be deprived of all his dig-
nities." * The small number of those who remained faithful to
the emperor, took their stand on the ground, either that his
cause had not been sufficiently examined, or that a sovereign
could not be excommunicated.'' Gregory VII. had refuted the
former pretext sufficiently in his letter to the (lerman lords ; he
discusses the second in a letter to Herman, bishop of ^letz,
who had consulted him on that point ; and he demonstrates,
that, according both to Scripture and tradition, the power of
binding and loosing was given generally, and without restriction,
to the apostles, and extended to princes as well as to others.*
' Voigt, ibid. p. 3S5, &c.
* " Dubitare coef>enint an exconiniunicationem ipsam contemnere, an reve-
renter obsen-are «i».-lx.Tcnt ; luaxime cfim in coruni Icjc contincutur, ut »\ quiH,
infra annum et diem, excommimlcationis vincido non fnerit al>solutus, oinni
caivat dignitatis honore." — Nicolas Roselli, Cardinal d'Aragon, Vita CJre-
gorii VII. (MuraUiri, Renim Italic. Script, torn. iii. part. i. p. 307, note 14).
Voigt, ulii Hupra, p. 390. The cardinal of Aragon wrote about the year 1360,
under the pontificate of Innocent VI. ; his testimony on this point is con-
finned, a.s we shall see, by that of Landicrt and of Itcrnried, contemporaries of
Gregory VII. This testimony aNo proves, that Lat<?r in the middle ages, as
well iiit in the days of (Iregor)' VII., the powL-r of the jntpu over sovereigns in
tJte temporal order w.ia not considered a.s being founded merely on the right
divine.
» Voigt, ibid. pp. 380, 390.
* " Eis autem qui dicunt rcgcm rum oportere eaicotnmunicari, licfct pro m.agnA
fatuitatti nee etiani eis respondere debeamus, tamen ne iiiipatienter illonim
insipicntiain pneterire videamur, ad sanctorum (latrum dicta vel f:icta illos
mittimus, ut eos ad sanam doctrinam revocemus. . . . Sed forte hoc volunt
pncdicti viri intelligero quW quando Deus Ecclesiam suam ter lieat<^> Petro
conimisit, dieenx, Ptmce nvm meat, regew exceperit. Cur non attendunt, vel
!r, quia ubi Deus bcat^i Petro princip.aliter de<lit
in Cfelo et in tcrnl, nullum exce|)it. nihil ab ejus
{lotestate sul'lraxit '" — *>reg. VII. Epi8tf)l. lib. iv. ejiist. '_' (Ijibbe, Concil.
torn. X. pp. 14'<>, 150). D. Ceiilier, Hi-t. des Auteurs Eccles. vol. xx. p. 633.
Fleury, ubi supra, n. 32. Voigt, ubi supra, p. 391, &c. N. Alexander, ubi
supra, art. iv. last paragraph.
Bossuet, in his Defens. Dcclarat. supixwes, with Nat. Alexander, that the
108 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
97. The Emperm' solicits and obtains Absolution.
The pope, though inflexible in passing sentence against
Henry, was yet ever ready to yield and to grant absolution,
provided that prince showed himself more tractable. The
Saxons, resolving to profit by the state of affairs, renewed their
old league against Henry, and once more addressed the Holy
See to direct them in the course which they were bound to take.'
Oregory seized this opportunity to manifest his own pacific
feelings towards Henry. He ordered the German barons to use
gentle measures with him, in order to give him an opportunity
for amendment ; he besought them, at the same time, not to
think of a new election unless that prince should positively
refuse to give satisfaction to the Church.^ The lords who had
so long borne impatiently the emperor's yoke, then met at
partisans of Henry did not deny precisely that a sovereign could be excom-
municated, but solely that he could incur an excommunication which would
entail the forfeiture of his temporal rights. — Nat. Alexander, ubi supra, art. x.
n. 6. Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. i. sect. i. cap. vii. ; sect. ii. cap. xxx.
This supposition is contrary to the words of Gregory VII., who declares in the
commencement of this letter, that he is going to answer those who maintain
that a kinjj oufjht not to be excommunicated. What led Bossuet and Alex-
ander into error appears to be, that they confounded the first letter of Gre-
gory VII. to Herman, which was written in 107(5 (lib. iv. epist. 2), with the
second, which was written iu lOSO (lib. vii. epist. 21). In the former, written
before the emperor's final deposition, the pope merely proposes to answer the
objection of those who pretended that a king ought not to be excommunicated ;
in the second, written after the final deposition, he discusses the objection of those
who mainUiined that the pope could not ab.solve his subjects from their oath of
allegiance. " Quod autem postulasti, te quasi nostris scriptis juvari ac prae-
muniri contra illorum insaniam, qui nefando ore gan-iunt, auctoritatem sanctae
sedis non potuisse regem Henricum . . . excommunicare, nee quemquam k
Sacramento fidelitatis ejus absolvere ; non adeo necessarium nobis videtur, ctim
liujus rei tam mult;v ac certissima documenta in sacrarum Scripturarum paginis
reperiantur." — Epist. lib. viii. epist. 21, p. 267. From not having distinguished
between these two letters, Nat. Alexander has fallen into a singular contra-
diction on this point ; asserting in one place with us, that Henry's partisans
maintained a king could not be excommunicated (art. iv. last paragraph), and
in another place supposing that no person held that error (art. x. n. 6).
> Voigt, ibid. p. 397, &c.
" " Quia nos contra eum non movit, Deo teste, ssecularis superbia, nee vana
raundi cupiditas, sed sanctffi sedis et universalis Ecclesiee sollicitudo et dis-
ciplina ; monemus vos in Domino Jesu et rogamus, sicut carissimos fratres, tU
cum btnignc, si ex toto corde ad Dciun conversus fucrit, sitscipiatis, et circa eiun,
non tanttim justitiam quae ilium regnare prohibet, sed misericordiam quae multa
delet scelera, ostendatis. . . . Quod si e-x corde non fuerit ad Deum conversus,
talis ad regni gubernationem, Deo favente, inveniatur, qui ea quae videntur
Christianie religioni, et totius imperii saluti necessaria, secreta ac indubitabili
promissione observaturum promittat." — Greg. VII. Epist. lib. iv. epist. 3
(Labbe, Concil. ubi supra, pp. 151, 152). Voigt, ibid. p. 405, &c.
CHAP. II ] OVER ^:OVEREIONS. 1 OD
TriKur, to ili'lihcratc on tl»c course to be adopteil ; and resolved
to depose Henry, and elect a successor.' Territud at these
measures, the emperor entered into neg;otiations, and promised,
in the most solemn manner, to repair without delay his p:u=;t
injustice ; but the only indulgence he could obtain iVoni them
was, a suspension of tlu-ir proceedings until he had visited
Rome and submitted his case to the pope ; they moreover
added, " that if, through his own fault, he was not absolved
from excommunication within the year, he should be definitively
deprived of his crown, without the least hope of recovering liis
dignity, which the laws of the empire disqualified him from
enjoying, if he had remained during more than a year under
sentence of excommunication." -
However humiliating were these conditions, Henry thought
himself fortunate in obtaining them, and resolved seriously to
be reconciled to the pope ; " knowing," as contcmj)orary authors
assure us, " that he had no other chance of safety, but by
obtaining absolution before the anniversary day of his excom-
munication ; and that, if he were not absolved l)eforc that day,
he Would definitively forfeit liis crown, without hope of recovery."^
' Voigt, ibid. p. 407, &c.
' "Quixl si ante diem aniiiversarium excoinmunicationis suae, suo prjEsertim
vitio, exconimuiiicnti(int.-non ali.solvatur, alwriucrutracUitione in perpotuum caiisil
ceciderit, nee Iff/ibiu dciiiccps regnuin repetcre possit, f/uod lajihit^ nltril udini-
nUtniir, annnain jtamtiu crcommuuictttiotum, non ponnU." — Lambert de Sch.if-
nalKiur;,', t'hrnnicon, anno lO"*'. (A'ol. i. of the liecueil do PJHtorius, licruin
fJeniian. Scrip. Hatislwn.p, 17-6, 3 vol.s. in ful.) Thi.s p.-usaage is cited by
Nat. Alexander, ubi supr.i, art. 5 ; Baronii AnnaicH, ann. 107(), n. .'^7 ; Voigt,
ibid. p. 413 ; Fleary, Hist. EccUa. vol. xiii. book Ixii. n. 36.
* " /i"' ■ I in CO vcrti snlutcm, iri ante aiinifersnriitn
diem u ")• . . . , optimum foi'tu wibi judicavit, ut
Homano pontifici in Ititiinm occtirrc-ret. . . . HieraM crat axperrima ; . . . Bed
dies anniversarius, quo rex in excommuuicationem devenerat, e vicino immi-
nenn, nuUan accelerandi itinerin mora-s patiel)atur ; quia Jiwt ante cam ditiii
anot/iemalt a/ti'ilimtnr, decretuni noverat communi principum sententiil, ut et
cauH:! in peqH,tuum cecidis.set, ct rcjnum nine ullo dcinojm rcmcdiij amljiisnet." —
I^inilxTt lie Schafnabour).f, ubi HU|)r:i (I'aroiiii Annidirs, ann. I<t7'<, n. 60 ;
ann. 1077, n. 1). Thi.s text is also cited by Voi^'t, ul>i supra, pp. IIH, 422;
but the first jwvrt is erroneously attributed to Paul IJemried. The foUowin]^ is
the pasoagefrom the letter, which agrees perfectly, in substance at least, with
Lambert's : — "Ipse vert> (Ilcnricua) ejuwiue compliccH, communionem utcum-
que festinavi^rant reci[>ere, quia, jiurtn Uycm T- ' rum, se pnediis et
beneficiis privandoa esse non dubital>ant, si »uli • ntcationr ititf;/rum
annum . 'it; cujuh lulhuc unus niensis wupcrfuil, d<mi ad reconcilia-
tionem i —Paul P^niried, De Kobus ge^ti.s <»reg. \ll. cap. Lxxxv.
(Mumtori, ubi supra, p. 339, col. 2). SceaLto Fleury, ubi supra, n. 37.
110 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
He accordingly set out for Italy, with the view of arranging
matters with the pope. When he arrivtd at Canossa, where the
pope was then residing, ambassadors were sent to announce that
the emperor was ready to give whatever satisfaction was desired.
The ambassadors were, moreover, to represent to the pope,
" that the anniversary day of the excommunication was ap-
proaching, and that, if absolution were not given before that
time, the prince would, according to the laws of the empire,
be judged unworthy of the crown." ^ Moved by his promises,
Gregory granted him absolution on condition that he should
swear to submit his case to a general assembly of the German
barons, and to the judgment of the pope ; that they, after
attentively examining all the accusations against him, should
decide together, whether it was right that he should retain his
crown.*^ Unfortunately, on this as on so many other occasions,
Henry sought only to gain time, and to avert the storm by false
promises. No sooner had he departed from Canossa, after
receiving absolution, than he forgot all his engagements, and
provoked, by additional crimes, the indignation of the Gennan
lords, who, without Gregory's consent, and in spite of his
attempts to appease them, deposed him (in 1077) in the Diet
of Forcheim, and elected Rodolph of Swabia in his place.^
It was not until after this election that Henry was excommuni-
cated a second time, and definitively deposed in 1080 by the
pope, whose sentence was really no more than a confirmation of
the judgment already pronounced by the German lords in the
Diet of Forcheim.*
98. Inferences from all these Facts with regard to the General Belief in the Papal
Temporal Power.
From this statement it clearly follows, that, at the time of
those deplorable disputes, it was the general belief that, by the
laws of the empire, a prince who should remain obstinately
' " Ut si ante banc diem excomraunicatione non absolvatur, deincep?, jn.rta
Palatinas leges, iiuUgnus rcgio honore habeatiu:"—'LAmhert de Schafnabourg,
Historia Imperatorum (Script. Reiiim Germanic, ubi supra). Voigt, ibid,
p. 426. Fleury, ibid. n. 39.
^ Voigt, ibid. p. 429, &c.
^ Voigt, ibid. p. 436, &c. N. Alexander, ubi supra, art. vi. vii.
' Voigt, ibid. p. .523, &c. N. Alexander, ubi supra, art. viii.
CHAP. II.] OVER SOVKREIOyS. Ill
under excommunication Juriiii^ u whole year, witliout takini;
any means to make satisfaction to the Chiircli, f.>rfiitiii his
dignity, and could be deposed. The emperor, Henry IV.,
apjx'ars, it is true, to sui)pose the contrary in the insultini^
letter which he wrote to Grej^ury VII. in the commencenKiit »)f
those contests ; ' but a letter dictated manifestly by passion,
which does not meivsure its expressions, cannot outweigh the
testimony of the contemporary authors whom we h;ivc cited,'-
of the German lords in the assembly of Tribur, and of Henry's
own ambassadors, who, Avhen pressing Gregory to ginint the
absolution, insisted strongly on the ancient laws of the empire,
"which enacted, that the monarch should be judged unwortliy
of the empire, if he were not absolved before the anniversary
day of his excommunication." '
99. Futile Objections against the Pact that fuch a Belief prevailed.
It belongs not to our plan to refute in detail all the objec-
tions which might be made against our assertion, that the
belief in the temporal effects of excommunication was universal.*
Such a di-scu-^sion woul(> detain us too long, and, moreover, most
of these ditiiculties have, we believe, been already anticipated.
It was, in truth, impossible that a sentence so terrible as that of
Gregory VII., pronounced against an emperor of such a cha-
racter as Henry IV., would not meet with sharp opposition,
principally from the imperial partisans, from those who dreaded
his power or had anything to hope from his favour. It should,
therefore, inevitably happen, that notwithstanding the pope's
sentence, some persons interested in supporting Henry's cause,
or diuzlcd by the sophistry of his advocates, should continue to
acknowledge him and to treat with him as a legitimate prince,
especially before the definitive sentence which deposed him in
1080. All this opposition, however, it is manifest, cannot, in
any manner, invalidate the authority of those positive testimonies
already cited, in proof of the fact, that there did then exist the
' Supra, n. 94. ' Supra, n. 97. ' Supm, n. 97.
* These flifficultics arc pro|x>se4l by Nat. Alexander, ubi supra, art. x. ; and
by li.xsuet, ubi supra, lib. iii. cap. vi. &c. They are di«cuHHetl at Ifujjtli by
Bianchi, DclLa Tott-sti* della Chiesa, tfiin. i. lib. ii. ; and more briefly by
Mamachi, Originca et Antiquit. CUriitt. torn. iv. p. 249.
112 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
general belief in question, on the temporal effects entailed by
excommunication, by virtue of the " laws of the empire."
Though this observation is sufficient to answer most of the
objections that can be proposed, we think ourselves bound to
examine more particularly those which are of such a nature as
to make a stronger impression on a certain class of minds.
These objections are founded principally on the conduct of
Henry's partisans, who despised the papal excommunication ;
and on the astonishment which that sentence caused in the
world.
100. The Sentence of the Pope treated with Contempt by the Partisans of Henry.
The first objection, founded on the conduct of Henry's par-
tisans, in whatever light it be considered, is of slight importance.
For, first, that prince's party consisted principally of those
lords Avho had shared in his oppressions and robberies ; or of
simoniacal and incontinent bishops and other ecclesiastics, who
had a manifest interest in resisting a sentence of the pope
which threatened themselves with excommunication, and with
deprivation of their dignities and benefices ; secondly, those
partisans denied, it is true, the validity of the sentence pro-
nounced by the pope, on the pretext, that it had been issued
without sufficient examination ; that it was not invested with
the requisite forms ; some even contended that a sovereign
could not be excommunicated.^ But it does not appear that
they denied precisely the effects entailed by excommunication,
according to the laws of the empire. On the contrary, these
efiects are expressly supposed by the ambassadors who solicited
from the pope Henry's absolution ; thirdly, many of those who
had at first adhered to that prince, soon abandoned him ; " and
for this reason especially, that, according to the laws of the
empire, an excommunicated person not obtaining absolution
within a year, should be deprived of all his dignities ;" - fourthly,
in fine, admitting even that this terrible effect of excommuni-
cation was contested by some partisans of Henry, it is neverthe-
less certain, that it was admitted generally by the most pious
and enlightened men. This fact, which follows clearly fi*om our
' Voigt, p. 389, &c. 2 Supi-a, ii. 96.
CHAP. II. J OVER SOVKREIGNS. 1 1 ."?
statonicnt, is expressly lulinitted l»y niodern authors, who are
h-arft suspected of partialitv for Gre<jjory. *' This reasoning,"
(founded on the ohligation of avoiding heretics) Bossuet observes,
" had made such an impression on pious and enlightened men
in the time of Gregory VII., that they renounced allegiance t<3
Henry IV., when he was excommunicated by that pope. It was
the custom in those days to insist strongly on the law which
prohibited intercourse with the excommunicated ; . . . and that
was the chief reason assigned by those who renounced allegiance
to the emperor." ^
101. Gmrral Attonishmcnt at thU Stntcnce.
A more plausible objection may perhaps be urged against us
from the general astonishment at Gregory's sentence against the
emperor. According to Bossuet,- " the novelty of this sen-
tence excited universal astonishment, as we learn from the
t<?stimony of Otho, bishop of Frisingen, a distinguished writer of
' " Hoc illud arpTimentuni est, quo uno, Groj,'orii VTT. temporihiis, viros
bonos ddctos^jue jiemiotort fuiB.se videhimus, ut ab Heiirici IV. regi.s excoiii-
ruunii-ati o)>e<iientia recttden-nt 'Sjltbant auteni, hi.s temporibus, vehe-
nientimim^ urjjjere, quod excoumninicAtot) vitare debeanius ; . . . eAfjue se
ratione uaxi^l^ tuebanlur, qui regem respuebant." — Boasuet, Defens. Declar.
lib. i. sect. ii. cap. xxiv. p. 348 ; lib. iii. cap. iv. p. .587, et alibi jiassiin. Iii
support of this testimony of Bossuet, we shall cite in another pl.ice those of
Fleurj- and PfcfTel, &c. (infra, n. 119),
* " Ad rei novitatem obstupuere omnes. Testis Otho, episcopus Frisingensis,
duodecimi sx-culi auctor nobilis, doctrine, virtutibus ac genere clams ; aid bscc
bistoricus candidLssimus, et Gregorii VII. laudator eximius ; sedi ve^^ apos-
tolicse sic a<ldjctuH, ut Homanos {)ontifice8, projieinodtini impeccibiles faceret.
Is enim de Henrico de|)OKito ha.'C scribit : Ctijus rvi lu/riUilcm rd vihemcntiun
indiynalione moluin xiijuct-pit imj>eriuin, quo mimf/nain, ante ficec Uinpora, hujiu-
mrxli tmtmtiam in priHci]>nn Jiomanorum promulffatain norerat. Quin ipse
etiam Otho, quantiim di novitate moveretur, his verbis testatur : Ltgu cC rcttrjo
Romanoi-um rtgum, et impcratoruvi gctta ; et nusquam utroito quemrjuam ante
Akiu; (Henricum IV.) d Romano pontifice ejrcommunicatum, vd regno prxratum."
• — Bossuet, Defl•n.^. Declar. lib. i. sect. i. cap. vii. ; lib. iii. cap. iii. Nat.
Alexander, ubi supm, art. ix. x. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. 3rd Discoui-se,
n. 18 ; book Ixii. n. 32. Nat. Alexander (ibid. art. x. n. 7), as a proof of the
general astonishment at Henr>-'.s deposition, cites a lett<^r of Gregory VII.
him.oelf, addressed to the Germans, in which he asserts, " that all the Latins
(thjit is, the Italians), with very few exceptions, sided with Henry, anti accused
the pope of excessive severity towards him." — CJregorii Epistol. lib. vii. ep. 3.
Nat. Alexander di<l not advert to the fact, that this letter, which was written
jn 1079, does not refer to tlie poi»e's sentence ai^in.st the emperor, but to the
pope's unwilhngness to approve Kwlolph's election. This election, as we have
already ob'^erved (supra, n. 97), had t&ken place without the concurrence of
Gregory, who did not consider Henry d<finitiy<hj <1ef>o»ed, nor despair alto-
gether of obtaining from him suitable ."tatisfaction. (Voigt, Hittoire de Gr^-
goire VII. p. 507, kc.,
VOL. II. I
114 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
tiie twelfth century, and a warm admirer of Gregory VII. He
gives the following account of Henry's deposition : ' The
empire was the more indignant at this novel procedure, as there
had never before been a similar sentence published against a
Roman emperor.' ^ In another passage he thus expresses his
own astonishment at the proceeding : ' I have perused again
and again the history of the kings and emperors of Rome, but I
cannot find that any of them, before Henry IV., had been
excommunicated, or deprived of his crown, by the pope.' " "
The authors who propose this objection fall, we think, into a
very strange contradiction. They admit, on the one hand,
that in assuming to himself this extraordinary power over
sovereigns, Gregory VII. only followed the maxims generally
admitted by the most pious and enlightened men of his age ; '
and yet, on the other hand, they pretend, that in attributing
this power to himself, " he astonished the whole world by the
novelty of his principles."* Assuredly, it is difl&cult to reconcile
two assertions so contradictory.
But let us examine the difficulty in itself. "Why do they
adduce in proof of this general astonishment at Gregory's depo-
sition of Henry, Otho of Frisingen, an author who wrote a full
century after that event ? Who are the best authorities on the
impressions immediately produced by that sentence ? is it con-
temporary authors, who declare that it was in accordance with
the laws of the empire, or more recent writers, representing it as
a strange novelty ?
These authors may, however, be perhaps reconciled, if we
reflect that this sentence, though founded on the ancient laws of
the empire, was, in a certain sense, really a novelty. It was
the first time that the principle sanctioned by the ancient laws
was enforced ; and there was something astonishing, and even
terrible, in seeing it enforced against so great a prince. If the
world had just reason for astonishment on beholding St. Ambrose
excommunicating Theodosius, and that prince humbly submit-
' Otho of Frisingen, Chronicon. lib. vi. cap. xxxv. &c. (vol. i. of Urstitius's
Collection, Germanife Historici lUustres. Francofurti, 1670, 2 vols. fol.).
* Idem, De Gestis Frider. I. lib. i. cap. i. (vol. i. of Urstitius).
^ Supra, n. 100.
* See atithoi*s cited in note 1 to n. 101,
CHAP. 11. ] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 115
ting to the sentence, there was much greater reason for astonish-
ment when an emperor was, for the first time, deposed, by
virtue of the laws of the empire, which annexed so terrible an
effect to excommunication.
102. Tanporal EffecU of E.ccoinmunication with rtgard to Princes acknotclcdgcd
in England during the Twelfth Century.
In the history of subsequent ages the same effect of excom-
munication is found generally recognised in the other Catholic
states of Europe. The emperor Frederick I. (Barbarossa),
having been excommunicated and deposed by I'ope Alex-
ander III., in puni.shnient of the open protection given by him
to the antipope Victor,* John of Salisbury, a contemporary
author, and one of the most distinguished writers of his day,
supposes it as a principle universally admitted, that the emperor's
deposition was the consequence of the papal excommunication ;
and he expresses a wish that the pope should use the same
means to compel the king of England to desist from his unjust
aggressions on the liberties of the English Church. " I \\o\^
in the Lord," he writes in 1IG7, to William, superior of a
monastery in Kent,' " that the city of Jericho (that is, the
' This sentence f)f excAmnuinication and dejiosition wa.s pronounced first in
1160, in the (.'ouncil of Ana^Tii, antl reneweil in 1167, in a council of Lateran.
Bossuct is wrong in referring it to 11G8. See, on this subject, the Annals of
Baronius, ann. 11G8, n. 32; Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xv. book Ixx. n. 43;
Bianchi, Delia Potesta della t'hiesa, tom. ii. lib. v. § 14, n. 2.
■ " Spes est in Domino, ut, vocifenintibus tubiH saccrdotalibus, in |)roximo
corruat et Hicricho, et regnuni proprio sanguine acjuisitum obtineat triuni-
phator Jetrus, et in pace possideat qufxl sui juris est, sf)onsus et custos Elcclesia}
Christua. Cum enim Konianus |)Ontifcx per patientium Teutonicuni tyrannum
diutiua expectasset, ut vel sic provocaretur a«J (XBuitcntiam, et schisniaticus,
abutens patienti/l ejus, peccata peicatis adderet jugitcr, ut error in amentiam
verteretur ; vicarius Petii, a, I>umino cm titutrm «(«;«;• gintm tt sujnr rajna,
Italos et onines ((iii ei, ex causA imperii et regni, rcliginne jurisjunindi tene-
bantur adstricti, a fidelitate ejua absolvit ; et Ituliam fere totani a facie furentis
et prtesentis, tantii felicitate et celeritaU-, excussit, ut in eA nihil hal>ere vide-
atur nisi tortores quos evitat interdum, et .ingTJstiarum, quas evitaro non
potent, juge supplicium ; abstulit ei etiam regiam dignilatcm, ipsumque ana-
thematc condemnavit, . . . donee fructus pojnitentiif condignos operetur. . . .
Kt quidem ilia sententia effectum sortita est : et banc, de privilegio Petri
latam, videtur ipse Pominus confimiasse. Hoc enim Itali audito, ab co dis-
cc<.lente<<, re.Twlifi cave runt Mediolanuni, schismaticos exjiulenint, Catholicos
re<iuxerunt epi.-tci'pos, et aposfibcje xedi unanimitcr a»lhjp«erunt. Std quid
nota rereu-fo ' IIi>c ubiquc lo^-oruni Cinia, <piasi pni'ciinA voce, concelebrat ;
Dec aliquibua dubium puto, niai fort^ lateat illos, qui soli, tenipestate h&c,
exulant domi suae. Quia ergo ab Oriente jam radius serenitatis illuxit per
Christum, et incolumitas Ecclesise in capite roparatur, tniperest spes fidei cer-
i2
116 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
kingdom of the devil, and of the persecutors of the Church)
may soon fall at the sound of the trumpets of the priests ; that
Jesus, triumphing over his enemies, may enjoy the kingdom
which he purchased by his blood ; and that the Christ, the
spouse and guardian of the Church, may at length possess his
own in peace. In truth, the sovereign pontiff, having long
patiently borne with the tyrant of Germany (Frederick I.), to
bring him to penance, and that schismatical prince having
abused this patience to multiply his crimes, and plunge into the
maddest excesses, the vicar of St. Peter, who was placed by God
over nations and over kingdoms,^ has absolved from all alle-
giance due to him as king or emperor, the Italians and all other
subjects bound to him by oath. So promptly and successfully
has this sentence of the pope delivered nearly all Italy from the
fury of the tyrant, that wherever he turns he is met by enemies
from whom he must endeavour to fly, and by chastisements
which he cannot escape. This sentence has deprived him of
the regal dignity, and subjected him to excommunication, until
he does worthy fruits of penance. And the Lord seems to have
confirmed this sentence, which was inflicted in virtue of the
privilege of St. Peter ; for as soon as the Italians heard it, they
abandoned the emperor, restored the city of Milan,- expelled
the schismatical bishops, recalled the Catholics, and unani-
mously took part with the Holy See. But where is the use of
stating facts so notorious ? Fame has published them in all
places, and they cannot be called into doubt except by persons
who have condemned themselves to perpetual solitude within
the walls of their houses. The power of Jesus Christ ha-vdng,
therefore, made the calm succeed the storm in the East, and
restored security to the Church in the person of her chief, let us
hope, with a most firm confidence, that the oil of unction flowing
from the head to the beard of the pontiff,^ may descend also on
tissima, quod unguenium a capite in apostolicam harham exuberans descendet in
caput et Oram Ecclesise Anglicanae."— Joannis Sarisb. Epistola 210, ad Wil-
helmum, subpriorem Cantise. (Bibliotb. Patrum, torn, xxiii. Inter Epistolas
S. Thomas Cantuar. lib. ii. epist. 89. Baronii Annales, torn. xii. ann. 1668,
n. 53. Eerum Gallic. Script, torn. xvi. Joan. Sarisb. Epist. 57.)
' Jer. i. 10.
^ Ruined by Frederick in 1162, and rebuilt by the Milanese in 1166. — Fleury,
Hist. Eccl. vol. XV. book Ixx. n. 56 ; book Ixxi. n. 40.
^ Psalm cxxxii.
CHAP. II. J OVER SOVEREIGNS. 117
the lieiul and members of the English Church, " that is, on the
primate and the clergy of that Church, who were then persecuted
by the king.
It is remarkable that, in this passage, the bishop of Chartrcs
does not examine precisely by what law the deposition of the
em|K'ror was a consequence of his excommunication : he simply
assumes it as a notorious fact, that the pope had deposed the
emperor by excommunication, and that such a consei[uence of
excommunication was generally admitted. He adds, it is true,
that the sentence of the pope against the emperor was inflicted
in virtue of the power of the keys, or of the privilege of
St. Peter. And according to an exposition which we have
given in another place,* it can be said with truth, that so far as
the direct and immediate effect of the sentence, namely, excom-
munication, was concerned, it was founded on that power: but,
in that supposition, the ([uestion still remains untouched, by
what law is deposition annexed to excommunication ? John of
Ssilisbury does not examine that question here ; but in another
work he states his opinion very plainly on the subject-
103. Contents of Uairy II. with St. Tliomas of Canterhunj.
From the last words of the letter just cited, it appears that it
was written during the fatal contest about ecclesiastical jurisdiction
and immunities, between Henry II. and Thomas of Canterbury.
We shall state briefly the occasion and subject of this contest,
as it supplies an additional proof of the belief then prevalent in
England regarding the temporal effects of excommunication in
the case of sovereigns.''
No sooner was St. Thomas raised to the see of Canterbury,
than he lost, as he had foreseen, the king's favour. Hitherto
he had been the special object of the royal bounty. It is difli-
' Supra, n. 12.
' John of Salirtburj-, Polycmticus, lib. iv. cap. i. ii. iii. In that work he
rnaintains the opinion which atlritiutcs to the j)ope antl to the Church a direct
power over teniporalitie-i. He was the first, in our opinion, th.it maintained
it ; and in another place we shall nee that it was held \>y very few Ijefore the
thirteenth century. See No. 8 of the Conhrmat'jry Evidence at the close of
this volume.
' For a detailed account of these disputes, see Lingard's Hitttory of England,
vol. ii. ; Altjan Butler, Lives of Saiot^, Dec. 29 ; Nat. Alexander, Disoert. x.
in Hist. Eccled. s«ec. xii.
118 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
cult to discover tlie precise cause of the sudden change ; some
attribute it to the king's displeasure at the archbishop's sudden
resignation of the office of chancellor ; others, to the claims
which he urged to the lands unjustly taken from his see; others,
to his attempts to reform the clergy of the court, or to his
opposition to the reimposition of an obnoxious tax on the clergy,
contrary to their ancient immunities. But what led to an open
rupture between the king and archbishop was, a dispute regarding
ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Thomas complained loudly of the
conduct of the lay judges, who frequently cited before their
tribunals, ecclesiastics, in contempt of the immunities enjoyed
by the clergy, time out of mind, in England, as well as in other
Christian states, and which the king himself had, in his corona-
tion oath, sworn to maintain. Henry, annoyed by these protests,
used all possible means to compel the archbishop to desist.
But not believing himself justified in conscience to sacrifice the
rights of his church, St. Thomas persisted in maintaining them,
in spite of the king's remonstrances. Hence those fatal dis-
sensions which involved the saint in so protracted persecutions,
and at length led to his mart}Tdom, on the 29th of December,
1170.
104. Bossiict's Opinion of this Contest.
The reader will no doubt be pleased to hear Bossuet's opinion
of that famous contest. " Henry II., king of England, declares
himself an enemy of the Church ; he attacks her both in spirituals
and in temporals, in what she holds from God, and in what she
holds from men ; he openly usurps her power ; he thrusts his
hand into her treasury, which contains the property of the poor ;
he injures the honour of her ministers by abrogating their privi-
leges, and oppresses their liberty by restrictive laws. Rash and
ill-advised prince ! why did he not foresee in the distance the
portentous revolutions which the contempt of the Church's
authority would one day cause in his kingdom ; and the unheard-
of excesses into which the people would be hurried, when they
had once shaken ofi" that necessary yoke." ^
' Pan^gyrique de S. Thomas de Cantorbery, point 1st. (CEuvres de Bossuet,
vol. xvi. p. 586). This is not the only passage in which Bossuet pronounces so
decided an opinion on thi.s matter. See also his opinion on it in the splendid
panegyric on the sainted archbishop at the end of book vii. of the Hi&toire des
Variations (vol. xix. of CEuvres).
CIlAl'. 11 ] OVER SOVEUEIGNS. J19
105. The BclUj of tchich we treat prored by this Conttat.
The history of these deplorable contests furnishes a remark-
able proof of the behef then prevalent in England, as well as
in the other Catliolic states of Europe, on the temporal efl'ccts
of excommunication in the case of sovereigns. Henry II.
obstinately persisting in his unjust pretensions, the pope wrote
to him very urgent letters in 1 1 0'l), ordering him to be reconciled
to the archbishop of Canterbury. At first, the king j)rotested
with an oath that he would do no such thing, and he even
threatened to commit new excesses. One of the legates, how-
ever, mildly replied to him : " Sire, use no threats ; we fear
them not : for we belong to a court that is accustomed to com-
mand emperors and kings." Upon this the king seemed to
relent, and to be disposed for a reconciliation with the arch-
bishop ; he took many of his barons, and of the clergy of his
chapel, to witness all the advances which he had already made
with that view.' The legate's reply manifestly implied a threat
of excommunication and deposition, like that with which the
pope had punished the emperor some years before ; and from the
whole narrative, it manifestly follows, that the king of England,
far from questioning the pope's power in this matter, was intimi-
dated by the legate's threats, and prepared to satisfy the pope,
in order to avert the fatal consequences which resistance might
entail on him.-
' " Aliquantulum ante occasum solis, cxiit rex multum iratiis, conquerena
gravitcr dc domino Papa, quod nuniquam in aliquo audierit eum ; et cum quA-
daiii contuiiuici.l dixit rex : Per oculos Dei, cjo faciani aliiul. Et Gratianus
gratiosJ- rcijxindit : Dominc, noli mi nan : not ctiim vuUm mimia timrmtit ; quia
d< tali ciirii't suiniu, qu(r contuevit impcrare iinperatoribus ct rcjibus. Tunc
conv(K-ati Mint omncs barones et monachi albi, qui jira-sentcH ei-ant, et omnes
fere de capellA ; et dominus rex rogavit ut tempore opportuno testificarentur
pro eo, quantA et qualia obtulerat, restitutionem scilicet archiepincopatAB et
pacis." — H. Tljoma- C'antuar. Epiiit. lib. iii. epist. 61. P'leury, Hist. Eccl.
▼ol. XV. l)ook Ixxii. n. 7.
"Some persons," olwer\*e9 M. Hurler, "denounce as insolent the wordu
•ddresaed on thi« occasion by Cardinal (.Iratian to the kin;; of England ; wo
renrd them as dictated by the profound 8on»o which that i>relat« bml of the
oUigatious of the papal office." — Uurter, Hist, d'lnnocent HI. vol. ii. book xx.
p. 800.
* Pt-re Daniel (Hist, de Fmno*, vol. iii. pp. 601, 61 3> supposes that it was
this same fear of exconi: n and d»'poBition, with which the king of
England saw himself tht- . that induced him aUjut the xame lime to
take his son as partner in the throne, in order to insure to the young prince
the goveminent of the kingdom in the event of his own dei>OBition. Tliere is,
in truth, every reason to believe that this waa really Henry's object in getting
120 POWER 01 THE POPE [PART II.
106. The same Belief proved by the History of Richard I.
About the same period, the history of England also furnishes
another remarkable proof of the general belief of princes and
people regarding the efiects of excommunication in the case of
sovereigns. Richard I., king of England, having been made
prisoner, in 1192, on his return from the Holy Land, by the
emperor of Germany, Henry VI., Queen Eleanor vnrote fre-
quently to the pope, Celestine III., to obtain by his intercession
the deliverance of her son.^ Among other cogent arguments
in support of her prayer, she tells the pope that, in order to
obtain her son's liberty, he need but use the power which God
had given him over all the kingdoms and all the powers of the
earth, by means of excommunication. " What excuse," slie
urges, "can palliate your negligence, when the whole world
knows that you have the power, if you have the wish to deliver
my son ? Has not God given to St. Peter, and to you in his
person, the power of governing all kingdoms ? No king, nor
duke, nor emperor, is exempt from your jurisdiction. Where,
then, is the zeal of Phineas ? Show that it is not in vain you
and your brother bishops bear the double-edged swords.^ You will
tell me that this power was given to you over souls, and not over
bodies : granted ; it is enough for me if you bind the souls of
those who keep my son bound in prison : my son you can easily
his son crowned in 1170 ; but however well grounded this conjecture may be,
it does not seem proved to satisfaction by the ancient author cited bv Pfere
Paniel (Hist, Quadrip. lib. ii. cap. xxxi.). This work is prefixed to the Letters
of St. Thomas of Canterbury, published by Christ. Lupus. It must be observed,
too, that Dr. Lingard says nothing of this motive which P. Daniel attributes
to Henry.
' Petri Blesensis Epistolse 144, 145, 146 (Operum, p. 227, &c.). Rymer,
Foedera, Conventiones, &c. vol. i. pp. 72-78. D. Ceiilier, Hist, des Auteurs
Ecclds. vol. xxiii. p. 220. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xv. book Ixxiv. n. 41.
Michaud, Hist, des Croisades, vol. ii. p. 553. Bibliothfeque dea Croisades,
part ii. p. 862,
' " Quae enim excusatio possit vestram desidiam et incuriam palhare, ctim
omnibus liqueat quod liberandi filium meura habetis potestatem, et subtrahitis
voluntatem ? Nonne Petro apostolo, et in eo vobis, a Deo omne regnum, omnisque
potestas rcf/CJida committitur ? . . . Non rex, non imperator aut du.r ajugo r&>tr(e
J2u-isdictioim eximitur. Ubi est ergo zelus Phinees ? . . . Appareat quod non
in vanum dati sunt vobis et coepiscopi-'i restris gladii ancipites in manibus vet-
tris." — Petri Blesensis Epist. 145 (Oper. p. 228, col. 2).
These words allude to the allegory of the two swords, so often u.«ed by
writers at this period to express the union of the two powers, spiritual and
temporal, in the hands of the pope.
CHAP. II.] OVER SOVKUEIGNS. 121
liberate, if the fear of God expel from you the fear of man.
Restore my son to me, 0 man of God ; if you be indeed a man of
God, and not a man of blood."' Such language manifestly
implies that, according to the general belief of the day, the
pojM) had power, by moans of spiritual censures, to govern king-
doms and keep sovereigns in the path of duty. This language
of the (jueeu of England is the more entitled to consideration,
as the letters addressed in her name to the pope were the com-
position of Peter of Blois, one of the most eminent men of his
day, both for piety and learning, and at the time the queen's
secretary.
107. Proof of thU Belief in France unda- the Second Race of Fretich Kings.
This general belief was not less prevalent in France than in
other countries, under the second race of her kings, and the
first period of the third. Lothaire the Young, king of Lorraine,
son of the emperor Lothaire I., and grandson of Louis le
Debonnaire, having repudiated Teutberga, his lawful wife, and
taken in her place a eoneul>ine named Valdrada, Pope Nicholas L,
one of the most learned and prudent pontiffs that ever filled the
Holy See, at first threatened to excommunicate him, if he did
not renounce this adulterous connection." Shortly after (in SGti)
he excommunicated Valdrada, intimating, at the same time,
that if he did not inflict the same punishment on Lothaire, it
was purely from indulgence for that prince, whom he expected
to train over to a more Christian life bv this moderation.
Lothaire was alarmed ; he wrote a very submissive letter to the
pope, promising to make satisfaction to the Church, ami im-
ploring, " that none of his equals (that is, his near relatives)
should be raised above him and placed over his states, lest they
might attempt against him measures which he could not brook,
and which mifjht cause among them scandalous dissensions." ^
' " Se<l dicetis lianc potestjitem vohis in anim<iV)U8, non in corporibiiH fiiisse
oomniiHsam. Esto ; cerU; Hufficit noluH Hi eoriiiii li^^-iveritia iiniiii.iH, fjui fiiium
meum lijjnluni in carcere tencnt. Filiiini meuiii ho1v«tc, voImh in expcjdito est,
dummodu hunianuni tintorcm Dei tinior evacuet. Keddt; igitur niihi iilium
meum, vir Dei ; Hi tamen vir Dei es, ot non potida vir sanguinum." — Petri
Bleaenais Epist. 146 (Oper. p. 230, col. 2).
* For detailn on this fact, see Baronius, Annales, ann. SCi6, n. 24, ic. ;
Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xi. book I. n. 43 ; Hiat. de I'Egliae Gall. vol. vi. ann.
866, 867.
' " Quamobrcm ccmao lumine vcstram affatim de[>oscimus Paternitatcm,
122 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
This language of Lothaire clearly implies, that he admitted
in the pope a power of depriving him of his kingdom by means
of excommunication. Some authors, it is true, maintain, with
Fleury, that Lothaire's excommunication would have been only
a pretext devised by his uncles to deprive him of the crown ; ^
but that supposition can hardly be reconciled with Lothaire's
letter, which implores the pope, in the most submissive manner,
" that none of his equals should be raised above him, and placed
over his states."
108. Proof of this Belief under tlie Third Race. — Philip I. threatened with
Excommunication by Oregory VII.
But whatever may have been the custom of France in this
matter under the second race of her kings, its existence under
the first kings of the third race is manifestly proved by the
conduct of Popes Gregory VII. and Urban II. to Philip I., and
by the testimony of many writers, French included, relating to
the scandalous marriage of that prince with Bertrade.
In the letters of Gregory VII.. as well as in the other docu-
ments of contemporary history, Philip I. appears as one of the
most scandalous princes of this age, both by the profligacy of
his morals, and the shameful traffic which he carried on of
bishoprics and abbeys." Gregory VII., always so zealous for the
reformation of the Church and of public morals, having im-
plored him, but without success, to change his conduct, at length
thought it his duty to threaten him with excommunication and
deposition, if he persisted in his disorders. He wrote a letter
to the bishop of Chalons to the following effect, and charged him
ut (lum nos vobis missisque vestris, ut ita dicamus, majoribus seu minoribus,
per omnia, super omnes cotequales nostros obedire volumus, non aliquem
nostri, Deo miserante, consimilem super nos extollere, aut terras prseponere,
vestrye libeat Patemitati ; ne fortfe ipsi talem contra nos moliri velint causam,
quam tolerare non valentes, pro regio mimiraine, inter nos aliquod scandalum
evenire possit." — Lotharii Epistola ad Nicolaum I. (Baronii Annales, ann.
866, n. 41).
' Fleury, ubi supra.
^ Ivonis Carnot. Epistolse 35, 66, &c. See Juret's notes on these letters.
Gilbert, abbot of Nogent, confirms the charge of simony against Philip I.,
describing his character in the following expressive words : " Hominem in Dei
rebus venalissimum." — Guib. Monodiarum, sive de Vita sua, lib. iii. cap. ii.
(Rec. des Hist, de France, vol. xii. p. 241). Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii.
book Ixii. n. 6, 16, 20. Hist, de lEgl. Gall. vol. vii. ann. 1073, p. 504, &c.
D. Ceillier, Hist, des Auteurs Eccl^s. vol. xx. pp. 618, 626.
CHAP. II.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 123
to communicate it to the king. '' Tell that prince, that wc can
no longer tolerate his injustices to the Church ; for he must
either renounce the shameful traffic in simony, or the French,
involved in a general excommunication, must refuse to obey him,
unless they prefer renouncing the Christian religion." ' Gre-
gory VII. repeats these menaces, in a letter addressed about
the same time to the French bishops, whom he accuses of abet-
ting the king's crimes by their weakness and cowardly silence.
lie accordingly orders them to assemble, in order to concert
measures for compelling the king to restore justice and morality
in his kingdom ; adding, moreover, " that if he persisted in his
disorders, every means should, with God's help, be used to
deprive him of that kingdom." - These means, to which the
pope here alludes, are explained in his letter to William, count
of Poitiers, whom he re<[uests to combine with the bishops and
lords of France to compel the king to reform, and to desist from
those outrages, which rendered him odious alike to the French
and to foreigners. " Should he persist in his disorders," the
pope continues, "we shall cut him off from the communion of
the Church in the next Roman council, and all those who pay
him honour or obedience." ^ Such language manifcs^tly supposes
that the temporal effects of excommunication in the case of
sovereigns, were admitted in France, as well as in the other
states of Europe. Can any one imagine that Gregory VII., to
whom even his adversaries cannot deny great intelligence,
' " Induliitinter noverit nos hauc Ecclesi:u ruinam nequaqiiam diutiiia
toleraturori, et e.x auctoritatc be.itorura apostolorum Petri et i'auli, duram
inobedienti» contuni.iciam canonicji au.steritate coercituro.s. Nam, aut rex
ipse, reputUato turpi simoniaca» hajresis mercinionio, idone.os ad nacruni regi-
men persMinas promoveri j>ennittet ; aut Franci pro certo, nisi fidem Chris-
tianam alijicere raaluerint (sinioniacain hwrenni ainjtlect'nido vel fovnulo), gene-
ralis anatbeniatis inucrone i>ercus-si, illi uiUriita abttrnperare rccMabunt." — (ire-
gorii VII. Epi-stol. lib. i. epist. 35 (Labbc, Coiicil. torn. x. p. 34). This letter
and that cited in the next note were both referred to by Bossuet, Def. Declar.
lib. L sect. i. cap. vii.
• " Quod si nee hujusmodi districtione voluerit retipiscere, nulli clam aut
dubium ease volumu.-*, quin mo<lis omnibu.s rff/tntin Francitn t/<' rjiu occujnidonc,
adjuvante Deo, IciUcmiu crijtcre." — Greg. VII. Epist. lib. ii. epist. 5, p. 74.
' " Si in perversitatc stuiliorum suoruni perduraverit, et secundum duritiani
et impoenitens cor suum iram Dei et «ncti Vetri sibi thesaurizaverit, nos, Deo
auxiliante, et nequitid su-l promerente, in Ik>manil 8yno<lf>, a corpore et cora-
munione saoctae Ecclesiie ipgniii et fniicumquf. siOi rcf/(iJan honorein vcl oitdicn-
tiam cjr/iibucrit, sine dubio sc<iuestrabimu8." — Greg. VII. Epist. lib. ii. epist.
18, p. 84.
124 POWER OF THE POPB [PART II.
tihrewdness, and talents for government, would have used such
remonstrances so confidently, in letters addressed to the bishops
and lords of France, if the temporal effects of excommunica-
tion had not been admitted in that as well as in all other
kingdoms ?
109. This Prince excommunicated hy Pope Urban II.
Pope Urban II., whose prudence and intelligence have been
generally lauded by historians, held on this matter principles
identical with those of Gregory VII. This assertion is proved
clearly by his conduct to Philip I., in 1095, in the Council of
Clermont, one of the most numerous ever held in France, and
attended by a number of bishops and lords from every part of
the Christian world.^ The king having been excommunicated
the preceding year by the pope's legate, in the Council of
Autun, for his unlawful marriage with Bertrade, had obtained
from the pope, in the Council of Placenza, some delay to plead
his cause ; but as he subsequently gave no hope of conversion,
the pope confirmed, in the Council of Clermont, the sentence
of excommunication already pronounced against him, and sub-
jected to the same penalty "all who would acknowledge him
as king or lord, and who should obey him, or even speak to him,
except for the purpose of converting him." ^ These are the
very words of William of IMalmesbury, a contemporary author,
whose narrative is expressly confirmed by the chronicle of Guy,
canon of Chfilons-sur-jMarne, written about the close of the
twelfth century, and by the chronicle of Alberic, a monk of
Trois-Fontaines, who wrote in the thirteenth century.-^ Bossuet,
' Hist, de I'Eglise Gall. vol. viii. book xxii. pp. 50, 51, 76, &c. Fleurv,
Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ixiv. n. 21, 22, 29, 37, &c.
' "In eo concilio (Claromontano), excommunicavit dominus Papa regem
Philippum Francorum, et omnes qui eum vel regem, vel dominum suura voca-
verint, et ei obedierint, et ei locuti fuerint, nisi quod pertineret ad eum corri-
gendum."—Guill. Malmesb. De Gestis Anglorum, lib. iv. cap. ii. (Eecueil des
Historiens de France, vol. xv. p. 6, and Preface, p. 5). This passage of Wil-
liam of Malmesbury is cited by Bossuet, Def. Declar. lib. iii. cap. xi. p. 621.
' " Ibi (in concilio Claromontano) dominus Apostolicus excommunicavit
Guibertum Ravennatem, qui se Papam appellabat, et Henricnm imperatorem
Romanorum, qui eum raanu tenebat, Philippum quoque regem Francorum,
ejus concubinam, comitis Andegavorum uxorem, et omnes qui eum regem vel
dominum vocarent, vel obedirent, quousque veniret ad emendationem, ut alter
ab altero discedat." — Alberici, monachi Trium Fontium, Chron. ann. 1095.
(Leibnitz, Accessiones Historicse ad Scriptores Rerum German. Hanoverse,
CHAP. II. J OVFR J^OVEKEIOSS. lli.")
no doubt, and some other modem authors, dispute tliis fjict, on
the grounds that William of Malmesbury, who first recorded it,
was a foreitrner, not well acquainted with what was occurrint^ in
France, and that the silence of contemporary French authui-s
ought to be taken as a decisive argument ag-ainst him.* Never-
theless, it seems difficult to question the authority of William
of Malmesbury on an event so important, happening in so cele-
brated a council, and at a period when the communications
between England and France were so frequent. It is still more
difficult t<j suppose that Guy and Albcric, two French authors,
would have stated the fact so confidently in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries, if there were not a tradition to that eflect
in France. Moreover, it must be borne in mind, that Bossuet
and all the modem authors who disputed that fact, had never
heard of the testimony of Guy and Alberic on the point.
110. EfftcU of this Excommunication, according to contemporary Authors.
From the testimony of these two authors, one consequence,
at least, necessarily follows, viz., that they considered the tem-
poral efiects of excommunication in the case of sovereigns a
point of law, as plainly recognised in France as in the other
states of Europe, in the twelfth century. And on a fact of
this nature it is manifestly more natural to depend on authors
so ancient, and so very near the time of Philip I., than on
modem authors, who cannot produce against the testimony of
the ancients any positive testimony ; nothing, in fact, but mere
speculative arguments, which are very far from being beyond the
reach of criticism.
111. Tfiue Effecti acknoxcUdged by Ivo of C'hartra.
Though the testimony of these authors were not considered
decisive, all doubts on the matter would be fully removed by the
1700, 4to. torn. ii. p. 144.) In the passage just cited, Alberic relates the fact
on the authurity of Guy, chanter of the church of St. Stephen of ChalonH, who
died in l'2>>'i ; he composed a Chronicle, containing an abridgment of universal
history from the l>eg^inning of the world down to the period at which he WTote.
The preface to LeibnitZi* work contains the most ample dt-tailw ou An>eric'8
Chronicle, and on the ancient authors whom it follows. See also the Hist.
Litteraire de la France, vol. xvi. p. 132, et alibi passim.
' Bossuet. ubi supra. Receuil des Hist, de France, vol. xt. ubi supra ;
Tol. xvi. preface, p. Ixx.
12G POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
authority of Ivo of Chartres, one of the most distinguished
prelates in France, both for learning and piety, during the reign
of Philip I.* One of his letters has been already cited, which
clearly supposes that the temporal effects of excommunication
were admitted in France, as well as in other countries during his
time.^ But besides that letter he wrote many others, relating
to Philip's scandalous marriage, all of which suppose that the
temporal effects of excommunication were admitted in France,
in the case of sovereigns, as well as of private individuals.
When that prince was threatened with excommunication, in
1092, on account of the marriage, the bishop of Chartres wrote
to him repeatedly, urging him to reform his conduct ; and
among other motives of amendment, he dwells especially " on
the extreme danger to which he exposes his crown and all his
kingdom, and the loss wliich he ought to apprehend, as well of
his temporal kingdom as of the eternal kingdom," should he
obstinately persist in his sin.' Pope Urban II. having, about
the same time, addressed an encyclical letter to all the arch-
bishops and bishops of France, authorizing them to compel the
king by canonical procedure to separate from Bertrade, the
bishop of Chartres, by his ascendancy over the bishops, suc-
ceeded for some time in keeping this letter secret, in order to
prevent, as far as possible, a rising of the whole kingdom
against the king.* In fine, the king, after having often repented
and relapsed, and after several excommunications and absolu-
tions, being again excommunicated in 1100, in the Council of
Poitiers, by the legates of Pope Paschal II., the bishop of
Chartres induced the pope to act leniently, in order to save the
' Fleiiry, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ixiv. n. 6. Daniel, Hist, de France,
vol. iii. ann. 1092, &c. ; Hist, de I'Eglise Gall. vol. viii. ibid.
* See supra, ch. i. art. iii. n. 80, &c.
^ " Nee ista (quas contra illegitimas regis nuptias Ivo objiciebat) contra
fidelitatem vestram, sed pro sumnut lidelitate dicere me arbitror ; chra hoc et
animfe vestrse magnum credam fore detrimentum, et coronte regni vestri sum-
mura periculum. . . . Caveat ergo .sublimitas vestra ne in horum incidatis
exemplnm, et ita cum diminutione terreni, regnum amittatis aetemnm." —
Jvonis Carnot. Epist. 15 (Duchesne, Historise Francorum Scriptores, tom. iv.).
See also letter 13. These letters are the 5th and 7th in the Kecueil des Hist,
de France of D. Bouquet, vol. xv.
* " Hfc quidem litterte jam publicata° essent ; sed pro amore ejus, feci eas
adhuc detineri, quia nolo regnum ejus, quantum ex me est, adversus eum aliqud
rat'mie commoreri." — Ivonis Epist. 23 (alias 14), ad Widonem dapiferum.
ClIAP. ll] OVER SOVF.REIQNS. 1-27
kingdom from the clani:jer to which it was exposed by the king's
excommunication.' Those diHcrcnt letters manifestly refer,
in our opinion, to the temporal etfects which excommunication
at that time entailed, according to the general usage and hclicf
uf France, as well as of all other Catholic states of Europe.
112. Putilf Objections against this Ttstlmon;/.
Some authors, we are aware, contend that this language of
the bishop of Chartres refers, not to the temporal etlects of
excommunication, but to the pretext which the king's excom-
munication would supply to his disaffected barons to raise the
kingdom against him.- This explanation is for many reasons
exceedingly iinjirobable ; for, in the first place, the bishop of
Chartres supposes that the king is exposed by excommunica-
tion to the revolt, not of some of his barons, but of the whole
kingdom ; which need not be feared, if the excommunication
were a pretext for some only of the barons : secondly, supposing
even that the danger was apprehended from some only of the
barons, the prelate's letters imply, at least, that their revolt
would have been powerfully assisted by the general belief on the
temjioral effects of excommunication ; otherwise, it is utterly
incredible that their intrigues against the throne could have
been so formidable as the letters manifestly suppose. Our
interpretation of these letters is, moreover, confirmed by the
impression which historians, for the most part, give of the state
of the public mind in France at this period. For the king,
notwithstanding his repeated proiuises to dismiss Bertrade,
having taken her back again in lOU.S, ajul being excommunicated
for that crime in the Council of Poitiers, thought it advisable
in so critical a conjuncture to take as colleague in the throne
his son Louis, who was then only nineteen or twenty years of
age. The object of this measure, according to the conunon
opinion of historians, was, that the king's excommunication wa.s
' " Nodtrtp Hupgestionis gumma est, at imhocillitati hominis am'xl(». ({Uan-
tum cum saluto ejus jxjtcstiH, ouixlcsccii'latiH, it l4.rraiH qiut cjiu a lUtili'.uiuUc
pcriclitattir ah /40c pcriculo erttalis." — IvouU EpUt. IH (aliaa bit), Jwl PasoJi.i-
lem Papam II.
' Blondel, De Formula, Regnante Christo. Am8t«lo<lami, 1046, 4to. sect. ii.
§ 1.5. Hi.st. de I'Eglise Oall. vol. viii. p. 43.
128 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
a plausible pretext for the more powerful vassals to revolt.*
Such a motive implies clearly, that the revolt of the vassals, in
these circumstances, would have been powerfully seconded by
the general belief, that excommunication entailed the forfeiture
of all, even temporal dignities.
113. TJcis Belief contimied in full force after the Reign of Philip I.
This belief continued in France, as well as in the other states
of Europe, long after the reign of Philip I. ; for the most cele-
brated writers of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, in that
kingdom as well as in others, continued to maintain, as a gene-
rally admitted principle, the subordination of the temporal to
the spiritual power, in this sense, that sovereigns could, in cer-
tain cases, be judged and even deposed by the authority of the
Church, or of the Holy See." The fear of these terrible effects
of excommunication appears, in truth, to have been the prin-
cipal motive which prevented Philip Augustus from urging as
powerfully as he was inclined, the pretensions of his son Louis
to the throne of England, against John Lackland, whom the
barons had generally abandoned.'
114. Objection against the Existence of this Belief founded on the Conduct of
some Sovereigns.
Against our opinion on the existence of this general belief,
it may perhaps be objected, that many sovereigns, though under
sentence of excommunication, continued to govern their states
and to be acknowledged as legitimate sovereigns. If we believe
Fleury, Bossuet, and some other writers, Philip L, king of
France, Frederick L, emperor of Germany, and many other
sovereigns, never forfeited their authority, and were not regarded
as deprived of their rights by excommunication.*
' Daniel, Hist, de France, ubi supra, pp. 398, 613. Velly, Hist, de France,
vol. ii. p. 425. Biographie Universelle, art. Philippe I.
' See infra ch. iii. art. i. n. 194.
' Lingard, Hist, of England, vol. iii. ann. 1215, 1216. Hist, de I'Eglise
Gall. vol. X. Hist. d'Innocent III. by Hurter, vol. i. pp. 747, 760. Daniel,
Hist, de France, vol. iv. ann. 1216.
* Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ixiv. n. 21, 29 ; vol. xv. book Ixx. n. 43 ;
book Ixxiii. n. 6. Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. iii. cap. x. xix, xx.
CHAP. II ] OVER SOVKRKKIN.-? 1 '2.'>
115. TAis Objection ansicercd by some Itrua'al Ubseifutioiu.
The limits wliicli we Lave prescribed to ourselves not admit-
ting of a deUiiled examination of all the facts urged in sujiport
of this objection/ we must confine ourselves to some general
observations which fully solve it, and which more especially
refute the objection founded on the conduct of Philip I. and of
Frederick I.
It must be remembered, in the first place, that according to
this custom, for which we are contending, the sentence of
excommunication did not, 0/ itself, imply the forfeiture of civil
rights ; it did not produce that eftect until after the lapse of a
certain time, which was much longer in the case of sovereigns
than of private individuals. Bossuet himself expressly acknow-
ledges this fact, when he states that the popes made a marked
distinction between excommunication and deposition, and often
separated one from the other.- It is not strange, therefore, that
an excommunicated prince should often continue to govern his
states, and to be acknowledged as their legitimate sovereign.
In the second place, it must be observed, that besides this delay,
granted to the excomnumicated by ordinary usage, before the
forfeiture of their temporal rights, they sometimes obtained a
more considerable delay, either by api)eals, or by promises of
submi.ssion, or by negotiations dexterously concocted, to elude a
definitive sentence. Thus, Philip I., when excommunicated in
the Council of Autun, in 101)4, obtained a respite the fol-
lowing year in the Council of Placenza, and was not definitively
excommunicated imtil the Council of Clermont, which was held
about the close of the year lOiJ.").'
In the third place, we observe, that the pope, who alone,
according to the general usage and belief, had a right to pro-
nounce sentence of deposition against sovereigns remaining
obstinately under excommunication, frequently deferred that
sentence, either from indulgence for the princes themselves, or
' For explanation of these fects, see Bianchi, Delia Potesta et della Pulitia
della Chiesa, Roma, 1745, 5 vols. 4to. See especially vol. ii.
' " Anno 116.3," P.os»uct writes, " in concilioTiironensi excomnuuiicationem
renovat (Alexander Ill.t, nuIlA liactciiUH de{K)siti<iui.H mciitione ; h.inc enini
ab excomnuinicatiiine Uomani ponlifices sfparaliant." — K<i»suft, lief. Declar.
l>b. iii. ca]>. xix. p. 654. See also ch. x. of the .-ianie l«K>k, la.st faiTigraph.
' See Bossuet and Flenrj', uhi supra.
VOL. II. K
130 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
from a hope of their amendment, or from an apprehension of the
fatal consequences which it might produce. This latter motive,
according to Bossuet, prevented Popes Gregory VII. and
Urban IT. from pronouncing sentence of deposition against
Philip I.^ This conjecture of the bishop of Meaux is certainly
not unquestionable for the particular case of wliich he speaks ;
but it may be applied to explain other facts of the same kind.
Finally, it must not be forgotten, that sovereigns, as well as
private individuals, may sometimes have attributed to them-
selves, notwithstanding the censures of the Church, spiritual
and temporal rights of which they were really deprived,^ Crimi-
nals, at all times, have slighted the sentence which condemned
them, and even affected to despise it. Sovereigns especially
have ample means at command to support their pretensions, in
similar cases, and to attach to their party some of their subjects,
and even foreign princes. But in such cases we manifestly
should not judge of the law by deeds, which might be themselves
censurable ; but should rather judge of deeds by the law, especially
when the latter is otherwise well attested by the general belief
of princes and of people, and by the admissions of sove-
reigns themselves, at times when they were not interested in
denying it.
116. Objection from the Case of Philip I. answered.
Though these general observations sufficiently solve the objec-
tion, we shall offer a few reflections on the case of Philip I. and
of Frederick I.
And first, with regard to the king of France, it has been very
incorrectly asserted that the sentence of excommunication pro-
nounced against him for his marriage with Bertrade, " had not
in any degree impaired his royal authority." ^ On the contrary,
it is certain, " that during the whole period of his excommuni-
cation, he never wore the diadem, or the purple, or held any
solemn court, according to the usual custom of kings." * These are
' " Neque hia (depo8itionis minis) Franci auscultabant," Bossuet observes ;
" et ab iis adverstis Francos Romani pontifices temperabant." — Bossuet, Def.
Declar. lib. iii. cap. x.
* See the authors cited above, note 1, n. 81.
' Bossuet and Fleury, ubi supra.
* " Tempore Urbani et Paschalis, Romanorum pontificum, fere quindecim
IIAP. II.] OVKR SOVKRMIOXS. l.')!
the vorv oxprosj-ious uf Onlorio Vitalis, a contomponiry author.
From thi.s testimony it clearly follows, that acconlin;^ to the
usage received in France, excommunication deprived the monarch
f certain rights, and certiiin temporal honours, even before his
deposition had Keen pronounced.'
Pliilip, it is true, thouj^h deprived of these honours, and after
the sentence pronounced apiinst him by Pope Urban II., in the
Council of Clermont, continued to govern his states, and was
by them regarded as legitimate sovereign. But it should be
remembered, that, alarmed at the sentence, he aj^peared to repent
of his crime, and took measures to satisfy the pope, who actually
absolved him in the Council of Nimcs, in 1 ()!)(!.-' The negotia-
tions which prepared the way for this event, should naturally
suspend the effect of the sentence. It must be added, too, that
as the text of the sentence is not extant, it would be impossible
to say whether Philip's deposition was pronounced absolutely
and definitively, or only conditionally, that is, in the event
of his not making atonement to the Church within a limited
time.
117 A ntwer to the Cote of Predenck Barbarosaa.
The objection founded on the case of Frederick Barbarossa, is
equally inconclusive against the general belief which we say
existed in the middle ages. This prince certainly, even after
the sentence of deposition pronounced against him by Pope
Alexander III., was still reputed and styled emperor by a great
number of his subjects, especially in Germany, and even in
Italy by the partisans of the schism which he abetted ; it is
equally certain, however, that he was regarded by other nations
annifl interdictus fuit (Philippus). Quo tempore, nunquam diad<'ina iwrtavit,
nee purpuratn induit, ne<jue Bolcninitateni alii|u:iiii re^io more eelebnivit." —
• •nleric Vital. lliHt. Eccl. lib. viii. aim. loy2. Kecueil des Hint, de France,
vol. xii. p. 650 ; vol. xiv. Preface, § 10, n. 40. Hint, de I'EgliHo (Jail. vol. viii.
p. 50.
' Something similar occurs in the pemvnce impoRe<l by St. DunHtan, arcli-
V)ishop of Cant»?rbury, on Edgar, kinn of England, ann. 1*07 ; and in the
conditions of the al*tolulion given to Henr>' IV. by Cngorj' VII. in 1070.
On this L-vtter point, se.; Voigt, Hint, de <Jreg. VII. pp. IliH, •»:}<»; Kl<-ury,
Hi.st. Eccl. vol. xiii. lK>ok Ixii. n. 39, 4i>. Un E«igar. king of England, Hee
Lab»>e, Concil. torn. ix. p. 702 ; Lingard, Anglo-Saxon Church, ch. xii. ;
Fleury, ibid. vol. xii. book Ivi. n. 2S.
* Se« BoMuet and Fleurj-, onpra.
K 2
132 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
and by faithful Catholics as really deposed. This is plainly
declared in many letters of John of Salisbury, especially in
that already cited, ^ which he addressed to William, sub-prior
of the abbey of Canterbury, on the subject of the contests
between the king of England and St. Thomas of Canterbury.
The author of that letter assumes, as admitted and notorious
facts, first, that the pope had really deposed the emperor by
excommunicating him ; secondly, that this sentence had detached
from Frederick, and raised in revolt against him, the greater part
of his states in Italy. All John of Salisbury's statements on
this matter are confirmed by the acts of Alexander III., part
of which were published by Baronius, from the archives of the
Vatican, and by tlie more complete publications of Muratori, in
the middle of the last century, in his Collection of Italian
historians.- From these acts it appears, first, that Frederick
was regarded in the East as well as in the West, as deposed
from the imperial throne, after the sentence of deposition pro-
nounced aii:ainst him by Pope Alexander III. ; and that, under
this belief, the emperor Manuel l>csought the pope to grant to
him the sceptre of which Frederick had been justly deprived.'
Secondly, that Frederick, after long and fruitless attempts to
retain the people of Italy under his sceptre, was at length
necessitated to humble himself before the pope, and earnestly
to beg absolution, which he eventually obtained in the year
1177.^
' See supra, n. 102. See also letters 150, 178, 182, 211, 233, 270, of the
same author.
' Baronius, Annal. torn. xii. ann. 1170, n. 54, &:c. ; ann. 1176, n. 15 ; ann.
1177, n. 13, et alibi passim. Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, torn. iii.
p. 459, &e.
' " Untie (Emmanuel Magnus, Constantinopolitanus imperator) rogat et
postulat quatenus, pnedictse ecclesiae adversario imperii Romani corona pri-
vato, eam sibi, prout ratio et justitia exigit, restituatis." — Baronii Annales,
ann. 1170, n. 54. Muratori, ubi supra, p. 460, col. 2.
* " Fridericus verb, ctim ... in cunctis actionibus suis eventus semper
sinistros haberet, . . . pacem Romanae Ecclesiae, quam prae caeteris rebus affec-
tare se public^ asserebat, per se ipsum requirere studuit. . . . Quam\'is autem
causa ejus, ab eo tempore quo ccepit ecclesiam Dei persequi, semper, ultore
Domino, in deterius haberetur, et nulla eum adversitas atque difficultas laboris
a suo incepto retraheret ; mod(i tamen ita vehementer a supremo judice per-
cussus et humiliatus est, quod ad pacem Ecclesis, quam hactenus in duplioitate
quaesiverat, inclinari humiliter videretur, et eam, per majores personas im-
perii, a domino Alexandre pap& et ejus fratribus, suppliciter postularet." —
CHAP. 11. J ovKK ^uvEKKlu^'s. i;;;>
From these testimonies, we miiy infer how little credit is due
to the assertion of Fleury and of other writers, ' that after the
sentence of de|K>sition j»runuunced by Alexander III., Frederick
was still recoijniseil emperor, and that his Catholic subjects,
even ecclesiastics, obeyed him as faithfully as before." '
118. This Orneral Bdirf aihniUtd even by Bostuct.
In confirmation of all these statements hitherto advanced,
it may be observed, moreover, that this general belief of princes
and people, during the middle ages, on the temporal efl'ects
B»roniu.<(, ubi supni, ann. 1176, n. 15. Muratori, ulii aupi-a, p. 465, eol. 2 ;
p. 467, col. 2. Fleurj', Hist. Eccl. vol. xv. Uxik Ixxiii. n. 1, &e.
Some modem authors have ailik-d to the history of tiiis reconciliation some
&bulou8 circumstanceti, especially an overdrawn picture of the pope's haughti-
nes« to the • If we lielieve these authors, Fretlerick, haviii|j^ proHtrated
hinifielf at t: - feet in making the promise of oW^lience, the jKipe set hiH
foot on the t'rt neck, pronouncinvf at the same time the words of the
piialro, "Ti. ■ walk on the any and the l>.%-iili!4k, and thou slialt trample
underfoot the lion and the dragon." — Fsalm xc. .Stung with this indignitj-,
Frederick iiltar])ly replietl, •' It is uot 3"ou, hut Peter I am obeying." The
|>oi»e retorte<l, " Not Pet«r, but me." Tliis ri<liculou8 nneolote is sufficiently
refuted by the tnlence of contemporary authors, such as Matthew Paris,
William of Tyre, K«>v'er Hovetlen, and Komuald, archbi.sliop of .Sjdemn, who
has left the ni"-' 'it of the reconciliation of Frederick with the
nope. (See Roi , m torn. \'ii. of Muratori's Her. It;il. Script.)
This anecdote is moreovi-r ri.ignintly at variance with the character of mildness
and gentlenesH, of which Alexander III. haa left indubitable proofs. Accord-
ingly, it is rejected as a fiction by the majority of critics, and even by those
wboite well-known aversion to the Holy See would naturally incline to admit
mil Btatement« in accordance with that prejudice. It is, moreover, expressly
denied by Cardinal Ilaroniu.s (.\nnal. ann. 1177, n. 85, &c.), Dupin (Histoire
Ecclesiastique, xii. siecle, f>art ii. p. 420), and Nat. Alexander (Hist. Eccles.
S»culi xii. cap. ii. art. 9). Bossuet never mentions it in his Defens. Declarat.
(ubi supra), though he gives there a very long account of the conte.sts between
Frederick and Alexander III. Neither does F'leury speak of it in his Eccles.
Hist, (ubi supra). In fine, it is also pa.s.4ed over in silence by Daunou, in his
Essai Bur la Puissance Temporelle des Papes, in which he has so seilulously
collecte<l whatever might excite and envenom hatred against the Holy See.
(See, "n this subject, AU>an Putler, Lives of the Saint,*, List note on the life
of >■ ■ ri, archbishop of Milan, 18th April.) It may, indeed, be not un-
raa.- '>njcctured, that this anecdote was but a malignant application to
Pope Alexander III. of the conduct of Ju.stinian II. to Leontius and Tit>eriu8
Abaimar, usurpers of the empire. He ordered them to lie prostrate on the
earth liefore his throne, and trampled them underfoot in the Hippodrome,
the people in the mean time exclaiming aloud, "Thou hast walke<l on the asp
and the ba.'«ill-<k, .and thtm ha«t trample<l un«lerfoot the lion and the dragon."
(Fleurj*. Hist. Vax\. vol. ix. lxH>k xii. n. 11. Lelieau, Hist, tlu lias Empire,
vol. xiii. book Ixii. n. 33.) This wati not the only oocasion on wliich Justinian
exhibited that cruel and \'indictive tem|>er which made him bo odious to hia
subjects.
' Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xv. book Ixxiii. n. 60. Bofl>aet, Defens. Declarat.
lib. iii. cap. xix.
134 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
of heresy and excommunication, in the case of sovereigns, is
expressly admitted by modern authors, even the most opposed to
these maxims. Bossuet, we have abeady seen, admits that
in the time of Gregory VII., according to the general belief of
the most pious and enlightened men, excommunication entailed
the forfeiture of all dignities, however temporal.^ The same
prelate has no difficulty in admitting, that in those ancient
times, the Church often acted on that principle, with the con-
sent and by the concession of temporal princes themselves.
It is thus that he accounts for the penalty of deposition and the
other temporal penalties decreed against heretical princes, in
the third and fourth Councils of Lateran. " These depositions,"
he asserts, " were decreed, not in virtue of the power of the
keys, but by the concession of princes, without which such
decrees would have been null.*^ If, then, many princes acknow-
ledged that they could be deposed by the Church (for crimes of
heresy and apostasy), it is not that they recognised in bishops
any power over temporalities ; but because, so great was the
hatred of those princes for heresy, that they voluntarily sub-
jected themselves to the most rigorous of penalties, should they be
so unhappy as to fall into it.^
119. Admissions of Fleury on the same Subject,
The abbe Fleury, an intimate of Bossuet, was equally well
known for his opposition to ultramontane maxims, and for the
severity with which he censures, in many of liis works, the
conduct of councils and popes that had deposed temporal princes
' See Bossuet's testimony, supra, n. 100.
' " Ergo hsec demonstravimus ; . . . quae a sacris conciliis cecumenicis, circa
temporalia, decreta sint, numquam auctoritate clavium facta esse ; numquam
adscriptum ea auctoritate fieri ; im6 explicatum fieri, mutuatS a regibus po-
testate ; neque umquam ea decreta, nisi consensu principum, valuisse." — Def.
Declar. lib. iv. cap. xvii. n. 13, torn, xxxii. p. 71. It is principally in this
fourth book that Bossuet discusses and explains these decrees. On the same
subject, the reader may consult the Essai Historique et Critique sur le Supr^-
matie Temporelle du Pape et de I'Eglise, by Monseigneur AfFre, archbishop of
Paris. (Paris, 1829, 8vo.) The author adopts fully that observation of Bossuet,
and confirms it. See especially ch. xvi. xvii. xviii.
^ " Quod ergo quidam fortfe princij>es se propter eas causaa (liseresis atque
apostasiai) deponi posse concesserint, id non oritur ex uUa potestate quam in
pontificibus aguoscant ad ordinanda temporalia ; sed quod hreresim detestati,
omnia in se ultro pefmittant, si e& se peste iafici sinant." — Defens. Declar.
lib. iv. cap. xviii. p. 73.
cbji^. 11. j OTIS sotkeugxs. 135
in former Qme& XeTeftiiekfli,eTeniBtiio0eTaypMBi^i]i vliick
be stues hb opiaioiis moat ■BUBUitdly, he expvearij
ledges, duii the maTimB on vhidi popeB . ' u6e4
these extnotdbnrf acts of ttathadty, '\t
adwittwi hy aoifcnigBS thmwlnA. "
he olHuntB, " foand theasdves beoon.
a share in the govenunent of thr «lat<» tl
paaMwd as faishopB, vhat th^ ^:
ptetcnded to jodlge kii^is, not onl;
b«t in councils ; and kings, thr
K^tB, did not protest against t^
eress did this ofNnioB, that faishc:
V ^ ^ring the ei^ith and ninth oem
admitted it, as a^teais from the :
the BaU to the Covncil of Saroni;
archlwhop oi Sens." * Thus, by
btshops posBeseed then, if n
pover ci deposing kings ; r^ l^
this, he soppoees, ve adrr'* -■ — -_
laoee of their own ris* *-
Flenrr shoald thus &
eentuies. so great an . _ w^e ?hal] 9ac
there are not the least grc'xmds :
Accoriini: to tie j :. ii t
adn • " ViL,
L-^a-i V-'
cut.. . c.^— z-jj-13 : ?'".**
Kii - ' *^' -
Tears, he savsL *' befc«>e (- 'IL. :
V.-, rv.
Grc^vIJ * xi.. aaiwpici^
Adriaa IL t» CWrtM dw Bi. tai mimi
hm mffmSBt cf Ike oifanr ixiza IL, am «f
^^E HB^B ^^B^^BM^H VBB^H^^IBBHB vK vBB ■SMC' m
ek. L ait. L a. M, SI.
136 POAVER OF THE POPE [PART 11.
greater lengths,^ openly asserting tliat, as pope, he had a right
to depose sovereigns who were rebellious to the Church. These
pretensions he grounded principally on excommunication. The
excommunicated must be shunned ; there can be no communica-
tion, no conversation mth them, not even a salutation, according
to the apostle St. John ; therefore, an excommunicated prince ought
to be abandoned by all ; it is not alloAved to obey him, to receive his
orders, to aj)proach him ; — he is excluded from all society >nth
Christians. It cannot be denied, that so indisputable did these
maxims then appear, that the advocates of King Henry had no
other defence to offer, except that a sovereign could not be
excommunicated : but Gregory VII. could easily prove that the
power of binding and loosing was given to the apostles in general
terms, without any distinction of persons, but including princes
as well as others." -
1 20. Opinion of Dr. Llmjard.
Dr. Lingard adopts substantially the same opinion in his
History of England, in which he accounts for the conduct of
the popes of the middle ages to sovereigns, by the princi])les
then generally recognised on the subordination of the temporal
to the spiritual power ; principles resulting, as he conceives, from
a combination of religious maxims with feudal jurisprudence.
" The reader has seen that Innocent grounded his temporal
pretensions on the right which he possessed of judging of sin
and of the obligation of oaths. -^ This doctrine, hostile as it
might be to the independence of sovereigns, was often supported
by the sovereigns themselves. Thus, when Richard I. was held
in captivity by the emperor, his mother Eleanor repeatedly
solicited the pontiff to procure his liberation by the exercise
of that authority which he possessed over all temporal princes.*
Thus also, John himself had, as we have seen, invoked the aid
of the same authority to recover Normandy from the king of
' We shall see that Gregory VII. evidently did not push these principles
farther than his predecessors ; he merely applied them more rigorously, vnder
the pressure of more trying circumstances.
^ Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. 3rd Discourse, n. 18.
' The author alludes to a Decretal of Innocent III., of which we shall speak
in another place, ch. iii. note 1, u. Ii08, &c.
■• yomc details on this importiint fact are given above, n. 10(3.
rUAJ'. II.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. loT
France (I'hilip Auj^istus). At first, indeed, the popes contented
themselves uith spiritiuil censures ; but in an age when all
notions of justice wore remodelled after the feudal jurisprudence,
it was soon admitted, that princes hy their disobedience became
traitors to God ; that, as traitors, they ought to forfeit their
kingdoms, the fiefs which they held of (Jod ; and that, to pro-
nounce such sentence bdongeil to the pontiff, the vicegerent of
Christ ufK»n earth. By these means, the servant of the servants
of Gotl became the sovereign of the sovereigns, and assumed the
right of judging them in his court, and of tran.sferring their
crov>Tis as jiist it might seem to him." '
121. Oj/in Ml of Mich a u d.
in his History of the Crusades, Michaud assumes it as an
indi.sputable fact, that the maxims on which Gregory VII. and
his successors grounded their pretensions were generally admitted
long before the reign of that pope, not only by private indivi-
duals, but also by sovereigns themselves, however great the
interest they should have in denying them. " The pretensions
of the jtopes," he a.sserts, '• in this matter, were unquestionably
favoured bv the common belief of the aw. Occasional com-
plaints there were of unjust decisions issuing from the tribunal
of the heads of the Church ; but their right of judging tlic
Christian powers was never questioned ; and their judgments
were almost always received by the people without murmur."'
Every one knows that the authority of the successors of St.
Peter had already made immense progress before the Cru.sades ;
the most powerful mimarehs had already bowed their heads
before the thunders of the Vatican ; and all Christendom seemed
to have already adopted that maxim of Gregory VII., that the
' Linganl, Historj- of Enpl.-ind, ann. 1213. In jilace of tlio wonls, " h'jiI-
trihua Ic tlmit," in the prt-seiit dlition of this work, the author used in the
fir>t edition, ' ' H'arToge.i le droit," in ftccordanee witli M. Roujoux'h trannlation
of Linpard. The change ha."* heen (,'rounded on sonie olwervationn of Dr. Lin-
{,'anl himself, to whom a copy of the first edition hiul l>een preHc-nted, and who
called attention to the fact, that the EngliHh word "a««unie," whidi he used,
had a much milder sense than the wonl " arrogate," — the former implying
neither cen.ture nor approl»ation, but simply that the po])c then In-gan to cxcr-
ci.se the right of which there in cjue«tion here.
^ Midland, Hiat. des C'roi.s.vie.t. 4th edit. vol. iv. p. lOS. The judgnient.H of
which he speaks, it mast not Iw forgotten, were never contested by those who
had no interest in contesting them.
138 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
pope, in his capacity of Vicar of Jesus Christ, should be superior
to all human power/' ^
122. Ferrand's Opinion.
Similar admissions have been made by another modern ^NTiter,
who has been most severe in his censures on the conduct of the
popes of the middle ages towards sovereigns. " Unfortunately,"
he complains, " almost all monarchs, by a most inconceivable
infatuation, laboured to accredit in public opinion an arm
which neither had nor could have any strength except from
public opinion alone. When it assailed one of their rivals
or enemies, they not only approved it, but they even sometimes
solicited excommunication ; and by undertaking to execute the
sentence which dc}uived a monarch of his crown, they subjected
themselves to that usurped jurisdiction.""
123. Remarkalk Admissions of Protestant Authors.
It were easy to multiply testimonies from Catholic authors on
this subject ; but we must invite special attention to the fact,
that this general belief is also admitted by Protestant VNTiters,
who do not shrink from introducing it in accounting for the
extraordinary power which popes attributed to themselves in the
middle ages over the temporalities of princes.
124. Leibnitz.
Such more especially is the opinion of Leibnitz, whose
authority in history and jurisprudence is not less than in philo-
sophical and mathematical science. This great man expressly
acknowledges, in many of his works, the existence and even the
beneficial influence of those maxims of the middle ages which
invested the pope with so extraordinary an aiithority over princes
in the temporal order ; and though he does not approve indis-
criminately all the pretensions of the popes in this matter, he
acknowledges, at least, that their authority was very extensive,
> Ibid. vol. vi. p. 225.
2 Ferrand, Esprit de I'Hist. vol. ii. Letter 41, p. 41.3. Tliis text was eiTo-
neoiisly attributed to Bolingbroke, in the first edition of this Inquiry (n. 31,
p. 62). L'Esprit de I'Histoire, ou Lettres Politiques et Morales, by M. Fer-
rand (4 vols. 8vo.), must not be confounded with the Lettres sur I'Histoire of
Lord Bolingbroke (1752, 2 vols. 8vo.).
CHAP, n.] OVKll SUVKKEIGNS. \oU
according to the usage and maxims sanctioned by sovereigns
tluiuselves. • It must be admitted," be states,* " tbat the
vigihmce of the popes in enforcing the canons, and upholding
ecclesiastical discipline, was productive, from time to time, of
excellent consequences ; and that, by using their influence with
kings in season and out of season, either by remonstrances,
which the authority of their office entitled them to make, or by
the threat of ecclesiastical censures, they prevented many dis-
orders. Nothing was more common than to see kings subjecting
themselves, in their treaties, to the censure and correction of
the popes, as in the treaty of Bretigny, in 1350, and in the
treaty of Etaples, in 141)2."
But it is principally in his treatise De Jure Suprematiis that
Leibnitz explains his princij)les on this subject. "It is certain,"
he says, " that many princes are feudatories or vassals of the
Roman empire, or at least of the Roman Church ; that some
kings and dukes were created by the em|)eror or the pope ; and
that others were not anointed kings without, at the same time,
doing homage to Jesus Christ, to whose Church they pmmi.^ed
fealty, when they were receiving the unction from the hands of
the bishop ; and this it was that verified the formula, ' Christus
regnat, vincit, imperat ;' * for all history attests, that most of
the Western nations submitted to the Church with equal promp-
titude and piety. I am not now examining whether these things
were by divine right. The facts are, they were done with
unanimous consent ; that they could most properly be done ;
and that they are not opj)Osed to the good of Christendom ; for
not unfrequently the salvation of souls and the public good are
promoted by the same measure."^ " From the strict connection
that exists between sacred and profane things, it resulted," he
obsen-es, a little farther on, " that people believed the pope to
have received some authority over kings themselves." Leibnitz
' Leibnitz, Diaj<ert. 1, De Act<>rum Publicorum Usu (Oper. torn. iv. p. 290).
This tliiwerUiliiin iis the prvface to the Codex Diploiiuiticus JurJH (.iciitiuin, pub-
lisher! for the tiP't time at Hanuver, 161*3, fol.
' The.se words, so often the war-cry of the Chrixtian sohliers during the
crusades, were the legend on the reven-o of all the gold coins inintetl in France,
from Loui.-* VI. or Louis VIL to Louis XVL See Michaud, liist. de« Croi-
sades, vol. ii. p. 3S ; I'aucton, Metrologie, ch. xiii. p. 6S5.
' Tract, de Jure Suprematiis, part iii. (0|»er. torn. iv. p. 330).
]40 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
goes on, in this place, to explain these facts, by enumerating in
detail all the sovereigns who, according to him, had formerly
been feudatories of the Roman Church. " I am not actually
inquiring," he adds, " by what right these things were done, but
what were the opinions of men regarding them in preceding
ages." ^ He goes still farther in his letter to M. Grimaret, in
which he sighs for that ancient custom, which would, he believed,
restore amongst men the golden age. " My opinion would be,"
he says, " to establish, ay, even in Ptome, a tribunal (to decide
controversies between sovereigns) and to make the pope its
president ; as he really did, in former ages, figure ad judge
between Christian princes. But ecclesiastics should, at the
same time, resume their ancient authority, and an interdict or
an excommunication should make kings and kingdoms tremble,
as in the days of Nicholas I. or Gregory VII. This is a plan
quite as practicable as that of the Abbd de St. Pierre.^ And
since there is no prohibition against the planning of romances,
what harm can there be in suggesting one which would revive
the golden age." ^
125. PMel.
A Protestant author, more recent than Leibnitz, and who
besides condemns openly the conduct of the popes of the middle
ages to sovereigns, admits, nevertheless, that the principles by
which Gregory VII. justified his conduct to the emperor of
Germany, namely, the principle that excommunication entailed
the forfeiture of all civil rights, and of all temporal dignity, was
generally admitted, even by doctors, long before the pontificate
of Gregory VII. ; whence, he justly infers, that this pope could
' De Jure Suprematfts, ubi supra, p. 401. Leibnitz adopts the same prin-
ciples in his Systeraa Theologicum, in which he writes, " Etsi Christiani
principes non minus Ecclesiae obedientiam debeant quam minimus quisque
fidelium ; tamen, nisi ipso jure regni ahter provisum actumque esse constet,
ecclesiastica potestas eb extendenda non est, ut subditos in veros dominos
ai-met." — Exposit. de la Doctrine de Leibniz, &c. Paris, 1819, 8vo. p. 306.
^ The Abb^ de St. Pierre had lately published his Projet pour rendre la
P.aix perpetuelle en Europe (1713, 1716, 3 vols. 12mo.). In that work he
proposed the establishment of a European diet, to decide all differences which
might arise among princes.
^ Deuxifeme Lettre a M. Grimaret (CEuvres de Leibniz, vol. v. p. 65). See,
in confirmation of this notion of Leibnitz, the testimony of M. Hurtcr. and of
some other Protestant writers, cited above, n. 19, text and notes.
rilAl'. II.] OVKR SOVEHKKTN^J. 141
nut have artttl utluTwisL' than ho did, and that all liis nu-asures
wore the logical realization of principles tht-n nniversallv ad-
mit tetl.'
12'). Adinlsxions of Votluirt.
Finally, the ironcral belief of the people in the niichlle aj;es on
this point, is admitted likewise hy one of the most declared
enemies, not only of the papacy, but of all relij^ion. In his
Essais siir les Manirs, Voltaire observes: " It appears, that the
princes who had the right of electing the emperor, had also the
right of deposing him ; i)ut to admit the pope to preside in such
decisions, was to acknowledge him as the natural judge of the
emperor and the empire.- Every prince," he adds, in the course
of the same work, " every prince who desired to recover or to
usurp a territory, addressed himself to the pope, as to his
master. No new prince presumed to style himself sovereign,
nor could he be acknowledged as such by other princes, without
the consent of the pope ; and the fundamental principle of the
whole history of the middle ages is, that the popes believed
themselves soverei.ni lords of all kingdoms, without a single excep-
tion." ' Even then in the malignant exaggerations of this passage
of Voltaire, we have a formal a<lmission of that iniiversal belief
of princes and of people, attributing to the pope so vast a tem-
poral authority over all the states of Europe, and especially over
the empire.
ARTICLE II.
Special Proofs of this Belief in France.
127. Remarkable Testimony uj Ht. iircyory on (hit Subject.
Besides the facts whicli prove the general belief of the
Catholic princes and people of Europe, on the temporal effects
of heresy and excommunication in the case of sovereigns during
the middle ages, the history of France furnishes in particular
evident proofs of the belief, which, in certain cases, subjected
' Pfeffel, Nouvel Abr<?g6 d'Histoire d'AUomagne, ann. 1106, 4t<». edit.
vol. i. pp. 228, 229.
* Voltaire, Easai siir les Ma?urs, vol. ii. ch. xhi.
' Ibid. vol. iii. ch. Ixiv.
142 POWER OF THE POPE [PART IT.
the sovereign of that realm to the authority of the pope or of a
council, in temporal matters. It may be even confidently
asserted, that of all the states of Europe the kingdom of the
Franks supplies the most ancient evidences of this belief.
About the close of the sixth century, St. Gregory the Great,
granting certain privileges to the monasteries and the hospital of
Autun, pronounces all laics, even kings or other lords, deprived
of their dignities, if they presumed to violate these privileges.^
" If any person," he decrees, " king, bishop, judge, or any
secular whatsoever, knowing this our constitution, shall dare to
violate it, he forfeits the dignity of his honour and power, and
must hold himself accountable for his crime before the tribunal
of God.'" 2
128. Authenticity of this Testimony.
The difficiilty of reconciling this language with the doctrine
of antiquity, and with St. Gregory's known principles on the
distinction and mutual independence of the two powers, has led
many modem critics to suspect that this clause had been inserted
in his letters by some cheat.'' That opinion is, however, clearly
refuted by the authority even of the most ancient manuscripts,
and by numerous authentic testimonies, as the learned editors
of St. Gregory's works have observed."* Hence, a judicious
critic of the last century has not hesitated to pronounce, that
the privileges, such as they occur in the letters of St. Gregory,
must be admitted as authentic by all unprejudiced persons.^
129. Different Explanations proposed by Cntics.
Admitting the authenticity of the clause, some authors solve
the difficulty which it presents, by maintaining that the clause
' S. Greg. Epist. lib. xiii. epist. 8, 9, 10 (Oper. torn. ii.). Fleury, Hist.
Eccl. vol. viii. book xxxvi. n. 43. Hist, de I'Eglise Gall. vol. iii. ann. 602,
p. 356. Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. ii. cap. ix.
' " Si quis regum, sacerdotum, judicum, personarumque saecularium, banc
constitutionis nostras paginam agnoscens, contra earn venire tentaverit, potes-
talis, honoi-vsqiie sui dignitate careat, reumque se divino judicio existere de
perpetrata iniquitate cognoscat." — S. Greg, ubi supra, epist. 8, 9, 10.
' This opinion is adopted by P. Maimbourg, Hist, du Pontificat de St. Gr^
goire, p. 290 ; Lebeau, Hist, du Bas-Einpire, vol. xi. book xlix. n. 50.
* See note (b) of the editors, on the 8th letter, already cited.
* D. Ceillier, Hist, des Auteurs Eccles. vol. xvii. p. 317.
riiAP. II. J ovKU S0VFRKH1NS. 1 i;5
was not, striotl}' spoakinj;, a docroo nr tliivat ot" iK-jKi.-itioii
air.iin.st its \iolaturs, but luercK' an imprecatory form, thn-atcniinf
them with the vengeance of God, even in this world.' This
exphmation, however, appears utterly irreconcilaldo with the
text of St. Gregory, whose expressions, taken in their natural
sense, imply rather an absolute declaration than a mere impreca-
tory form : " Let him know," the pope says, " that he is
responsible before God, for the crime which he has perpetrated."
To solve the difficulty completely, the editors of the works of
St. Gregory observe, that according to his own letters, the
privileges in question were granted at the request of Queen
Brunehault, and that all this arrangement was made in compliance
with her wish. '* It cannot be questioned," they observe,* " that
if St. Gregor)' had consulted his own inclination and his natural
mildness, he would never insert so severe a clause ; but he could
not refuse the queen, who wished to intimidate, by this means,
those who should attempt to violate the decree. It was in the
same way, that the fathers of tlie fourth Council of Orleans
(in 541), at the request of King Childebert, prohibit all persons,
of whatsoever rank or dignity they be, to seize the property of
the hospital of Lyons, under pain of being punished by an
irrevocable anathema, as the murderers of the poor." ^
The justness of these observations must be obvious on an
attentive perusal of the letters which St. Gregory wrote to
Queen Brunehault, and to Theodoric her grandson, when con-
ferring the privileges in question. " To have some share in
your good works," he writes, " we have granted to the said places,
privileges such as you have desired, for the peace and security
of the inhabitants ; and our wish has been, not to defer for a
single instant compliance with the laudable desires of your
excellency." ♦
' D. Ceillier, Ilust. des Auteurs Eccles. ubi supra. Mabiilon, De re Diploin.
lib. ii. cap. ix. Bosfiuet, Defens. Declar. lib. ii. cap. ix. Nat. Alexander, '2ml
Di.ssert. sur THintoire Eccl<$8. du Onzil-ine Sil-cle, art. x. 5th parajfr-iph.
* Note (6) on the 8th letter.
^ Concil. Aurelian. ann. fiil, can. l.**.
* " Qui de re, ut et ni>« boiii§ v&><tris in aliquo participes haberemur, privi-
ly _-;a locis ipsis, pro quiete et niunitione illic <]< -. wicut voluiKtiH, inriiil-
Miiius, nee excellentiii- vestni- .iniplecionda a>'' ieria, vel ad niodicum
differre pertulimus." — S. Greg. Epist. lib. xiii. pp. 0, 7.
144 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
130. The Difficidty solved by the Consent of the French Pnnces given to the
Decree.
From these observations it manifestly follows, that even in
St. Gregory's time, the kings of France subjected themselves,
in certain cases, to be deposed by the authority of the pope.
Such a concession may, no doubt, appear at the present day
very extraordinary ; but it is certain, and admitted even by
authors most opposed to the maxims of the middle ages in this
matter, that the history of this period presents many other
instances of similar concessions. It has been already seen,'
that Bossuet, Fleury, and the majority of canonists, especially
in France, explain in this sense the penalty of deposition, and
the other temporal penalties decreed against heretical princes,
in the third and fourth councils of Lateran. In the sequel of
our inquiry there will be occasion to cite many other instances
of similar concessions, especially in France under the second
race of kings.
We might add, perhaps, that the consent of Queen Brune-
hault and of the French kings to the clause in question, was,
at the time, in perfect keeping with the customs of the kingdom,
and the ancient legislation of the German nations, which deprived
of their dignities all dukes or barons who should violate the
king's decrees.- Tliis provision, it is true, such as we read it at
present in the ancient laws of the Franks, directly regards none
but the lords inferior in rank to the king ; but there is every
reason to believe, that the king himself was, at that time,
amenable to the general assembly of the nation, and that he,
therefore, incurred the penalty of deposition by violating the
laws and customs of the state. It is certain, at all events, that
this custom was in force under the second race of French kings,
and that history does not point out its origin ; it is natural to
hold that it must have been coeval \vith the monarchy itself, at
' See supra, n. 90, 119, &c.
* " Si quis autem dux de provincia ill^, quern rex ordinaverit, tam audax
aut contumax, aut levitate stimulatus, seu protervus et elatus, vel superbus
atque rebellis fuerit, qui decretum regis contempserit, donatu dignitatis ipsius
ducati careat." — Lex Bajuvariorujn, tit. ii. n. 9 (Baluze, Capitularium, torn. i.
p. 104). Daniel, Hist, de France, vol. ii. ann. 6-13, p. 109, This law, enacted
originally in the fifth century by Thierry, king of Austrasia, was often revived
by the Frank kings of the first race.
CHAP. II.] OVER SOVKREIQNS. 1 4o
least, acconlini; to the opiniun now generally received, tliat
under the tirst, as well as the second race of kings, the erown of
France was not purely hereditary, but elective among the princes
of the blood royal.'
131. The King gmerally amsidered amtnahle to On National Council, under the
Seojnd Race of French Kings,
But whatever may have been the custom of France in this
matter under the first race of kings, it is certain, that under the
successors of Charlemagne the king was generally regarded as
amenable to the national council ; wliich could depose, in the
name of God, a king unworthy of the throne, just as the king
himself could deprive a magistrate unworthy of his ofliee.*
We find, in history, princes themselves adopting that principle
as the guide of their conduct.' This aj»pear3 especially during
the fatal dinsions which sprung up between the children of
\iC\\xu le Debonnaire, in consec^uence of the partition of his
states.* One of the ])rincipal means emjdoyed by each against
bis rival was, to get him deposed by a council. Thus Lothaire
was deposed in 842, by the Council of Aix la Chapelle, which
' .Supra, ch. i. art. i. n. 23-25.
* Ahhi- Jayer, in his Introduction h rHistoire de Or^goire VII. (p. 2S), sup-
poee« this usjigc to li.ive been groundeil on a capitulary of Charlemagne, men-
tioned in a preceding chapter, whicli subjects everj- one in his empire, even
bin own sons, to the judgment of the bishop, in all that regards the causes of
God and the interests of the churches. We can discover in that cajiitulary
nothing to ju.stify us in regarding it as the origin of the usage in question ;
for, in tlie first [il.ace, it places all the subjects of the empire under the judg-
ment of the bishops in spiritual and ecclesiastical matters only, while under
the successors of C'liarlemagiie, the king w.xs considered amenable to the council,
even in teni{M)nil matters. Secondly, tliis capituhiry ileprives of their dignities
all subjects, and the sons even of the king, if they refuse to obey the bishop ;
but that penalty does not extend to the king himself; at least, the capitulary
itself contains nothing to authorize such extension. Some other origin must
therefore l>e asaigne<l for this usage ; whether it was jMirhajts subsequent to
the reign of Charlcm.igne. or jnore ancient, a.s aj)pears more probable from the
reflections just maile on some letters of St. Gregory the CJreat.
* Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. 3rd Discourse, n. 10 ; vol. xix. 7th Discourse,
n. 5. Hist, de I'Eglise Gall. vol. xvii. Prelim. Discounse, p. xlvi. Daniel,
Hi.st. de France, vol. ii. pp. 335, 3S8, 393, &c. P. CJriffet's edit. Velly and
Gamier, Hist, de France, vol. ii. pp. 60, 81 ; vol. xxi. p. 189. Moreau, Dis-
cours sur rHist*>ire de France, vol. i. pp. 22, 30. I^issuct, Dcfens. Di'<-lar.
lib. ii. cap. xliii. Montewjuieu, K-^prit des Lois, b<Kik xxxi. ch. xxiii. last page.
* Nithard, De Di.ssensionibus Filiorum Ludovici Pii, lib. iv. (Ijabbe, Concil.
vol. \ni. p. 1782). Heurj-, Hist. Eccl. vol. x. book xlviii. n. 11 ; book xlix.
n. 46. Daniel, ubi supra, p. 335.
VuL. II. L
146 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
was convoked against him Ijy his two brothers, Charles the
Bald, king of France, and Louis, king of Bavaria. After
having pronounced, in this council, a sentence of deposition
against Lothaire, the bishops declared to the princes, his brothers,
that they would not permit them to take possession of his states,
unless they promised to conduct their government according to
the law and the orders of God. "We promise so to do," the
two kings replied ; the president of the assembly then addressed
them in the name of all the prelates : " Receive the kingdom by
the authority of God, and govern it according to his divine will ;
this we admonish, we exhort, we command." ^
Some years later, Charles the Bald having been deposed in
the Council of Attigny (in 857), by the intrigues of Venilon,
archbishop of Sens, presented a petition to the Council of Savon-
nitres (in 859), as the most effectual means he could employ in
defence of his rights, against the sentence which had deprived
him of his states. But in the very document which complains
so loudly of the injustice of Venilon's sentence against him,
he expressly acknowledges the competency of the tribunal. " No
man," he urges, " could deprive me of my consecration, or
depose me from my throne, ^yithout at least the judgment and
decision of the bishops, by whose ministry I have been anointed
king ; who are styled the thrones of God, on whom God is
seated, and through whom he pronounces his awards. I have
ever been disposed, and I still continue so, to submit to
their fatherly corrections, and to the chastisements which they
may deem right to inflict on me." -
' " Verumtamen haudquaquam illis hanc licentiam dedere (regendi regni),
donee palam illos percontati sunt, utrum illud per vestigia fratris ejecti, an
secundum Dei voluntatem regere voluissent. Respondentibus autem, in quan-
tum nosse ac posse Deus illis concederet, secundtim suam voluntatem, se et
suos gubernare et regere velle, aiunt : Et auctoritate divind, ul illud susdpiatis,
et secundum Dei voluntatem illud regatis, m&nemus, hortamur atque prwdpimiis."
— Nithard, ubi supra.
* " A qua consecratione, vel regni sublimitate, supplantari vel projici h,
nullo debueram, saltern sine audientiS, et judicio episcoporum, quorum minis-
terio in regem sum consecratus, et qui throni Dei sunt dicti, in quibus Deua
sedet, et per quos sua decemit judicia ; quomm patemis correptionibus et cas-
tigatoriis judiciis me subdere fui paratus, et in praesenti sum subditus." — Libel-
lus Proclamationis Domini Caroli adversbs Venilonem, n. 3 (Labbe, Concil.
tom. viii. p. 679). Daniel, ubi supra, p. 393. Bosstiet, ubi supra.
CHAP. II.] OVER SOVKRETONS. 117
182. ThU Fact admitted by our tnott cminfiit llistoriam.
Struck by those fact,s, and by the imvaryini:; l:in«;uagc of our
ancient annalists,' a modem autlior who has stmlied most jiro-
foundly, and written very copiously the history of the primitive
ages of the French monarchy, sums up in tlie following terms
the principles generally adopted in this matter under the second
race of French kings, and even in the commencement of the
tliird. " Under the second race," he observes, " nobles, laymen,
and ecdesiaxStics, hold the same jirinciplc ; they suppose the
same truth, but they abuse it. The king, say the bishops, has
no superior but God ; he is a magistrate, depositary of the
power of the Eternal one, who alone has a right to call him to
account for his actions ; but this sovereign judge of kings has
app<jinted us liis vicars and representatives ; we constitute his
court, as the magistrates who stand around the throne constitute
the court of the monarch : we have a right to judge him, in the
name and by the authority of God him.self ; and us he deprives
his officers by proceedings which he institutes against them,
God, in like manner, deposes the king against whom we, in
council, have pronounced a sentence declaring him unworthy of
the throne." -
133. Tlicir Attempts to elude tlie Contequencai of their Admissioiu.
True, this author and some others, though admitting the fact,
namely, the general belief tliat the king was amenalde to the
council, represent it as an error introduced and propagated by
the policy of Pepin and of his successors, who gave it currency
with the design of making their own authority more respectable
in the eyes of the people.' But even admitting this supposition.
' On this subject, we may direct attention aluo to a letter addre8so<l to
Charles the Simple, in 81'9, by Fulk of Klieiin^, dissiuwJing that i)rinco from
alliance with the Normans. In that letter the prelate HjieakH with a tone of
authority, and even of l>oldnes.M, which appears iin.-ircouiitahle, unless we suji-
pose that the king was then amenahle t4) the council. Sec ISjiroiiius, AiinaleH,
vol. X. ann. 89S, n. 1,2; Fleury, Hist. Pk-cl. vol. xi. l)W)k liv. n. 2»i ; Bossuet,
Defens. Declar. lih. ii. ca]>. xxv. ; Hist, do TEglise (lall. vol. vi. p. 31''.'.
* Moreau, ubi HUjira, pp. '22-2G.
* Moreau, ibid. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. x. l>ook xlix. n. 46 ; vol. xiii. 3rd
Discourse, n. 10; vol. xix. 7th Discourse, n. 5. Daniel, Hist, do France,
vol. li. pp. 33.5, 388, 393. Garnier, Hist, de France, vol. xxi. p. 189, 4c.
Berthier, Hist, de I'Efflise Oall. vol. xvii. prelim. Discourse, p. xlv. &c. Sis-
mondi, Hist, des Fran9ai8, vol, ii. p. 172, &,c.
L 2
148 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
what inference can thence be drawn against the existence itself
of that general belief — which is, at present, the only point wc are
discussing ? The question is not here, what were the origin and
grounds of that belief; we reserve that question for the fol-
lowing chapter ; it is enough for us, at present, to prove that
the popes and councils of the middle ages, who attributed to
themselves so great a power over sovereigns, merely followed
principles generally admitted and recognised by sovereigns them-
selves.
Nevertheless, to elucidate still more the fact of this general
behef, especially in France, it may not be useless to examine
more minutely the assertion of those authors who regard that
belief as an " error, introduced and propagated in France by the
policy of Pepin and of his successors." The least reflection
must demonstrate, that such an assertion is utterly gratuitous
and improbable.
134. The Bdicf in Question teas not an Error.
It supposes in the first place, the general belief of the age,
that the king was amenable to the council, to have been an
error. But in what was the error ? Was it in the theological
opinion which attributes to the Church a jurisdiction, at
least indirect, over the temporalities of princes ? Our best
authorities admit, and we shall soon demonstrate, that such an
opinion was hardly known in France under the first race of her
kings, and that the principle of the distinction and reciprocal
independence of the two powers, was still universally admitted
and professed at that time.^ Did the error consist in the false
policy of subjecting the crown to the disposal of the bishops ?
Such a policy may no doubt appear wrong under other circum-
stances ; but was it wrong in the then existing state of society ?
At a time when the lay barons were, for the most part, so ambi-
tious and so turbulent ; when the clergy were the fiirst order in
the state, and in that capacity occupied the first rank in all
political assemblies ; when they were the most enlightened, and
the most respected, and the most loyal body in the state ; was it
not natural that sovereigns should study to increase their
authority, as a counterpoise to that of the lay barons, and regard
' Infra, ch. iii. art. 1.
CHAP. 1 1. J OVER SOVEREIGNS. I ii)
tluir intliu-nco as the firmest bulwark o{ the throne ? So far is
it Irum heiiiir evident that sovorcii^ns were j,'uilty of an error in
this inatti-r. that many even of tliose authors who attribute the
•ijeneral belief in (juestion to ignoranee in the miJdle ages, admit,
nevertheless, that this belief was most advantageous to society.'
As for France in particular, it must be observed, that most of
the writers who censure so severely the great power of the
bishops under the second race of her kings, are compelled to
admit its beneficial intluence. i'ere Berthier, among others,
though characterizing that power as founded on an error, and an
intolerable pretension of the clergy, admits, nevertheless, witli
tlie abbe Dubos, " that to the great power of the clergy waa
owing the preservation of the m-jnarchy under the last kings
of the second nu;e. While the lay barons," he adds, " were
usuqiing the domains of the crown, the bishops and abbots, who
wished after all to maintain the constitution of the state, fre-
quently resisted these usurpations, and always took care that
some one master and king should be acknowledged by all ; this
it was that gra^lually restored order, and enabled the kings of the
third race to recover, in the course of time, the provinces, cities,
and rights of which their predecessors had been despoiled." *
135. It was not introduced by the Policy of Pepin and his Succcisors.
In the second place, they suppose that this general belief, which
retrarded the kint; as amenable to the council, was introduced and
propagated in France by the policy of Pepin and of his suc-
cessors. This supposition is entirely unsupported, and cannot,
we believe, show in its favour a single fact, or a single positive
testimony. There is no trace of it in the history of Pepin or of
Charlemagne ; and, judging from the evidence'of history alone,
it would be dillicult to decide whether the general belief in
question was introduced before the death of Charlemagne, or
after the reign of that great prince ; whether it was introduced
by the authority of the monarch- alone, or by the authority of
' Infra, ch. iv. art. 2.
' lierthier, Hi^t. d.- lEglise Gall. vol. xvii. Disc. Prelim, p. xlvi. Dubos,
Hi.it. Critii|ueiio la Mon.ircliio Kraiiraine, vol. iii. p. 3S4. See, in confirmation
uf theae observations, what has been already said, supra, ch. i. art. iu
150 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
some general assembly, as had been already the case in Spain.*
Hence the autliors against whom we are now reasoning, are very
much divided among themselves, when they undertake to assign
the true origin of this general belief. Some say it was intro-
duced by Pepin and Charlemagne ;- others, by Charles the
Bald ;■* others, under Louis le Debonnaire, by the bishops them-
selves, whose pretensions were afterwards sanctioned by the
conduct of the kings ;^ but we can find no proof of any of
these assertions. To suppose, as some do, that Pepin hoped by
propagating this new opinion to supply the defect of his title,
and to conceal his crime of usurpation,^ is merely bolstering up
one groundless supposition by another not less improbable.
That Pepin was a usurper, is not a matter so clear as to pre-
clude all doubt ; authors of eminent reputation have denied
that he was a usurper, and their arguments arc by no means
contemptible.^
AKTICLE III.
Special Proofs of this Belief for the case of those Sovereigns who were Vassals
of the Holy See.''
136. Rights of Sovereignty attnbuted to tlie Pope over different States.
The general belief of princes and of people attributed to the
pope a much more comprehensive power over sovereigns who
were vassals of the Holy See. The pope, it was generally
admitted, had a right, not only to judge and depose them in
certain cases, but even to make over their states to another
prince ; and the conduct of sovereigns themselves tended to con-
firm this belief. The history of the middle ages supplies a great
number of facts in support of this assertion ; here we shall cite
onlv a few of the most remarkable.
' It is certain, that from the seventh century the king of Spain was amenable
to the council. See supra, ch. i. art. i. n. 29 ; and infra, eh. iii. art. ii. n. 247.
* Moreau, ubi supra.
^ Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois, book xxxi. ch. xxiii. last paragraph.
* Daniel, ubi supra, pp. 335, 354, 393, et alibi passim.
* Moreau, ubi supra, p. 23. Garnier, Hist, de France, vol. xxi. p. 189.
® See Confirmatory Evidence, No. 7, at the close of this volume.
' See preceding chapter, n. 40, note 1.
(•HAl*. II. I OVEK SOVKKKIONS. I '> I
187. Orrt- Euglaud.
In 1211, Pcpe Innocent III. having pronounced sentence of
deposition ai^inst John Laekhmd, king of Enghind, and given
his kingdom to Philip Augustas, king of France, the latter did
not hesitate to accept the gift, hut instantly prepared to enforce
by anus the rights to which he had no other title but the pope's
grant.'
188. Over Sicily.
The rights of the Holy See over Sicily were acknowledged not
less solemnly by France in the reign of St. Louis.- The pope
having granted the kingdom of Sicily to Charles of Anjou,
brother of the sainted king, the latter for various political
reasons, and, perhaps, likewise from delicacy of conscience,
appeared unwilling at first to co-operate in that choice : but he
consented at last, in 12G5, and even authorized the levying of a
tenth on the clergy to assist the count of Anj<ju in taking
possession of the throne of Sicily.
139. Over the Kingdom of Arrayon.
Some years later, in r2S2, Philip the Bold gave a much
more ready compliance to similar offers.' Pope Martin IV.
having excommunicated Peter III., king of Arragon, and iLsurper
of Sicily, deprived him not only of this latter kingdom, but
also of Arragon, which he granted to Philip the Bold for one
of liis sons. Instantly the king of France not only accepted
the grant, but marched at the head of his army to enforce
his rights.
140. Over the RepMic of Venice.
It is certain, in fine, that even under Pliilip the Fair, that
king whose name is identified most prominently with the main-
tenance of the independence of the cro^ii of France, the rights
of the Holy See over many other Catholic states, and especially
' Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xvi. book Ixjcvii. n. 5, 23. Daniel, Hist, de France,
vol. iii. ann. 1211. Velly, Hist, de France, vol. iii. p. 46S.
» Daniel, Hi-st. de France, vol. iv. ann. lJt54, 126.';. This important fact is
a<lniittcd by Velly, Mich.iud, .iml many other writen* generally very little
inclined to favour the pretenMionH of the Holy .See to Hicily. — Sec Velly, Hibt.
de France, vol. v. p. 328 ; Michnud, Hist, des Croisades, vol. v. p. 42.
•• Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xviii. lKx>k Ixxxviii. n. 10, Ip. r>anicl, Hist, do
France, vol. iv. ann. 12il3. Velly, Hint, do France, vol. vi. p. 386, &c.
152 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
over the empire, were not disputed by the French.^ So well
known were the opinions of Philip the Fair on this point, that
at the yery moment when he was assailing most ardently the
memory of Boniface VIII. (in 1311), Pope Clement V. appealed
to him with as much confidence as to the other Catholic sove-
reigns, requesting his assistance against the doge and republic
of Venice, that had been deprived by the Holy See of their
temporal rights, in punishment of their rebellion.^
AETICLE IV.
Special Proofe of this Belief with regard to the Empire of the West.
141. General Belief that the Empire of the West was in a peculiar way dependent
on the Pope.
Besides the general power attributed to the Holy See over all
the Catholic sovereigns of Europe during the middle ages, it was
the common belief of princes and people that the pope had
special rights over the empire of the West, at least after the
tenth century. 3 At that time, it was considered an unquestion-
able fact, that the empire, in certain respects at least, was a fief
of the Holy See ; that the emperor was the pope's man ; that
from the pope the electors derived their power of electing the
emperor ; and that, in certain cases, the emperor could be
deposed by the pope.
142. In what Sense was the Empire considered a Fief of the Holy See.
To exhibit in its clearest light the belief of the middle ages
on this point, and to avoid all exaggeration on a question so
important^, we must observe, in the first place, that the ancient
authors who have spoken of the empire as a fief of the Holy
See, appear not to have aU used that expression in the same
• Daniel, Hist, de France, vol. v. ann. 1.303. "Velly, Hist, de France, vol.
vii. p. 207. Hist, de I'Eglise Gall. vol. xii. ann. 1302, pp. 325, 334, <fec.
Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. iii. cap. xxiv. ; lib. iv. cap. ix. versus finem.
* Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xix. book xci. n. 33. Eaynaldi Annales, ann.
1309, n. 7, 8.
^ I say, after the tenth century ; for in truth the origin of these rights may
be traced liack to the time of Charlemagne. This is manifest from many docu-
ments, which we shall have occasion to cite both in the course of this fourth
article and of the following chapter (art. ii.).
CHAP. II.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 153
sense. Many seem to understand it of a fief properly so called ;
that is, "a domain which the proprietor or feudatory held by
the donation or investiture of a sovereign lord.'' It was not,
however, in that sense the popes and emperors themselves under-
stood the dependence of the empire on the Holy See. In their
opinion, the emperor did not, properly speaking, hold from the
pope the domain or territory of the empire, but solely the title of
emperor. To him, as to other sovereigns, the domain came by
the free will of the people who had chosen him, by the constitu-
tion of the state, or by his just conquests. The whole right of
the pope over the empire consisted, therefore, in this, that he
could elect an emperor, either by himself or by the prince
electors ; that he could give him his title, and judge of the
cases in which he should be deposed. To establish the solidity
of this explanation, we need but observe the diflference between
the oath of fidelity taken to the pope by the emperors, and that
which was taken by princes, vassals of the Holy See. The oath
of the latter clearly implies that they held their domains by the
grant or the investiture of the pope ; whilst the oath of the
emperors merely implied an obligation of protecting and defend-
ing the interests of the Holy See against its enemies.^
These observations may serve to correct or explain those
authors of the middle ages who have spoken of the empire as a
fief of the Holy See. Some of them, no doubt, may, from
incorrect notions on the subject, have understood the term in
the sense of a fief, properly so called ; but the majority meant
nothing more than a peculiar dependence of the empire on the
pope, in the sense already explained. At a time when all ideas
of government and jurisprudence were modelled according to the
feudal system, every species of authority subordinate to another
was termed a fief.^
Keeping these explanations in \dew, it is easy to demonstrate
that the dependence of the empire on the Holy See, at least in
' A little further on we shall cite the text of this oath (infra, n. 156). In
the foUowing chapter we shall also give (art. ii. n. 253) the text of the oath of
fealty taken to the pope by Robert Guiscard, founder of the kingdom of
Naples, in 1059.
* Ducange, Glossar. Infimae Latin, verbo Feudus. Hallam's Europe, vol. i.
p. 225, &c. Lingard, Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church ; History of
England.
154 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
the sense just now stated, was universally admitted, at least
since the tenth century. ^
143. Dependence of the Empire on the Pope admitted by the Qerman Lords in
the time of Qregory VII.
During their conflict with the emperor Henry IV., the Saxon
princes, in concert with many other German lords, appealed to
the pope as their only refuge ; as one vested with the supreme
authority, to restore order in the empire, which had been con-
vulsed by the excesses and despotism of Henry. They not only
implored the pope to console, either by his presence or by his
legates, their unhappy nation ;- but, moreover, represented to
him, that the empire is a fief of the eternal city, that it is
wrong to tolerate on tho throne so impious a prince ; that Rome
should once more resume her ancient right of appointing kings ;
and that to the pope and the city of Rome, in concert with the
princes, belongs the right of choosing a man worthy by his
conduct and bis prudence of so elevated a rank.^ This lan-
guage of the German princes manifestly proves, as Bossuet has
remarked, the general belief that the pope had a peculiar right
in the election of an emperor, and even the right of deposing
him for the violation of the conditions stipulated in the election."*
It is also equally certain from history, that the partisans of the
emperor, and the emperor himself, never disputed these prin-
ciples, but confined themselves to remonstrances, to mollify the
pope, and to induce him to defer the execution of his measures.^
' Many remarkable facts bearing on this point may be seen collected in the
following works : Nat. Alexandre, Dissert. 2, in Hist. Eccles. saeculi xi. art. 9,
versus finem ; Christ. Lupus, Decreta et Canones, torn. iv. p. 457 ; Bossuet,
Defens. Declar. lib. iv. cap. ix. ; Jager, Introduction k I'Hist. de Grdg. VII.
p. 26, &c. ; Montague, Appendix de Conciliis, p. 287, ad calcem Praelect.
Theol. de Opere Sex Diei-um, Parisiis, 1743, 12mo. ; De Maistre, Du Pape,
book ii. ch. x. p. 335, &c.
* " Quibus ut, vel per se, vel per nuntium, genti penb perditae consolator
adesaet, suppliciter oraverunt." — Bruno, De Bello Saxonico (Scriptores Rerum
Germanic, torn. i. p. 133). Voigt, Hist, de Grt%oire VII. book ix. p. 405.
^ We have cited above, art. i. n. 93, the very words of the ancient writers
on the subject.
■* " Quae profectb ostendunt, his jam temporibus. in Romano pontifice fuisse
notatum peculiare aliquod jus ad constituenduni eura regera, qui postea impe-
rator futurus esset, atqii/C ad earn postea deponendum." — Bossuet, Defens. Declar.
lib. iv. cap. ix.
^ Voigt, ibid, book viii. &c. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. lx)ok Ixii. n. 29,
36, &c.
CHAP. II.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 155
144. Vanous Testimonies of the Existence of this Belief.
Several writers, who lived after these deplorable contests,
supply additional proofs of this general belief. Paul Bemried,
who wrote the life of Gregory VII., some years after the death
of that pontiff, directs special attention to the fact, that his
defenders justified his conduct towards Henry, not only by the
right then attributed to the pope of deposing kings, in certain
cases, and of absolving their subjects from the oath of allegiance,
but also, by the crime which Henry had committed in violating
the conditions stipulated in his election, and the promise made
to the electors, of governing them \\ith justice.^
Godefry of Viterbo, an historian of the twelfth century, repre-
sents the popes as addressing the emperors in the following
words : " We have given you the empire ; and you have given
us very little : know that if you wear the imperial crown, it is
our gift." ^
Arnold, bishop of Lisieux, in a discourse delivered in the
Council of Tours (1163), speaks thus of the emperor : —
" Frederick is, moreover, bound by special reasons to acknow-
ledge the holy Roman Church as his superior ; he cannot deny
it without the most flagrant ingratitude ; for it is manifest,
from ancient histories, that his predecessors had no other claim
to the empire, but the good pleasure of the holy Roman Church
alone." ^
' " Nemo Romanorum Pontijicem reges a regno deponere posse d^ffiegahit, qui-
cumque decreta sanctissimi Papse Gregorii non proscribenda judicabit
Pneterea liberi homines Henricum eo pacto sibi proposuerunt in regem, ut
electores suos justfe judicare et regali providentiS, gubernare satageret ; quod
pactum ille postea prsevaricari et contemnere non cessavit. . . . Ergo, et absque
sedis apostolica3 judicio, principes eum pro rege meritb refiitare possent, cum
pactum adimxjlere contempserit, quod iis pro electione sud promiserat, quo non
adimpleto, nee rex esse poterat." — Paul Bemried, De Rebus Gestis Greg. VII.
cap. xcvii. (Muratori, Scriptores Eerum Italicarum, torn. iii. part i. p. 342).
Hallam's Europe, vol. iii. p. 366, note. Observe, that the conditions men-
tioned here by Bemried were made in the election of the emperor, not only
by the prince electors, but also by the pope, in whose name they made the
election, as we shall soon see (infra, ch. iii, art. ii. § 2).
* Imperium dedimus, tu pauca dedisse videris :
Impei'io nostro, Caesar Romanus haberis.
Gothof. Viterb. Chron. Hist. Paschalis Papae II. (apud Pistorium, Ulust.
Script. German, torn, ii.), cited by Bossuet, ubi supra.
^ " Prseterea specialem causam habet (Fridericus), qua sanctam Eomanam
Ecclesiam dominam recognoscere debet : alioquin manifestissime poterit reus
iugratitudinis apparere. Si enim ad veteres recurramus historias, certum erit
156 POWER OF THE POPE [PAllT II.
145. Opinion of Oo-vase of Tilburi/.
The same principles are formally adopted and developed at
greater length, in the commencement of the following century,
by Gervase of Tilbury, an English baron of great character,
and as high in favour with the emperor Otho IV., as with the
king of England, Henry III. During the contests of the
emperor with Pope Innocent III., that is, about the year 1211,
Gervase compiled, under the title of Imperial Recreations,^
a work addressed to the emperor himself ; in which he supposes,
as a point of constitutional law universally admitted, the special
rights of the Holy See over the empire. " Consider, great
prince," he observes, "that Pope Innocent II. gave to your
great grandfather that same empire which you now hold froin
Pope Innocent III. Heaven grant, that your conduct towards
praedecessores ejus, imperium non de alio jure, qukm de sol4 sanctse Komanae
Ecclesite gratis, percepisse." — Labbe, Concil. torn. x. p. 1415.
' Gervasius Tilberiensis, Otia Imperialia (Leibnitz, Scriptores Rerum
Bi-unswicarum, torn. i. p. 881, &c.). Tlie title, and even the plan of this work,
were probably suggested to the author by John of Salisbury's work, published
some years before, under the title of Polycraticus, sive de Nugis Curialiuni.
In substance and the nature of their subjects they are certainly entirely dif-
ferent ; the Polycraticus being a moral and philosophical work, on the duties
of the great ; the Otia Imperialia, a collection of sketches on history, geo-
graphy, physics, and natural history. The design of both works is never-
theless the same ; namely, to supply the courtiers, in an agreeable and varied
form, with instructions useful for their private conduct, and for the good
government of the state. Now, it is worthy of remark, that these two works,
composed nearly at the same time, for the instruction of the princes and lords
of the court, by two authors not less distinguished by their official position
than by their talents, both suppose a general belief then existing in the middle
ages, that the temporal power was subordinate to the spiritual in this sense,
that the sovereign could, in certain cases at least, be deposed by the authority
of the Church or pope. (Polycraticus, lib. iv. cap. i. ii. iii. Otia Imperialia,
in the beginning, and in decision ii. ch. xix. ; see following note.) The origin
of this subjection of the temporal power is nevertheless explained in a very
different way by both authors. John of Salisbury supposes that it was founded
on divine right, in the sense explained by the advocates of the theological
theory of the direct power. (See explanation of this opinion in No. 8 of Con-
firmatory E\adence at the end of this volume.) Grervase of Tilbury, in the
preamble to his work, establishes principles directly contrary to that opinion :
he supposes that both powers are derived immediately from God, and that they
are different one from the other, both by their object and their functions
(Script. Brunswic. ibid. pp. SSI, 8S3) ; and he regards Constantine's donation
as the real title of the extraordinary power then exercised by the pope over
sovereigns (ibid. pp. 882, 944). In another place we shall give a more detailed
account of the work of John of Salisbury (Confirmatory Evidence, ubi supra).
Leibnitz gives some interesting details on Gervase of Tilbury and his Imperial
Recreations, in the preface of the collection cited above (§ 63).
CHAP. II.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. J 57
him may be innocent,' and that you may prove to him who
anointed you the rectitude of your intentions, by works of
sincere piety ; for you can have no just reason for offending
him, nor can you ever sufficiently testify your gratitude for his
favours. Though you may think that he wishes to encroach,
in some degree, on the rights of the empire, still give up some-
thing to him from whom you hold all that empire ; from being
as you are a donatee, you can become a donor, by giving to the
pope a part of those rights which you have received from him.
Assuredly, the empire is not yours, but Christ's ; not yours, but
Peter's ; it was not from yourself you received it, but from the
vicar of Jesus Christ, the successor of Peter ; you lose nothing
of your own by giving his own to Peter. It was by the good
pleasure of the pope, and not by its own authority, that Rome
revived the imperial title in the time of Charlemagne ; it was
the pope's good pleasure that changed a king of the Franks
into an emperor ; it is by the pope's good pleasure that the
empire belongs now to the king of the Teutons, not to the king
of the Franks ; nor does that empire belong to him whom
Teutonia elects, but to him whom the pope has appointed." -
146. Opinion of Ludolph, Bishop of Bamherg.
About the middle of the following century, we find the same
principles developed in several works by Lupoid or Ludolphe of
Bebenberg, bishop of Bamberg, and a very eminent jurist in his
day.-^ In his work, " On the Zeal of the German Princes for
' A piay on the words " utinam innocens Innocentio exhibearis."
^ " Considera, princeps sacratissime, quod ab Innocentio PapS, II. sanctis-
simo proavus tuus accepit Imperium, quod longo tempore intermissum, et post
electionem confirmationemque primam relapsum, perseque sanctissimus tibi
reddidit Innocentius. Utinam innocens Innocentio exliibearis, et sinceritatem
tuam, quam prjesumo in te esse, operibus pice devotionis probes tuo consecra-
tori ! Nihil enim est quo justfe ilium olfendas, nee quod tanto merito dignum
rependas. Si credis in aliquo ilium minuere velle jus imperii, cedcis in modico
ei qui totum in te contulit imperium. . . . Dator efficipotesde donatario, si ptartem
ei cesseris ejus quod, per ipsuni, Mum acceptisti. Profecto imperium tuum nan est,
sed Christi : non tuum, scd Petri: non a te tibi obvenit, sed a ricario CJmsti, et
successore Petri. . . . Nihil amittis quod tuum est, si dimittis Petro quod suum
est. . . . Beneficio Papae, non suo. Roma, tempore Caroli, nomen recepit im-
perii ; beneficio Papte, Francorum regi confertur imperium ; beneficio Papae,
regi nunc Teutonum, et non Francorum, debetur imperium ; nee cedit imperium
cui Teutonia, sed cui cedendum decrevit Papa." — Gervasii Tilberiensis Otia Im-
perialia, decisione ii. cap. xix. (Leibnitz, ubi supra, p. 944).
^ A sketch of this author may be seen in Ludewig's Scriptores Rerum Ger-
158 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II
the good of Religion/' he enumerates among the proofs of that
zeal, the testimony of respect and devotion often given by the
emperors to the Roman Church. He recalls and supposes as
unquestionable facts, " that after Charlemagne's elevation to the
empire, all the emperors received from the Roman Church the
anointing and the imperial crown ; that from the time of the
emperor Otho, all the emperors took an oath of fidelity to that
Chiirch at their coronation ; that the German barons who were
entitled to elect the emperor, had received that right from the
Roman Church ; that they acknowledged the pope's right to
examine the emperor-elect ; and that their custom was, to for-
ward to him the decree of election for his approbation."^ The
same author had already demonstrated these principles at greater
length, in his " Treatise on the Rights of the Kingdom and
Emj)ire of Germany ;" to which he refers for more ample details,"
and in which he proves, moreover, that according to law and
custom, the emperor could be deposed by the pope for certain
enormous and notorious crimes, " and especially for the crime
of heresy."^
147. The saine Belief long prevalent in France.
That the same principles were generally admitted in France,
appears from the history of the deplorable contests of Philip the
Fair with Boniface VIII., at the close of the thirteenth century,
manic, vol. i. p. 205. See also Cave, Historia Litteraria Sseculi xiv. ann.
1340 ; and Moreri'a Dictionary.
' " Sic patet quod Germani principea, quoad unctiones et coronationes
imperiales ab EcclesiS. Komanii percipiendas, se ipsi Ecclesiae submittere
priiuitus inceperunt ; . . . item, a tempore Othonis primi, . . . omnes reges
Eomanorum, usque ad praesens tempus, Ecclesice Romana x>r<estare juramentum,
sub forma consimili, consueverunt ; . . . item principes Germanise, ad quos
pertinet jus et potestas eligendi regem Romanorum, recognoverunt Innocentio
Papa3 III. . . . quod jus et auctoritas examinandi personam electam in regem
Rom.anoi-um, ad imperium postmodum promovendam, pertineat ad Ecclesiam
Eomanam ; . . . item principes Germanise, post electionem regis per eos fac-
tam, suuirais pontificibus decretum hujusmodi electionis .... transmittere con-
sueverunt."— Lupoldus Bebenburgius, De Zelo Principum Germ. cap. vii. ;
Argentinse, 1508, 1609, 4to. This work is given in the 26th volume of the
Bibliothec. Pat.
^ De Juribus Eegni et Imperii, cap. viii. et seq. ; Basilese, 1566, 8vo. ;
Argentinae, 1609.
^ "Quodam jure speciali se habet (Papa) intromittere de destitutione sen
depositione imperatoris, scilicet, ratione enormis et notorii (delicti), de quo
imperator incorrigibilis reperitur, ut suprK dictum est in capite decimo, in
prima oppositione." — Ibid. cap. xii. verstis medium, pp. 151, 152.
CHAP. II.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 159
However little inclined the French were, at that time, to favour
the pretensions of the pope, they admitted that, in certain cases,
he could depose the emperors, as being vassals of the Holy See.
An opinion to that effect is thus given by a famous Paris doctor,
a devoted adherent of Philip the Fair : — " They object to us,
that the pope can depose the emperor ; I answer that, as the
pope makes the emperor and receives his homage, so can he
depose him."' ^ Another writer of the same period, equally
attached to Philip the Fair, thus explains the deposition of
Frederick II., which the adherents of the pope urged in defence
of his conduct to the king of France : — " As to the objection
from the deposition of Frederick, I admit the fact ; the pope is,
I admit, temporal lord of the emperor, who is not only raised to
his dignity by election, but is, moreover, confirmed by the pope,
and receives the crown from him ; it is not so, however, with
the king of France." '^
148. Tliis Belief held even hy Sovereigns.
This general belief was not confined to private individuals ;
sovereigns themselves also admitted it. Pope Innocent III.
having excommunicated and deposed the emperor Otho IV., in
1210, PhiKp Augustus, in concert with the pope, had so power-
ful an influence with the German princes, that they were induced
to elect another emperor, Frederick II., king of Sicily.^ The
same Frederick having been afterwards excommunicated and
deposed by Pope Gregory IX., in 1239, the French king and
his barons, though not approving the pope's conduct to the
' " Quod dicitur, quod Papa deponit imperatorem ; respondeo : "Verum est ;
(Papa deponit) ilium quern ipse posuit, quia alUpso accepit feuditm." — Joannes
Parisiensis, De Potestate Eegi^ et Papati, cap. xvi. (apud Goldastum Mo-
narchia S. Rom. Imperii, torn. ii. p. 130 ; necnon apud Richerium, Vindicise
Doctoi-um Majoi-um Scholze Parisiensis, Coloniae, 1683, 4to. ; lib. ii. p. 107).
* " Quod autem dicitur de Friderico, quern deposuit Innocentius IV. ; dice
quod verum est; et de illo imperatore concedo quod Papa est ejus doinhms
temporalis, quoniam ille imperator fit per electionem, et a Papa confirmationem
recipit et coronam ; sed nihil horum est in rege Franciae."^ — Auctor anonymus,
Qusest. de Potestate Papae (apud Richerium, ubi supra, p. 188). The
testimony of this author, and of John of Paris, is cited by Bossuet, Defens.
Declar. lib. iv. cap. ix. pp. 37, 38. The anonymous work, De Potestate Papse,
is given at the end of the work, Hist, du Diif^rend entre Boniface VIII. et
Philippe le Bel, Paris, 1655, fol. For the text cited, see p. C7S.
^ Bossuet, Abrege de I'Hist. de France, ann. 1206. Daniel, Hist, de France
vol. iii. ann. 1210, p. 551. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xvi. book Ixxvii. n. 4, 12.
160 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
emperor in this instance, did not question the riglit of the
Church to depose liim, in certain cases, especially for the crime
of heresy. In another place we have cited the words of the
letter addressed on the matter to the pope by the French king
and his lords. ^
149. Tliis Belief proved from the First General Covmcil of Lyons.
The history of the first general Council of Lyons, convoked by
Pope Innocent IV., in 1245, to judge the cause of Frederick II.,
is sufficiently conclusive evidence of the general belief then
existing in all the Catholic states of Europe, regarding the
power of the pope and the councils over the emperors.- Fre-
derick's cause was examined and discussed in that council, in
presence of ambassadors of princes, and of the emperor himself,
without any person's ever dreaming of disputing the competency
of the tribunal. The sole object of the reclamations of a few
ambassadors was to mollify the pope, and to induce him to defer
the sentence until further inquiry had been made. The pope
did, in effect, grant the delay requested by the ambassadors ;
and then, considering that the case had been suflficiently dis-
cussed, he pronounced sentence of deposition against Frederick,
on the 17th of July, 1245.
This statement manifestly proves that the power of the pope
and council over the emperor was, at that time, generally
admitted by sovereigns themselves. For, is it possible that so
enlightened a pope as Innocent IV., and a general council com-
posed of so many prelates, could have ever thought of deposing
the emperor, in presence of the ambassadors of kings, and of
those of Frederick himself, if usage and the general belief of
the day had not authori^d such a procedure ? Is it credible
that if this right could be called in question, it would not be
questioned in the council by the ambassadors of kings, and
above all, by those of the emperor ? Is it not self-evident
that no tribunal could ever proceed so calmly to exercise a right
of judging a sovereign (\vithout physical force), if that right
had not been universally admitted ?
Can the force of this argument be eluded by saying that
' See above, n. S6.
* See the authors cited in note 1 to n. 86, ch. ii. supra.
CHAP. II.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 161
according to the very title of the sentence pronounced by Pope
Innocent IV, against the emperor Frederick II., it was issued
" in presence of the sacred council/'' but not " with its approba-
tion." This evasion is manifestly futile ;^ for, in the first
place, though the acts of the council do not expressly mention
the approbation of the pope's sentence by the bishops, that
approbation appears sufficiently from the circumstances, that is,
from the silence of the bishops who had been convoked for the
express purpose of examining Frederick's cause with the pope,
and who were present at all the details of the trial, and at the
fulmination of the sentence. Is it not manifest that the mem-
bers of a tribunal are always presumed to approve the sentence
pronounced in their presence by their president, unless they
expressly protest against it ? Secondly, the adhesion of the
bishops to the pope's sentence, in the Council of Lyons, is
positively attested by many contemporary authors. Among
others, Matthew Paris, speaking of that sentence, asserts,
" that the pope and bishops, holding lighted candles in their
hands, pronounced against the emperor that terrible sentence,
which, like lightning, covered his ambassadors with confusion."^
Another contemporary historian, Nicolas de Curbio, confessor of
Innocent IV., and eyewitness of the facts which he relates,
adds, "that the sentence of deposition pronounced by the pope
against Frederick was approved by all the bishops present at
the council, as any man may satisfy himself by their signatures
and seals attached to that sentence."^
' This answer is, in a gi-eater or less degree, supposed or insinuated by many
modem authors. (See, among others, Bossuet, Defens. Declarat. lib. iv. cap.
viii. ; Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xvii. book Ixxsi!. n. 29.) It is refuted con-
clusively by Eoncaglia, Animadvers. in Hist. Eccles. Nat. Alex, at the end
of Dissert, ii. of Nat. Alexandre, on the Eccles. Hist, of the eleventh century
(§ 3, versus finem).
* " Dominus igitur Papa, et prselati assistentes concilio, candelis accensis,
in dictum imperatorem Fridericum, qui jamjam imperator non est nominandus,
terribiliter, recedentibus et coniusis ejus procuratoribus, fulguranint." — Matt.
Paris, Hist. Anglic, ann. 1245. {Labbe, Concil. torn. xi. part i. p. 665.)
^ " Sententiam depositionis saejje fati Friderici protulit summus poutifex in
majori Ecclesia Lugdunensi, in pleno concilio, ann. Domini 1244, 15 calendas
Augusti, pontificattis sui anno tertio ; qucefult ah universis Ecclesiarum prcelatis,
in eodem concilio residentibus, approbata ; sicut liquere pjote-^t omnibus, tarn, prce-
sentibus qudm futuris, per subscriptiones ipisorum, et eorumdem sigilla, pendentia
in eadem." — Nicolaus de Curbio, Vita Innocentii IV. n. 19. (Muratori,
Scriptores Rerum Ital. torn. iii. part. i. p. 592. Roncaglia, ubi supra.)
VOL. I, M
162 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
150. This Belief held hy the Emperors themselves.
The special rights of the Holy See over the empire of the
"West could be fully established by the conduct and admissions
alone of the emperors themselves, who had so deep an interest
in their own independence. From the foundation of that
empire, none of the successors of Charlemagne ever assumed
the title and insignia of the imperial dignity, until he had been
acknowledged and crowned by the pope, and had promised, on
oath, a peculiar dependence on the Holy See.^
151. Proofs of this Belief under the Carlovingian Emperors.
That the Carlovingian emperors never assumed the title and
insignia of the imperial dignity until they had been acknowledged
and crowned by the pope, is clearly asserted by the emperor
Louis II., in a letter addressed, in 871, to the emperor Basil,
who disputed with him the title of emperor of the Romans.
Among the arguments urged by Louis in support of his claim,
he insists on this circumstance as peculiar to the emperors of
Charlemagne's race, " that not one of them had taken that
glorious title until they had received, for that purpose, the
sacred unction from the hand of the sovereign pontiff."^
This foraial testimony explains naturally the conduct of
Charlemagne and of Louis Ic Debonnaire, who appear not to
have awaited the pope's consent for taking their sons as col-
leagues in the throne.^ The language of Louis II., in his letter
to the emperor Basil, clearly requires that, in thus taking a
colleagiie, the emperors did not definitively nominate the future
emperor, but merely pointed out who "he might be ; but the title
was not irrevocably possessed, until the emperor had been
crowned by the pope.
This explanation is confirmed by the language of Lothaire I.,
who, after having been associated in the empire by his father,
' Cenni, Monumenta, &c. torn. ii. Dissert, i. n. 21-24, 40-52 ; Dissert, vi.
n. 13, &c.
' " Francorum principes, primb reges, deinde verb imperatores dicti sunt ii
duntaxat qui d Romano Pontifice ad hoc oleo sajicto jicrfusi sunt." — Ludovici II.
Epist. ad Basil. (Baronii Annales, ann. 871, n. 59). Cenni, ubi supra, n. 19,
22. Daniel, Hist, de France, vol. ii. ann. 871, p. 482.
' Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. x. book xlvi. n. 7, 27. Hist, de I'Eglise Gall,
vol. V. ann. 813, 817, pp. 201, 252. Cenni, ubi supra, n. 23, 24.
CHAP. II.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 163
Louis le Debonnaire, proceeded by his order to Rome, to receive
the imperial unction from the hands of Pope Paschal I. In a
letter announcing this coronation to his father, Lothaire states,
" I have received from the sovereign pontiff, before the altar, and
before the body of St. Peter, prince of the apostles, as you
willed and desired, the blessing, the honour, and the title of the
imperial dignity ; the diadem, moreover, and the sword, for the
defence of the Church."^ How- could Lothaire state that he
had received the title of emperor from the pope, if that title
had been already conferred on him, definitively and irrevocably,
by his being assumed as colleague in the throne ?
So generally was consecration by the pope admitted as indis-
pensable for the imperial dignity, during the Carlovingian
dynasty, that all aspirants for the empire applied to the pope
to obtain that favour ; and whenever disputes arose about con-
flicting titles, no effort was spared by either party to secure the
papal vote, and to receive from him the imperial crown ; for
they knew this was the sole means of having their title recog-
nised by other sovereigns.- The example of Charles the Bald
is particularly remarkable in this respect ; nor can we peruse
the details of his election without finding conclusive proofs of
the usage for which we are contending. ^
152. Proofs of this Belief under the German Emperors.
That this usage continued under the German emperors, is
equally certain.** In his Annals of Italy, Muratori confidently
asserts, after having examined a multitude of charters and
diplomas, that in no instance was the title of emperor given to
the king of Germany until he had been crowned by the pope.'^
' " Coram sacro altari, et coram sacro corpore B. Petri, principis aposto-
lorum, a summo Pontifice, vestro ex consensu et voluntate, hewdictionem,
honorem et nomen suscexd ivij'terialis officii ; insuper diadema capitis, et gladium
ad defensionem Ecclesise." — Lothar. I. Epist. ad Ludov. Pium (Mabillon,
Acta Ordinis S. Bened. sseculi iv. p. 513). Cenni, ubi supra, n. 24.
* Cenni, ubi supra, n. 22, &c. L'Art de Verifier les Dates ; Chronol. Hist,
des Empereurs d'Occident, p. 432, &c.
* The sequel of our Inquiry will furnish an opportunity of entering into a
full history of this election. See infra, ch. iii. art. ii. n. 260, &c. ; also Fleury,
Hist. Eccl. vol. xi. book Iii. n. 23, 30 ; Hist, de I'Eglise Gall. vol. vi. book xvii.
pp. 274, 292.
" Cenni, ubi supra, n. 43, &c.
* Muratori, Annali d'ltal. ann. 1433, 1493, 1519, &c. Among the charters
M 2
164 POWER OF THE POPE [PART 11.
A singularly conclusive proof of this ancient custom is found in
the history of the controversies which frequently arose between
the electors, or the rival claimants of the empire. The pope
was generally regarded as the natural judge of these contro-
versies ; whoever was acknowledged emperor by him, soon
received the adhesion of the German lords and of all the sove-
reigns of Europe.
153. Election of Rodolph in 1077.
This was particularly exemplified during the pontificate of
Gregory VII., in the election of Rodolph, in 1077, by the
convention at Forcheim, of German barons disaffected to Henry.
The pope having assembled a council at Rome, in 1079, to
adjudicate on the claims of the two rivals, they, through their
ambassadors, bound themselves by oath to abide by the award
of the pope, who, the year after, confirmed Ilodolph's election.*
154. Elcctum of Otho IV. in 1201.
This right of the pope was as solemnly admitted in 1201, iu
the election of the emperor Otho IV.^ Germany was, at that
time, divided between three pretenders to the imperial crown :
Frederick, king of Sicily ; Philip, duke of Suabia ; and Otho,
duke of Saxony. The pope, solicited by all parties, by the
three rivals, by the barons of their party, by the king of
England and the king of France, declared for Otho, who, in
efiect, was recognised shortly after by the German lords, and
by all the sovereigns of Europe. This important affair is the
subject of a great number of the letters of Innocent III.,
published in the complete edition of his letters, entitled,
" Register of Innocent III. on the Affairs of the Empire."^
ftlluded to here, see especially the acts of the election of Henry VII. in 1309.
They are cited by Leibnitz, Codex Juris Gentium (torn. ii. p. 252) ; and by
Baluze, Vitae Paparum Aven. (torn. ii. p. 265). See an analysis of these acts
in Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xix. book xcii. n. 31, 35.
' Concil. Rom. ann. 1079 (Labbe, Concil. vol. x. p. 879). Fleury, Hist.
Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ixii. n. 42, 43, 60 ; book Ixiii. n. 1 . D. Ceillier, Hist, des
Auteurs Eccles. vol. xx. p. 639. Voigt, Hist, de Greg. VII. book x. pp. 448,
507, 525, &c.
* Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xvi. book Ixxv. n. 3, 32, 37, 38, &c. Daniel,
Hist, de France, vol. iv. ann. 1299, p. 197.
* Baluze, Epistol. Innocentii III. torn. i. ad calcem. Fleury, ubi supra,
n. 32, 37, 38. D. Ceillier, Hist, des Auteurs Eccles. vol. xxiii. p. 442.
CHAP. II.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 165
Among these very important historical documents, special atten-
tion should be given to the letter of March 1st, 1201, addressed
to King Otho and the German lords, and to another, written
about the same period to the duke of Carinthia. The first
closes with the following words : " By the authority of the
Almighty God, which has been given to us in the person of
St. Peter, we acknowledge you as king, and we order that hence-
forward they pay to you, as such, respect and obedience ; and
after the usual preliminaries we shall confer on you the imperial
crown." 1 In the letter addressed to the German lords, after
having explained the reasons that induced him to pronounce in
favour of Otho, the pope orders them to pay him the respect and
obedience due to the king of the Romans and emperor elect ;
and, at the same time, he promises that there should be no stain
on their conscience or honour from the oaths that they had pre-
viously taken.^ The letter to the duke of Carinthia is the
more worthy of attention, because it has been incorporated in
the Corpus Juris, among the decretals of Gregory IX. Therein
the pope declares, that the prince electors had received from the
Holy See the right of electing the emperor, and that, in con-
ferrino; on them this rio;ht, he never renounced the rio;ht of
rejecting the elect, if he should be unworthy of the empire.
" The power of electing, as king of the Romans, the future
emperor, we acknowledge in those princes to whom that power
belongs by law and by ancient custom ; especially since that
power is derived to them from the Holy See, which transferred
the Roman empire from the Greeks to the Germans, in the
person of Charlemagne. But the princes must also acknow-
' " Auctoritate Dei omnipotentis, nobis in beato Petro collate, te in regem
recipimus, et regalem tibi prsecipimus de csetero reverentiam et obedientiam
exhiberi ; praemissisque omnibus quae de jure sunt et consuetudine praemit-
tenda, regiam magnificentiam ad suscipiendam Eomani imperii coronam voca-
bimus, et earn tibi, dante Domino, bumUitatis nostras manibus, solemniter
conferemus." — Baluze, ubi supra, Epist. 32, p. 702, col. 2.
* " Monemus igitur universitatem vestram, et exhortamur in Domino, et in
remissionem vobis injungimus peccatorum, quatenus ei (Othoni) de caetero,
sicut regi vestro, in Romanorum imperatorem electo, reverenter et bumiliter
deferatis, regalem ei honorificentiam et obedientiam impendentes. . . . Super
primis etiam juramentis, illud auctoritate apostolica statuemus, quod ad pur-
gandam et famam et conscientiam redundabit." — Baluze, ubi supra, Epist. 33,
pp. 704, 705. See also the 29th Letter, in which the pope states all the rea.-^
sons that could be urged for or against the three aspirants.
IGt! POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
ledge, and they do in fact acknowledge, that the right of
examining the person elected king of the Romans, and who is
to be emperor, belongs to us, who anoint and crown him/'*
All the assertions made here by the pope were in fact admitted,
not only by the emperor Otho, but also by the German lords,
and by the other sovereigns of Europe, who soon after acknow-
ledo-ed Otho as emperor, in consequence of his election by the
popc.*^
155. Deposition of Otho IV. in 1211, and of Louis of Bavaria in 1346.
The history of Germany presents many other instances of
the interference of the pope in the election of emperors, not
only when contests arose between the electors and the pretenders
to the empire, but also in cases of deposition pronounced by
sentence of the pope, against some emperors. It was thus, as
we have already remarked, that Frederick II. was elected
emperor by Pope Innocent III., and acknowledged as such by
all the sovereigns of Europe, after the deposition of Otho IV.^
A century later, the emperor Louis of Bavaria, being excom-
municated and deposed by Pope John XXII., sent ambassadors
several times to Avignon, to solicit absolution. All his mea-
sures, however, ended in liis drawing on himself a new sentence
of excommunication by Pope Clement VI., who, in concert with
the kino- of France, in 1346 procured the nomination of Charles
of Moravia, in place of Louis of Bavaria. It must be remarked
that, during the course of his negotiations with Benedict XII.,
immediate successor of John XXII., Louis expressly acknow-
' " Uiide illis principibu8 jus et potestatem eligendi regem, in imperatorem
postmodum proraovenduni, recognoscimus, ut debemus, ad quos de jure ac
antiquS, consuetudine noscitur pertinere ; praesertim chm ad eos jus et potestas
hujusniodi ab apostolic^ sede pervenerit, quae Romanum imperium, in per-
sonam magnifici Caroli, a Grsecis transtulit in Germanos. Sed et principes
recognoscere debent, et utique recognoscunt, quod jus et auctoritas examinandi
personam electam in regem, et promovendam in imperium, ad nos spectat, qui
eam inungimus, consecramus et coronamus." — Baluze, ubi supra, Epist. 62,
p. 715. See also in the Corpus Juris Canonici, the decretal Venerabilem, in
the Decretals of Gregory IX. lib. i. tit. vi. cap. xxsiv. Fleury, ubi supra,
n. 38.
' Bossuet (Defens. Declar. lib. vi. cap. ix. versus medium), and after him
M. rAbb(^ Jager (Introduction k I'Hist. de Gr^goire VII. p. 80), suppose that
the decretal Venerabilem was given by Innocent III. in favour of Frederick II.
The contents of the document itself, and of others connected with it, prove that
they were given in favour of Otho IV.
' See supra, n. 148.
CHAP. II.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 167
ledges the pope's right, by submitting to be excommunicated and
even deposed, if he did not make satisfaction to the Church
within the specified time.^
156. Oath of Fidelity taken to the Popes hy the Emperors.
But a fact equally important, and of itself abundantly suffi-
cient to demonstrate the peculiar dependence of the empire on
the Holy See in ancient times, is, that, according to invari-
able custom, the emperor, no matter how he was elected, could
not assume the title and insignia of the imperial dignity without
having taken an oath of fidelity to the pope, which promised, if
not a feudal subjection, as many suppose, at least a special
devotion to the interests of the Holy See. This manifestly
appears, both from the terms of the oath itself, and from the
manner in which historians speak of it.^
157. Text of this Oath in the Ninth Century.
The most ancient document that contains this oath is the
Sacramentary of St. Gregory, used in Rome and France in the
ninth century. It was published by Muratori in 1748, from
two copies, then preserved in Rome in the Vatican and Orbonian
libraries.^ This Sacramentary states, that the king emperor
' " Item daraus dictis procuratoribus nostris plenam potestatem, pro prse-
dictis (sponsionibus) adimplendis et observandis, pcenas infrh. scriptas, vice et
nomine nostro, et pro nobis recipiendi, et ad eas nos obligandi et astringendi ;
videlicet, quod si, super prsemissis, vel aliquo prsemissorum, molestaverimus,
seu molestari fecerimus Eomanam Ecclesiam, . . . liberum sit Romano ponti-
fici, prout sibi expedire videbitur {pramissis tamen juridicis monitionibus), ad
alias pcenas procedere contra nos, privando etiam nos, si sibi videhitur, impe-
riali, regid, et qudlibet alid dignitate, absque alia vocatione et juris solemnitate."
— Ludov. Bavari ad Sumraum Pontif. Bened. XII. supplices Litters. (Raynaldi
Annales, ann. 1336, n. 21). For details of these negotiations of Louis of
Bavaria with the Holy See, consult Raynaldi, Annales, ann. 1336, &c. ; Maim-
bourg, Hist, de la Decadence de I'Empire, book vi. ann. 1334, &c. ; Fleury,
Hist. Eccl. vols. xix. xx. books xciv. xcv. passim ; Bossuet, Defens. Declarat.
lib. iii. cap. xxvi.
2 Cenni, Monumenta Domin. Pontif. vol. ii. Dissert, i. n. 39, 48. This
author, and some others, suppose that Charlemagne himself, in the ceremony
of his consecration, took an oath of fidelity to the pope (ibid. n. 45). _ We shall
give, in another place, the arguments which prevent us from admitting that
supposition. (See No. 6, Confirmatory Evidence.)
' Sacramentar. Greg. De Coron. Imper. (Muratori, Liturgia Rom. Vetus,
Venetiis, 1748, 2 vols. fob).
Muratori proves solidly, in our opinion, the antiquity of these copies, by
arguments founded both on the form of the characters and the nature of the
contents. For in the catalogue which it gives of the festivals then established,
168 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
elect, having entered the church for the ceremony of his coro-
nation, places his hands on the Gospels, and takes the following
oath : "IN., king of the Romans, by the grace of God future
emperor, promise and swear, in presence of God and of St.
Peter, that I will be henceforward the protector and defender of
the pope, and of the holy Roman Church, in all their necessities
and interests ; preserving and guarding their possessions, honours,
and rights, with the divine assistance, to the best of my know-
ledge and ability, in pure and sincere fidelity. So help me God,
and these holy Gospels." ^
Tliis oath occurs, in nearly the same terms, in many other
Sacramentaries or Roman orders of a more recent date.' But
independently of the testimony of these liturgical books, the
use of this oath during the whole course of the middle ages is
attested by a great number of other liistorical documents. We
shall cite here a few only of the most remarkable.
158. Oaili. taken hy Otho I. in 960.
Pope John XII. having invited Otho I., king of Germany,
into Italy, to deliver it from the tyranny of Bcrenger, offered
there is no mention of All Saints, which was established by Gregory IV., in
the reign of Louis le D<5bonnaire ; nor of the Rogation clays, established in
Rome by Leo III. ; nor of some other more recent festivals : hence these two
copies must have been made before the establishment of those feasts, and, con-
sequently, before the death of Gregory IV. in 844, and even before that of
Leo in 816. Secondly, the Orbonian copy closes with a catalogue of many
persons, living and dead, for whom prayers were to be offered up in the holy
sacrifice of the mass. The first catalogue of living persons is the canons of
Paris, commencing with Bishop Erchenrade, who died about the year 857.
(Gallia Christiana, torn. vii. p. 33.) This copy of the Sacrament-vry must, con-
sequently, have been used in the church of Paris about the middle of the ninth
century. (Muratori, ubi supra, torn. i. Dissert. De Rebus Liturgicis, cap. vi.
pp. 72-77.)
' " Ego N., rex Romanorum, annuente Domino, fiiturus imperator, proraitto,
spondeo, polliceor atque juro, coram Deo, et beato Petro, me de ca;tero pro-
tectorem et defensorem fore summi pontificis, et sanctre Romanfe Ecclesice, in
omnibus necessitatibus et utilitatibus suis ; custodiendo et conservando pos.ses-
siones, honores, et jura ejus, quantum divino fultusadjutorio (fuero), secundum
scire et posse meum, rectal et pura fide. Sic me Deus adjuvet, et haec sancta
Dei Evangelia." — Muratori, ubi supra, torn. ii. p. 455.
* Ordo Romanus ad benedicendum Impei-at. apud Hittorpium, De Divinis
Officiis, p. 153. Idem, apud Mabillon, Musseum Italicum, torn. ii. p. 216.
See some other editions of the Ordo Romanus, and of the Sacramentary of
St. Gregory, referred to by Mabillon, ibid. Comment. prseviu.s, § 1 ; and by
Muratori, ubi supra, torn. i. Dissert. De Rebus Liturgicis, cap. vi.
CHAP. II.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 16.9
him the imperial crown as the reward of his services.^ But the
hetter to insure the execution of the promises, the pope recom-
mended his legates to require from Otho, before he entered Italy,
the following oath, before the true cross and the holy relics :
" I, King Otho, do make to the lord John, sovereign pontiff,
promise and oath, by the Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Ghost, and by this wood of the life-giving cross, and by these
relics of the saints, that if I shall, with God's aid, arrive at
Rome, I will ^ith all my might exalt the holy Roman Church,
and thee its ruler ; and I shall never injure by my will, or my
consent, or my counsel, or my persuasion, thy life, or thy mem-
bers, or the honour which thou boldest ; and that in all concerns
that belong to thee or the Romans, I shall not make in Rome
any decree or law without thy counsel ; and I shall restore to
thee whatever part of the land of St. Peter may come into my
possession ; and whoever is appointed by me over the kingdom
of Italy, must swear to be thy ally in defending the land of
St. Peter according to the best of his power. So help me God,
and these God's holy Gospels."*^ This formula was afterwards
inserted in the Corpus Juris ; and it was observed sometimes in
similar circumstances, as we shall see, by Otho's successors.
159. Oath of the Emperor Henry II. in 1014.
An author contemporary with Henry II. recites, in the fol-
lowing terms, the oath of fidelity taken by that prince to Pope
Benedict VIII., in 1014 : " Henry having arrived at the
church of St. Peter, where the pope and the clergy were await-
ing him, the pope, before he brought him in, asked him whether
' Baronii Annales, torn, x. ann. 960, n. 1. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xii.
book Ivi. n. 1.
"^ " Tibi domino Joanni papse, ego rex Otho, promittere et jurare facio, per
Patrem, et Filiura, et Spiritum sanctum, et per lignum hoc vivificse crucis et
per has reliquias sanctorum, quod si, permittente Domino, Romam venero,
sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam, et te rectorem ipsius exaltabo, secundtim posse
meum ; et numquam vitam, aut membra, et ipsum honorem quern habes, mea
voluntate, aut meo consilio, aut meo consensu, aut mea exhortatione perdes ;
et in Romana urbe nullum placitum aut ordinationem faciam, de omnibus quse
ad te aut ad Romanos pertinent, sine tuo consilio ; et quidquid ad nostram
potestatem de terra sancti Petri pervenerit, tibi reddam ; et cuicumque reg-
num Italicum commisero, jurare faciam ilium ut adjutor tul sit, ad defendendam
terram sancti Petri, secundtim suum posse. Sic me Deus adjuvet, et hsee
sancta Dei Evangelia."— Baronius, ibid. n. 5. Corpus Juris Canonici, De-
creti parte prima, dist. Ixiii. cap. xxxiii. Tibi Domino.
1 70 POWER OF THE POPE [pART II.
lie resolved to be the faithful protector and defender of the
Church, and sincerely faithful in all things to him and to his
successors. The kins; answered in the affirmative ; after which
the pope gave to him the unction and royal crown, as likewise
to his queen." '
160. Form of Oath drawn up hy Ch-egory VII,
It must be remembered that the emperor Henry II. took that
oath about sixty years before the pontificate of Gregory VII., a
similar oath, moreover, having been taken by Otho I. more than
fifty years before. In requiring, therefore, such an oath from
the emperor elect, Gregory VII. no more than conformed to a
custom established long before his own time. The following are
the terms of the oath which he required from Henry IV. and
from Rodolph : " From this hour and henceforth, I will be
faithful in good faith to the apostle St. Peter, and to his vicar
Pope Gregory, now living in the flesh, and whatsoever the pope
liimsclf shall order me, with these words, bi/ true obedience, I
shall laithfuUy observe, as becomes a Christian, and I shall pay
due honour and service to God and to St. Peter, with the help
of Christ, and on the day when I shall first see the pope, I will
faithfully, in due form, become his soldier and St. Peter's," ^
161. Dispute on this Subject between Frederick I. and Adrian IV.
The terms of this oath may have varied with time ; but it
was certainly taken during the whole course of the middle ages
by the emperors at their coronation. Eoderic, an author of the
twelfth century, saw in the palace of Lateran, a picture repre-
' " Henricus cum dilectd suimet conjuge Cunegunde, ad ecclesiam
sancti Petri, Papa expectante, venit ; et antequam introduceretur, ab eodeni
interrogatus, si fidelis vellet Romanse patronus esse et defensor Ecclesiae, sibi
autem suisque successoribus per omnia fidelis : devotd professione respondit ;
et tunc ab eodem inunctionem et coronam, cum contectali (id est conjuyc) suS,
suscepit."- — Ditmar, Chronic, lib. vii. (Leibnitz, Scriptores Rerum Brunswic.
torn. i. p. 400. Baronii Annales, torn. xi. ann. 1014, n. 1. Fleury, Hist.
Eccl. vol. xii. book Iviii. n. 38.)
" " Ab hac horS et deinceps, fidelis ero, per rectam fidem, beato Petro apos-
tolo, ejusque vicario Papse Gregorio, qui nunc in came ^-ivit ; et quodcumque
mihi ipse Papa prseceperit, sub his videlicet verbis : Per veram obedientiam,
fideliter, sicut oportet Christianum, observabo ; . . . et Deo sanctoque Petro,
adjuvante Christo, dignum honorem et utilitatem impendam ; et eo die, quando
ilium primitus \-idero, fideliter per manus meas miles sancti Petri et illius
cfficiar." The text of this form i."; given in the Letters of Gregory VII. book
ix. epist. 3 (Labbe, Concil. torn. x. p. 279).
CHAP. II.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 171
senting the coronation of the emperor Lothaire II., in 1133,
^vith the following inscription in Latin verse : " The king stood
without the gate ; first guaranteeing, on oath, the privileges of
the city ; he then becomes the pope's man, and receives from
him the crown." ^ The emperor Frederick I., it is true, having
visited Rome in 1155, expressed great displeasure at this
painting and inscription, which seemed to represent the empire
as a fief of the Holy See. He urgently requested Adrian IV,
to efiace them. Some time after he was not less ofiended at
some expressions of the pope, which implied, he believed, the
same pretensions." The pope expressed his astonishment at the
interpretation given to his words ; and, to appease the emperor,
protested that he never regarded the empu*e as being, properly
speaking, a fief of the Holy See ; but had merely wished to
convey that, in conferring the imperial crown, he had really
conferred a benefit.^ The emperor appeared satisfied with this
' "Eex venit ante fores, jurans prius urbis honores
Post Homo fit Papte, sumit quo dante coronam."
Radevicus, De Gestis Friderici I. lib. i. cap. x. (apud Urstitium, Gennaniae
Historici Illiistres, p. 400 ; also Muratori, Eeruni Ital. Scriptoies, torn. vi.).
Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiv. book Ixviii. n. 22.
- An attentive and unprejudiced perusal of Pope Adrian's letter, at which
Frederick took umbrage, proves that there was no ground for oflfence. To
induce that prince to repress with more energy impiety in his states, the pope
reminds him, in the following terms, of the benefits which he had received
from the Holy See : " You ought to remember the favouinble reception which
the holy Roman Church gave you last year, and with what joy she invested
you with the imperial crown. It is not that we repent having complied with
all your desires ; on the contrary, we would have rejoiced to be able to confer,
if pos.sible, greater favours on you, in consideration of the services which you
could do for the Church and ourselves. Sed etsi majora beneficia excellentia
tua de maau nostrS, suscepisset, si fieri posset, . . . non immeritb gauderemus."
(Adriani IV. Epist. 2, ad Frid. Imp. Labbe, Concil. torn. x. p. 1145.)
Nothing, assuredly, but a passion for quibbling on words could make one
suppose that the pope used the word "beneficia " here in the sense of fiefs : it
was a genuine German quarrel. It is amazing to find this quibbling of
Frederick revived by many modern writers, especially Sismondi, Hist, des
E^pubhques Ital. ch. ix. Consult also, on these contests, Fleury, Hist. Eccl.
vol. XV. book Ixx. n. 23, 25, 30 ; D. Ceillier, Hist, des Auteurs Eccles. vol.
xxiii. p. 350, &e. ; Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. iii. cap. xviii. ; lib. iv. cap. ix. ;
Bianchi, Delia Potesta della Chiesa, vol. ii. book v. § 13.
3 " Occasione cujusdam verbi, quod est, henejicium, tuus animus (sicut
dicitur) est commotus : quod utique, nedum tanti viri, sed nee cujuslibet mi-
noris animum meritb commovisset. Licfet enim hoc nomen, quod est, benefi-
cium, apud quosdam in aliS, significatione qukm ex impositione habeat, assu-
matur ; tunc tamen in ea significatione accipiendum fuerat, quam nos ipsi
posuimus, et quam ex institutione sua noscitur retinere. Hoc enim nomen ex
bono et facto, est editum, et dicitur heneficmm apud nos, non feudum, sed bomim
factum. In quA significatione, in universo sacrse Scripturse corpore, invenitur ;
172 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
explanation ; but so far was the pope from believing that by
his explanation he had renounced his rights over the empire,
that he addressed to the same emperor, not long after, letters,
in which he reminds him of the oath of fidelity which he had
taken to St. Peter and the pope, and threatened to depose him
if he did not renounce certain pretensions on the ecclesiastical pro-
perty in Lombardy. " Return," he exclaims, " return from your
errors ; follow my counsel ; for I fear that, after having received
the unction and the imperial crown from me, you may lose what
was conferred on you by usurping what does not belong to you." ^
Frederick, in a rage, answered this letter in extremely harsh
terms, which would probably have dra^vn down on him sentence
of deposition, if Eberhard, bishop of Bamberg, a prelate distin-
guished by his doctrine and his virtues, had not fortunately
interposed and reconciled the pope and the emperor. But it
manifestly appears from this discussion, first, that the emperor
Frederick I., as well as his predecessors, had taken, at his
coronation, an oath of fidelity to the pope : secondly, that in
the opinion of the emperor and of the pope, this oath did not
strictly express a feudal dependence of the emperor on the
Holy See, but merely a special devotion to the interests of the
Roman Church : thirdly, that Pope Adrian IV., though not
regarding the empire properly as a fief of the Holy See, still
believed, as well as his predecessors, that he had, both by custom
and the constitutional law of his time, a right, in certain cases,
to depose the emperor.
162. Dispute on the same Subject between the Emperor Henry YII. and
Pope Clement V,
Whatever be thought of this dispute between Pope Adrian IV.
and Frederick I., it is certain that the emperors continued,
during many succeeding centuries, to take at their coronation
an oath of fidelity to the pope. Disputes they sometimes
ubi ex heneficlo Dei, non tamquam ex feudo, sed velut ex benedictione et bono
facto ipsiiis, gubemari dicimur et nutriri. Et tua quidem Magnificentia liquid5
recognoscit, quod nos ita bene et honorific^ imperialis dignitatis insigne tuo
capiti imposuimus, ut bonum factum valeat omnibus judicari." — Adriaiii IV.
Epist. 4 (Labbe, ubi supra, p. 1147).
' " Resipisce ergo, resipisce, tibi consulimus. Quia ctim a nobis consecra-
tionem et coronam merueris, dum inconcessa captas, ne concessa perdas, nobi-
litati tuae timemus." — Adriani IV. Epist. 6 (Labbe, ibid. p. 1149).
CHAP. II.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 173
raised on the meaning and consequences of that oath ; but they
made no hesitation about taking it, and rather took it with
alacrity, in order to insure the pope's consent to their election.
The history of the emperor Henry VII. presents a remarkable
example on this point. ^ Pope Clement V. wishing to procure
peace, or at least a truce between that prince and the king of
Naples, in 1312, pretended to compel them to it, by virtue of
the oath of fidelity which both had taken to the Holy See.
The emperor positively refused to comply with the pope's wishes,
insisting that he was bound to no man by an oath of fidelity.
The pope, justly indignant at this assumption, condemned it in
a bull published the following year, and afterwards inserted in
the Corpus Juris.^ In this bull, he recites, that Henry had,
after the example of his predecessors, taken to him an oath of
fidelity, both before and at his coronation ; that before his
entrance into Italy (in 1311), he had taken the oath according
to the form in the Decretum of Gratian, which we have already
given ; ^ and that, at his coronation (in 1312) he had taken it
again, according to the form in the Roman Pontifical. " I
Henry, king of the Romans, with the permission of God,
future emperor, promise and swear before God and St. Peter,
that henceforward I shall be the protector and defender of the
pope, and of the holy Roman Church, in all its necessities and
interests, guarding and defending its possessions, its privileges,
and its rights, to the best of my knowledge and ability, with the
assistance of God, in pure and sincere faith. So help me God,
and these holy Gospels of God."^ It certainly is astonishing
* Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xix. book xci. n. 48 ; book xcii. n. 1, 8. Corpus
Juris Can. Clementinar. lib. ii. tit. ix. De Jurejurando.
* In this bull the pope writes in the following strain : " Inter csetera, publice,
praesente multitudine hominum copiosa, (Henricus) respondit, se non fore cui-
quam ad juramentum fidelitatis adstrictum, et quod numquam fecerit jura-
mentum, propter quod foret ad juramentum fidelitatis alicui obUgatus ; et quod
ipse nesciebat, quod antecessores sui Romani imperatores umquani juramentum
hujxismodi prasstitissent, simulans se immemorem juramentorum, quae nobis
ante coronationem suam prsestiterat, et post coronationem etiam innovarat.
Nos itaque attendentes quod hujusmodi responsio, si sub dissimulatione per-
transeat, vel silentio pallietur, posset in magnum et evidens prsejudicium
Eomanae Ecclesiee redundare, dignum admodum et opportunum fore pro-
speximus, ut de juramentis hujusmodi constitutioni prsesenti aliqua breviter
annectamus." — Corpus Juris Canonici, ubi supra, pp. 118, 119.
* See supra, n. 158.
* " Ego Henricus, Eomanorum rex, annuente Domino, futurm imperator,
174 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II,
how tlie emperor could deny this was an oath of fidelity ; and
how doubts could be raised on the point by many modem
writers. All, however, acknowledge, as Bossuet remarks, " that
the oath expressed at least a great submission." ^
163. Jlemarkable Admissions of Ucnry IV. and Frederick II. on the Pope's
Eir/ht to depose them.
In fine, it is very remarkable, and most clearly established by
history, that the emperors, when receiving the unction and
imperial cro^vn from the pope, not only took the above-men-
tioned oaths, but, moreover, admitted his right of deposing
them, at least in certain cases. Abundant proofs of the fact
have been already given in the case of Henry IV., by his own
admissions, at a time when he was most interested in disputing
the pope's pretensions.- About two centuries after the excom-
munication and deposition of that prince, Frederick II., when
excommunicated and deposed by Gregory IX., in 1239, did not
contest the right of pronouncing such a sentence, for he had
long since formally admitted it ; ' but he complained only of
the pretended injustice of that sentence, and appealed from it to
a future council, whose award he professed himself from the
moment ready to obey.* Here is a manifest recognition of the
competence of a council ; and it was recognised some time after
still more manifestly by Frederick ; for the pope, having sun?
promitto, spondeo et polliceor, atqiie juro coram Deo et beato Petro, me de
caetero protectorem, procuratorem et defensorem fore siimmi pontificis, et hujus
sanctse Roraanae Ecclesije, in omnibus necessitatibus et utilitatibus suis, custo-
diendo et conservando possessiones, honores et jura ejus, quantum divino
suifultus adjutorio fuero, secundum scire et posse meum, rect4 et pur& fide.
Sic me Deus adjuvet, et hfec sancta Dei Evangelia." — Corpus Juris, ubi supra,
p. 120. In tliis form of oath Henry takes the title only of " future emperor,"
the custom and constitutional law of the empire not allow-ing him to take the
title of emperor until he had received the unction and imperial crown from the
pope. In another place we shall cite the Law of Swabia on that matter (ch.
iii. art. ii. § 2, n. 269).
' " Hue accedit, quod jampridem Romanis pontificibus ab imperatoribus id
praestitum fuerat juramentum, quod fidelitatis fui&se Romani pontifices postea
declaraverunt : summi certfe obsequii fuisse nemo diflStetur." — Bossuet, Defens.
Declar. lib. iv. cap. ix. versus medium.
* Supra, n. 85, 97, 98.
^ Greg. IX. Epist. 2, ad Steph, Cantuar. Archiepis. (Labbe, Concil. vol. xi.
p. 313). Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xvi. book Ixxix. n. 37.
* Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. x^ni. book Ixxxi. n. 9, 20, 46. Michaud, Hist, des
Croisades, vol. iv. p. 512.
CHAP. II.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 175
moned a general council to Lyons, in 1245, to decide this affair,
the emperor, not wishing to appear there in person, deputed his
procurators to defend him, and among others, Thaddeus of
Suessa, an eminent lawyer, who discharged his commission with
an ardour and zeal not always tempered with discretion. But,
in all the heat of the contest, these deputies, charged as they
were with Frederick's defence, never once questioned the com-
petency of the pope and council to judge his cause. Thaddeus
alone, in the last session, seeing the pope on the point of pro-
nouncing the sentence, declared that if they proceeded against
the emperor, he would appeal from them to a future pope and
general council. Such a declaration was, doubtless, insulting
alike to the pope and council then present ; but, in reality, it
was another admission of the competency of the pope and
general council to judge the emperor. The pope, therefore, paid
no regard to an appeal so palpably evasive, but pronounced
against Frederick sentence of deposition, in the presence and
with the approbation of the council.^
164. Frederick and Others often change their Opinion on this Point.
Frederick, it is true, after ha vino- lonor recognised the com-
petence of this tribunal, soon changed his tone, when he heard
of his condemnation ; he immediately addressed to the king of
England, and to many other sovereigns, a letter, protesting
against the pope's right to judge princes in temporal matters.-
It is manifest, nevertheless, that in so doing Frederick con-
tradicted himself and all the sovereigns of Europe, who had
expressly acknowledged, in the Council of Lyons, the pope's
competency on the matter in question.^ Frederick's sudden
change of opinion must, therefore, be attributed naturally to
the extreme agitation into which he was thrown by the sentence
of the pope ; a state of mind which made him alternate between
defiance and submission, according to the influence of his
conflicting feelings.*
The last observation may be useful also in solving an
' See supra, n. 149.
* Fleury, ibid, book Ixxxii. n. 30, 31. Michaud, ibid. p. 514.
^ Supra, n. 149.
■• Michaud, ibid. p. 187. Velly, Hist, de France, vol. iv. p. 328. Hist, de
I'Eglise Gall. vol. xi. book xxxii. ann. 1245, p. 279.
176 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
objection founded on the conduct of some emperors, who, in
moments of excitement, disputed more or less openly the rights
of the pope over the empire. The facts already stated prove
that the emperors could not deny those rights without con-
tradicting both their own admissions and the generally received
principles of the day. Hence, a celebrated Protestant writer of
the last century, after having proved that the conduct of Gre-
gory VII. to the emperor Henry IV. was a necessary consequence
of the principles then universally admitted, on the temporal
effects of excommunication in the case of sovereigns, adds :
" it was countenanced by the belief which people had, that the
empire was a fief of the Holy See ; a belief favoured by the
emperors themselves, in the singular delicacy with which they
abstained from taking the title of emperor until they had been
anointed and crowned a second time by the sovereign pontiff." ^
It is certainly surprising how this author can attribute to a
singular delicacy of the emperors, a conduct rigorously prescribed
by the custom and constitution of the empire j'^ his admissions,
however, are not the less important, as proofs of the general
belief of the emperors themselves, that they were, in a special
manner, dependent on the Holy See.
165. First Infei-ence: From the preceding Facts the Belief in question was not
introdicced by Onfjory VII.
From the facts recorded in the course of this chapter it
follows clearly, first, that the general belief of the middle ages,
which attributed to the Church and the pope so great a power
over sovereigns, was not introduced by Gregory VII., as has
been supposed or insinuated by so great a number of modem
authors.^ We have seen, that in the principal states of
Europe, and especially in Germany, this belief was founded
on maxims much more ancient than Gregory VII.'' He and
> Pfeffel, Nouvel Abrege de I'Hist. d'Allemagne, ann. 1106, 4to. edit,
pp. 228, 229.
* See infra, ch. iii. art. ii. § 2, n. 267.
^ Sismondi, Hist, des Repub. Ital. vol. i. ch. iii. p. 180, &c. Michaud, Hist,
des Croisades, 4th edit. vol. i. p. 87 ; vol. iv. p. 162, &c. ; vol. vi. p. 260.
Voigt, Hist, de Gr^g. VII. 2nd edit. p. 171, &c. 605, &c. See also the
summary of M. Guizot's system, which we have already given (supra, n. 5,
note).
* See, especially, n. 97, 127, &c. supra. In the sequel we shall see addi-
tional proofs of this fact, infra, ch. iii. art. ii.
CHAP. II.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 177
his successors certainly applied those maxims more rigorously
than their predecessors ; but it is equally certain, that long before
his time, the maxims to which he appealed in justification of
his conduct to sovereigns, were admitted in the principal states
of Europe, and especially in Germany.^
166. Second Infei-ence: The Popes and Cov/ncils of the Middle Ages cannot he
accused of Criminal Usurpation,
Secondly, from all the facts stated in this chapter it also
follows, that the power exercised by the popes and councils of
the middle ages over sovereigns, cannot be stigmatized as a
criminal usurpation of the rights of sovereigns by the eccle-
siastical power. The popes and councils that exercised this
power, no more than adopted and applied maxims universally
received at the time, not only by the credulous and ignorant
vulgar, but by the most enlightened and the most virtuous men,
and by sovereigns themselves, who were so deeply interested in
contesting them.- What further defence of the popes and
councils from the charge of usurpation can be required by any
impartial mind ? Is not such a charge as utterly baseless as
that which might be made against a judge, who grounds his
sentences on the principles of jurisprudence universally admitted
in his time ? If the existing jurisprudence is imperfect, is that
the judge's fault ? Is it not, moreover, his duty to follow it in
his decisions, until it has been reformed by competent authority ?
167. TJiird Inference : Nor can tliey he accused of a gross Error.
Will it be said that the popes and councils of the middle ages
could not, without a gross error, attribute to themselves so
extraordinaiy a power over sovereigTis ? The conduct of popes
and councils, we shall soon see, implies no such error ; but
supposing that they were in error, never, assuredly, was any
error more excusable and innocent than theirs. When can
error be excusable, if not when it has been universally adopted
during many centuries by princes and people, by men the most
enlightened and virtuous, and even by those most interested in
contesting: the o-eneral maxims on which it was based ? Had
• See, in confirmation of this remark, n. 101, supra,
' See admissions of Bossuet, Fleury, Pfeffel, on this subject, supra, n. 118.
VOL. II. N
178 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
this belief in question been so gross an error as some suppose,
how could it possibly be admitted so universally by sovereigns
themselves during many centuries ? Exaggerate as much as you
please the ignorance of the middle ages, it must still be absurd
to suppose that all sovereigns, during many centuries, had been
so careless of their own interests, as to admit a principle so
subversive of their authority and rights ; that they not only
admitted it in speculation, but had formally approved its prac-
tical application, in many cases, though they must have known
that, in other circumstances, it could be also turned against
themselves. Moreover, the error of the middle ages on this
point, if error it was, cannot appear so gross when we reflect
that it has been admitted, even in those latter times, by very
great men, and even by writers otherwise not favourable to the
authority of popes and councils. The following passage from
Leibnitz is enough for our purpose : — " Has the pope," asks this
great philosopher, "the power of deposing kings, and of absolving
their subjects from their oath of allegiance ? It is a point that
has often been discussed ; and Bellarmine's arguments, which
deduce from the pope's supposed spiritual jurisdiction, a juris-
diction, at least indirect, over temporalities, have not appeared
contemptible even to Hobbes himself. In fact, it is certain, that
whoever has received from God power to procure the salvation of
souls, has a power of repressing the tyranny and ambition of
the great, which destroy such a multitude of souls." ^ The
sequel of our inquiry will give us an opportunity of citing many
other testimonies, equally decisive in justification of the belief
of the middle ages on this subject.*
' Leibnitz, De Jure Suprematfts (Oper. torn. iv. part. iii. p. 401). L'Esprit
de Liebnitz, 12rao. edit. vol. ii. p. 22.
' See, especially, art. ii. of the following chapter.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 179
CHAPTER III.
TITLES OF THE POWER EXERCISED BY POPES AND COUNCILS OVER SOVEREIGNS
IN THE MIDDLE AGES.
168. This Qvbestion not much discussed before the Twelfth Century.
It does not appear that before the twelfth century, there was
much inquiry into the grounds of the extraordinary power which
popes and councils attributed to themselves over sovereigns.
The legitimacy of that power was generally supposed as certain ;
it was called into question by none but the declared enemies of
the Church and the Holy See, and by a few private individuals,
attached by self-interest to the cause of those sovereigns who
incurred the anathema of the Chijirch by their disorders. Even
they who contested it, did not deny that excommunication
entailed the forfeiture of all civil rights ; they rested their cause
on the evasion, that sovereigns could not be excommunicated.^
169. Two Principal Opinions on this Matter.
About the middle of the twelfth century some writers began
to inquire into the origin and grounds of this power ; not having
considered the question with due attention, they adopted opinions
which could not fail, in course of time, to occasion warm dis-
putes. In a work composed about the close of the twelfth
century, John of Salisbury assigns the di\dne right as the source
of this power, in the sense maintained by the advocates of the
theolog-ical opinion, which attributes to the Church and the
pope a direct jurisdiction over temporalities." Gervase of Til-
bury, who \^Tote in the commencement of the following century,
maintains that Constantino's donation was the real title of this
power.^ During a very considerable time, these were the only
' See the authors cited above, n. 96.
^ See exposition of this opinion in No. 8, Confirmatory Evidence, at the end
of this work.
^ See n. 145, preceding chapter, note. Gervase of Tilbury was not the first
that embraced this opinion. More ancient authors had supposed it, by ap-
pealing to Constantine's donation to prove against the Greeks the temporal
and spiritual jurisdiction of the Holy See. See the extracts trom .(Eneas,
bishop of Paris, from St. Leo, and from St. Peter Daniian, which we have
cited in No. 5, Confirmatory Evidence, at the close of last volume.
N 2
180 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
opinions held by \\Titers in the middle aqes. After the revival
of learning, modem authors proposed various theories, which we
have already stated,' and which we now proceed to discuss in
this chapter.
170. Distinction between the Power of Jurisdiction and live Directive Power.
For a clear understanding of this question, it is essential to
adopt Fenelon's distinction between "a power of temporal
jurisdiction," and " a directive power." - The former, by its
very nature, implies a right of legislative control in matters of
the temporal order, which have not been already decided by the
divine law, the natural, or the positive. The directive power
implies only the right of enlightening and directing by doctrinal
decisions, or wise counsels, the conscience of princes and of
nations, by making known 4he obligations imposed on them
by the divine law, natural or positive, and especially those
which arise from the oath of allegiance. This power does not
entitle the Church and the pope to make any law or decree on
temporal matters ; they can neither confer nor take away the
rights and authority of sovereigns : they can merely declare to
princes and to nations their conscientious obligations in temporal
matters, as well as in other matters. Ecclesiastical history
presents us with remarkable examples of this directive power ;
as when St. Gregory the Great solicited the emperor Maurice to
repeal a law which was contrary to the interests of religion ;'
and when St. Ambrose requested Theodosius to make a law
suspending capital punishment and confiscation of property, for
thirty days after the passing of sentence.*
171. The Present Question regards solely the Power of Jitrisdiction, as founded
on the Bight Diinne.
This distinction being supposed, we must observe, that the
question so warmly discussed by theologians in these latter
' Nos. 2—20 of this Second Part.
' See exposition of Fenelon's system, supra, n. 8-13.
' Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. viii. book xxxv. n. 31. Bossuet, Defens. Declar.
lib. ii. cap. viii. S. Gregorii Vita recens adornata, lib. ii. cap. x. (Operum
torn. iv.).
* Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. iv. book xix. n. 21. Bossuet, Defens. Declar.
lib. ii. cap. v.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 181
times, does not regard the directive power of the Church and of
the pope in temporal matters ; nor their power of temporal
jurisdiction over the fiefs and other sovereignties which they
may have acquired by special titles ; but solely, " the power of
temporal jurisdiction, direct or indirect, based on the right
di'vdne. Even theologians most decidedly opposed to the opinion
which attributes this latter power to the Church, do not contest
the two former. Bossuet himself, in several passages of his
Defence of the Declaration, so far from denying these two kinds
of power to the Church, openly approves them. He has no
difficulty in admitting the temporal jurisdiction of the Church
and the pope in the fiefs and other temporal sovereignties, which
they may have acquired by any special title.^ As to the direc-
tive power, though he does not admit it expressly, he speaks of
it with remarkable moderation, and appears inclined to receive
it. This is particularly observable in the second book of the
Defence, where he discusses, at great length, the answer of Pope
Zachary to the French, on the deposition of Childeric.
172. Bossuet's Opinion on the Directive Power.
"When we read," he says," "that Pepin was raised to the
tin-one in Childeric's place, by authority of Pope Zachary, it
were a manifest extravagance, and a groundless pretension, to
maintain that this act was done by the order, and not merely by
' Further on we shall cite many remarkable passages in the Defence of the
Declaration (infra, art. ii. n. 281).
■•^ " Chxa audimus auctoritate Zachariae Pipinum Childerico fuisse substitu-
tum, nisi intelligamus consilio id, non imperio factum, omnino nimii, adeoque
vani sumus. . . . Summa est : deposiiisse (Zachariam), id est, deponendum con-
sensisse, suasisse, consuluisse, idque volentibus : jam consilium a Papja, ut a
viro sapiente ac patre spirituali, exquisitum. At si pro imperio aliquid decre-
visset, numquam permissuros fuisse barones regni Francite. . . . Neque tamen
negamus Ji(6te decisionis loco fuisse profectum a tantA sede, ex ips^ totius gen-
tis consuitatione, responsum ; sed aliud est datum ambigentibus, gra^assima
etiam auctoritate, consilium ; aliud prolatum, de rebus civilibus ordinandis, pro
potestate decretum. . . . Non id factum est ut pontifex rer/num adimeret aut
daret, sed ut declararet adimendum vel dandum ab iis quibus id juris competere
judicasset. . . . Sed si vel maxime adversariis concedimus. Francos jia-ejurando
a Zacharia exsolutos, nihil hoc ad propositum. Esto enim Franci, . . . tamquam
ad caiUelam, ut aiunt, et propter ipsam jurisjurandi reverentiam, a Zacharia
■petiermX ^U declararet illud esse imtum, edque religione rite exsolutos Francos ;
. . . quid hoc ad quaestionem nostram ? an id propterea extorquebunt, ut pon-
tifex principem pleno imperii jure gaudentem dejicere, aut populos nihil tale
cogitantes jurejurando solvere possit ? . . . Nihil est absurdius." — Def Declar.
part. i. lib. ii. cap. xxxiii. xxxiv. xxxv. (CEuvres, tom. xxxi. pp. 521, 528, 530).
182 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
the advice of the pope. Zachary deposed Childeric ; that is,
consented to his deposition, suggested, advised it to the French,
who wished for it. They had asked counsel of the pope, as of a
wise man, and their spiritual father. But had he pretended to
issue an order to that eflfect, the barons of the kingdom of
France would never have allowed it. Still we are not denying
that the answer of the Holy See, so consulted by the French
nation, was regarded as a just decision. But a counsel given by
a very high authority, in answer to a consultation, is one thing ;
a decree drawn up to decide civil questions, in virtue of an
inherent authority, is another. The object of the pope's
answer, was not to take away or confer the royal power, but to
declare that it ought to be taken away or given by those whose
right so to do the pope did not dispute. In fine, though we
should concede to our adversaries that the French were absolved
from their oath by Pope Zachary, that does not aflFect the
question (disputed between the Galilean and other divines).
For, let us suppose that, for greater security, and from respect
for their oath, the French had besought the pope to declare the
oath null, and themselves absolved from its obligation, what has
that to do with our question ? Will our adversaries thence
infer that tlie pope can depose a prince who is in the enjoyment
of all his rights, or absolve from their oaths nations which are
not even thinking of being freed from them ? such a pretension
is the height of absurdity." A full development of this passage
may be seen in Bossuet's work ; though not expressly admit-
ting the directive power, he sanctions it by at least equivalent
terms. 1
This is not the only passage in which Bossuet applies " the
directive power" to account for the influence of the pope and
the bishops in the middle ages.- As one out of many, we shall
cite the reflections of the illustrious prelate on the petition of
Charles the Bald to the Council of Savoniferes, in 859, in which
that prince formally acknowledges that he could be deposed
' In support of Bossnet's reflections on Childeric's deposition, may be con-
sulted the authors cited above, part i. ch. ii. n. 92. On the authenticity of
Pope Zachary's decision, see No. 7, Confirmatory Evidence, at the close of
vol. i.
^ Remark, in particular, Defens. Declar. lib. i. sect. ii. cap. xxxiii.-xxxv. ;
lib. iii. cap. xvi. et alibi passim.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 183
by the judgment of the bishops.^ " These words," observes
Bossuet, " do not affect our question ; for Charles the Bald
submits himself to the bishops, viewing them solely as inter-
preters of God's will. For at present the question is not
whether kings may abdicate, by the authority of the bishops,
considered as interpreters of the divine will ; — a thing, be it
observed, which appears not at all proper ; - but the question
is, whether bishops have the right of dethroning princes by
judicial sentence." '
After these preliminary observations, we proceed now to
examine, by the testimony of history, what were the real titles
of the power exercised by popes and councils over sovereigns in
the middle ages.
173. The Opinion which assigns Constantine's Donation as the Ground of the
Pope's Power over Sovereigtis justly abandoned.
In the first place, it must be acknowledged that this power
was not founded originally on Constantine's spurious donation,
which was, during so long a period, supposed to be genuine.
In fact, the power of the pope and of the council over sovereigns
was already universally admitted in the time of Gregory VII.,
the authenticity of Constantine's donation not being, at that
time, generally received. Some authors, no doubt, appealed
to it confidently ; but a great number of others considered it a
dubious document. It is not mentioned by many writers of
the tenth and eleventh centuries, who must have known and
cited it, had they believed its authenticity. Luitprand, bishop
of Cremona, in 968, never cites it in a discourse addressed to
' Labbe, Concil. torn. viii. p. 672. Baronii Annales, torn. x. ann. 859.
* We must observe, that in Bossuet's opinion the power attributed to the bishops
by the general opinion of the French of that day was not at all proper ; and, in
fact, it is certain, that the inconvenience of intrusting so great a power to the
bishops and lords of one nation, led the French, as well as the other Catholic
nations of Europe, to reserve to the pope, or a general council, the power of
deciding on a sovereign's deposition. See below, art. ii. § 1, n. 246.
^ " Nihil, inquam, ad rem, qu6d Carolus Calvus episcopis, tamquam Dei
interpretibus, se submittit ; non enim quserimus utrum reges, arbitrio epis-
coporum, tamquam diviui numiuis interpretum, abdicare possint, quod tamen
vix aut ne vix quidem expedit ; sed utrum episcopi, judicio dato, reges solio
deturbare possint." — Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. ii. cap. xliii. 3rd paragraph.
In support of this directive power, the reader may also consult Fleury, Hist.
Eccl. vol. xiv. book Ixix. n. 60 ; Pey, De I'Autorit^ des Deux Puissances,
vol. i. p. 317 ; vol. ii. pp. 401, 402.
184 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
the Greek emperor Nicephoras, in which all the benefits of
Constantine to the Roman Church are enumerated.* Neither
does the emperor Henry II. mention it in his diploma, issued in
1020, to confirm all the donations made to the Holy See, by
Pepin, Charlemagne, Louis le Dobonnaire, Otho I. and Otho II.''
It is also omitted in the Decretum, or collection of canons,
compiled in the beginning of the eleventh century, by Burchard,
bishop of Worms. In fine, Gregory VII. himself, who collected
so carefallv all the arguments and authorities to establish the
temporal power of the Holy See, never appealed to Constantino's
donation in support of his power over sovereigns.^ Hence
the opinion which assigns that apocryphal donation as the
title of the power exercised by popes and councils of the
middle ages over sovereigns, is generally abandoned by modem
authors.
174. Tlic Opinion which believes this Powci' icas founded on the Theolofjical Theory
of the Divine Right is the more common at the Preaent Day.
The majority of modem authors are of ojiinion, that this
power was, at first, founded solely on the theological system of
the divine right ; that is, the system which attributes to the
Church and the pope, by divine institution, a jurisdiction, at
least indirect, over temporalities. This title, believed by some
to be legitimate, and by others to be absolutely inadmissible,
supplies the fomier with a ready means of justifying the conduct
of the popes and councils of the middle ages to sovereigns ;
while to the second, it appears to be a just ground for censuring
that conduct, or, at best, an apology which derives its whole
force from the circumstances of the time, and the notions then
generally prevalent.
This common opinion of modern authors appears to be the
principal source of the difficulties that at once present them-
selves against our system of accounting for the conduct of popes
and councils towards sovereigns in the middle ages, by the then
' Annales, Baron, ann. 968, n. 27. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xii. book Ivi,
n. 20.
- Cenni, Monumenta Domin. Pontif. vol. ii. p. 187. Baronii Annales, ann.
1014. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xii. book Iviii. n, 46.
^ For more ample developments of this point, see No. 5, Confirmatory
Evidence, at the close of vol. i.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 185
received maxims of jurisprudence and of constitutional law ;
and we have great reason for believing, that our system would
be generally admitted by all intelligent men, could we only
prove that the theological theory of a right divine was not really
the principle on which popes and councils claimed their temporal
power over sovereigns.
175. The Present I>iscussion reduced to Two Propositions.
We shall, therefore, reduce the whole discussion in this third
chapter to the two following propositions : —
1. The power exercised by popes and councils over sovereigns
in the middle ages was not grounded on the theological theory of
the right divine.
2. That power was really grounded on the then existing con-
stitutional laws.
The development of the first proposition will clear the way for
the second, and solve, by anticipation, most of the objections
against our opinion.
ARTICLE I.
Historical Discussion on the System according to which the Theological Opinion
of the Right Divine was the Title of the Power exercised by Popes and
Councils over Sovereigns in the Middle Ages.
176. This System contradicted hy History.
In the commencement of this work, we have disclaimed the
intention of reviving theological discussions on the right divine,
relating to the distinction and mutual independence of the two
powers ; our sole object being to examine historically, what was
the real title of the power exercised by popes and councils over
sovereigns in the middle ages. In this first article we shall
therefore confine ourselves exclusively to the question, whether
the popes and councils that formerly attributed to themselves so
extraordinary a power over sovereigns, proceeded solely or prin-
cipally on the theological opinion of the right divine, that is,
the opinion which attributes to the Church and to the pope a
jurisdiction, at least indirect, by di\ine institution, over temporal
matters.
An attentive examination of history precludes the admission
186 POWER OF THE POPE [PART TI.
of that opinion, and furnishes conclusive proofs of the contrary.
The power in question could not possibly be founded on an
opinion which either did not exist, or was entertained only by a
few, when that power itself was universally recognised ; an
opinion which was not maintained until a much later period,
and which was never expressly taught nor implied in the
decrees of popes or councils. Now, it can be demonstrated, we
believe, from history, that the theological opinion of the divine
right did not exist, or, at least, was entertained only by few, at
a period when the power of the pope and of councils was already
universally recognised. Furthermore, we believe it can be de-
monstrated, that this opinion was not maintained until a much
later period, and that it was never taught nor implied by councils
or popes, even in those decrees which are supposed to express
the fullest extension of their authority over temporal matters.
These assertions must, no doubt, appear at first sight sur-
prising to a certain class of readers, who have been accustomed
to regard the contrary assertions as indubitable and generally
admitted truths. An attentive and impartial examination of
the monuments of history will, nevertheless, prove that the
opinion of those authors whom we are combating is far from
being clearly established ; — that they often weaken it by their
own admissions : finally, that it is controverted by arguments,
not merely plausible, but absolutely conclusive for any unpre-
judiced mind. To set all these assertions in the clearest light,
we shall devote our first paragraph to an inquiry into the history
of this theological opinion of the right divine ; and shall then
discuss the principal acts and decrees of popes and councils,
which may be objected against our opinion.
§ 1. Historical Inquiry on the Origin of the Theological Opinion
of the Right Divine.
177. The Theological Opinion on the Right Divine hardly known in the titne of
Gregory VII., or for a considerable time after.
Whatever may be the precise date of the origin of this
opinion, it may, we think, be confidently asserted, first, that it
was hardly known at all, or at least by very few, at a period
when the power of the pope and councils over sovereigns was
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 187
universally admitted ; and, secondly, that it was not until a
much later period that it began to be received.^
1. The first point is sufficiently jpstablished by the fact, that
the general belief which attributed to popes and councils so
great a power over sovereigns was already admitted in the pon-
tificate of Gregory VII., and earlier in some states, as we have
proved in the preceding chapter ; whilst, before that period,
hardly any traces can be found of the opinion attributing to the
Church and pope any jurisdiction, even indirect, by divine insti-
tution, over temporalities. So far was this latter opinion from
being received at that time, that from the infancy of the Church
to the twelfth century, the principle of the distinction and mutual
independence of the two powers was certainly the general doc-
trine, expressly sanctioned by the popes themselves."
178. Tht Doctrine, of Antiquity on the Distinction of the Two Powers proclaimed
in the Capitulanes.
We have already cited the testimonies of Popes Gelasius,
Symmachus, and St. Gregory the Great, which express the
doctrine of antiquity on this point with such precision and
clearness.' The sixth Council of Paris is equally decisive on
' We must remark, that the historical truth of these assertions does not
decisively settle the controversy on the opinion in question. For the novelty
of a theological opinion is not of itself a sufficient reason for rejecting it as
false. Catholic dogma alone is invariable, immutable, and as ancient as the
Church herself, because it is founded essentially on Divine revelation ; but theolo-
gical systems and opinions are sometimes pure inventions of the human mind,
founded on conjectures or probabilities, and consequently liable to variation,
to uncertainty, and to error. Hence we see these systems adopted at certain
times and in certain countries, whilst they are rejected by others, and left by
the Church to the free discussion of the schools. Hence, also, the best theo-
logians make no difficulty in proposing, for the elucidation of Catholic truth,
new explanations, and theories unknown to antiquity. All admit that the
novelty of these explanations is not of itself a sufficient motive for rejecting
them, provided they are not opposed to the Catholic dogma. See, in illustration
of these assertions. Instruct. Past, de M. de Pressy, Eveque de Boulogne, sur
I'Accord de la Foi et de la Raison, dans les Mystferes de la Eelig. ; especially
vol. ii. p. 365.
* This fact is generally admitted by French authors. Bossuet, especially,
contends, that the most celebrated authors of the twelve first centuries may be
explained in the moderate sense of the directive power, or in another sense
entirely different from the theological opinion of the divine right. (Defens.
Declarat. lib. ii. lib. iii. cap. xiii.-xviii.) He maintains that Gregory VII.,
by attributing to himself so great a power over sovereigns, departed from the
common opinion of his contemporaries, and from the doctrine of antiquity.
(Ibid. lib. i. sect. i. cap. vii. viii. ; lib. iii. cap. iii.).
3 See ch. i. part i. n. 9, 10, 15.
188 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
the point. " By the tradition of the fathers," it declares,^ "we
know that the entire body of holy Church is subject to two
admirable powers, — the sacerdotal and the royal. Of this,
Gelasius, the venerable bishop of the Roman See, writes to the
emperor Anastasius : ' This world, august emperor, is governed
by two powers, the sacred power of pontiffs, and the power of
kings ; and of these the former is so much the greater, as
pontiffs must, before the bar of divine justice, render an account
even of the kings themselves/^ In his treatise on the Truth of
Predestination and Grace, St. Fulgentius also says : ' Here below
there is no authority in the Church superior to that of the
pontiff ; nor is there in the world any dignity superior to that
of the emperor.' " ^ It must be remarked, that the canon of
the sixth Council of Paris was afterwards inserted in the
' " Principaliter itaque totius sjinctae Dei Ecclesiae coqjus in duas eximias
personas, in sacerdotalem videlicet et regalera, «icut a Sanctis Patribus tra-
ditum accepimus, divisum esse novimus. De quA re Gelasius, Bomanse sedis
venerabilis episcopus, ad Anastasium imperatoreiu ita scribit : Duo sunt quippe,
inquit, iiupei'ator augiistt, quibw< principal iter mundua hie regitar, au-ctoritat
sacrata pontijiciiin, et regalis potestiu ; in qtiibus tautd gnn-iujt pondits est sacer-
dotuia quantd etiain pro ijais regibus hoininum, in divino rcddituri sunt examine
rationeiii. Fulgentius qnoque, in libro De Veritate Prcedcstinationis et Gratia,
ita scribit : Quantiim pertinet, inquit, ad hujus temporis vitam, in Ecclesid nemo
pmitifice potior ; et in sceculo Chriiatiano, impcratore nemo celsior invenitur." —
Concil. Paris, vi. lib. i. cap. iii. (Labbe, Concil. t<ini. vii. p. 1599). Capitu-
larium, lib. v. cap. cccxix. (Baluzii, Capitularia, torn. i. p. 890). Fleury,
Hist. Eccl. vol. X. book xlvii. n. 24.
* S. Gela-sii Papee Epist. ad Anastas. Aug. (Labbe, Concil. torn. iv. p. 1182).
Fleury, Hist. Eccl. torn. vii. book xxx. n. 31. Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. i.
sect. ii. cap. xxxiii. &c. Pey, De I'Autorit^ des Deux Puissances, vol. iii.
pp. 582-584.
Instead of those words of Gelasius, " Duo quippe sunt, imperator auguste,
quibus principaliter mundus hie regitur," we read, in the Capitularies, and in
some copies of the Council of Paris : " Duse sunt quippe imperatrices augustae,
quibus principaliter mundus hie regitur." In a note on this passage of the
Capitularies, Baluze gives his opinion, that the change was fraudulently made,
with the intention of exalting the power of the Church over the temporal
power. (Baluze, ibid. vol. ii. p. 1213.) To us this conjecture appears utterly
groundless. We cannot discover how the reading in the Capitularies is more
favourable to the Church than the common reading of the text of Gelasius.
The conjecture appears the more unwarrantable, as the distinction of the two
powers is clearly supposed in many passages of the Capitularies. See, among
others, a Capitulary of the year 800 (Baluze, tom. i. p. 330) ; Capitular, lib. vii.
cap. cccxc. ; Capitular, additio secunda, cap. xxviii. versus finem, et alibi pas-
sim. (Ibid. pp. 1109, 1152, &c.) It is, moreover, well to remark, that the
canon of the sixth council of Paris, afterwards inserted in the Capitularies,
cites part only of the text of Gelasius, which goes on to develop and inculcate
more and more the principle of the distinction and mutual independence of the
two powers, as Bossuet evidently proves in his Defens. Declar. ubi supra.
^ S. Fulg. Rusp. De Verit. Prwdest. lib. ii. cap. xxii.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 189
Capitularies, which constituted, for so many centuries, the basis
of legislation in France, in Italy, and in Gennany ; ' whence
the doctrine of antiquity on the distinction and reciprocal inde-
pendence of the two powers must have been known and received
in these different states in the ninth century, and considerably
later. It is equally certain that these principles, on the dis-
tinction of the two powers, were not mere theories, but a rule
generally followed in practice. We know, in truth, from
Hincmar of Rheims, who wrote in the ninth century, that in
these mixed assemblies, which were then so common, the
bishops, according to an ancient usage of the French nation,
regulated apart the affairs of religion, and then sat with the lay
lords in deliberation on temporal affairs."
179. Hits Doctrine professed by the Holy See in the Eighth and Ninth Centwries.
Pope Gregory 11. expresses himself on the subject in terms
no less clear and energetic, in his letters to the emperor Leo the
Isaurian, which we have already cited ; he expressly acknow-
ledges that he has no more right of intruding into the temporal
government, than the emperor has of intruding into the eccle-
siastical.^ The same principles are repeated, in nearly the same
terms, in a letter of Pope Nicholas to the emperor Michael, in
865, and in that of Pope Stephen V. to the emperor Basil, in 885.*
We deem it unnecessary to cite the text of these letters, as they
are no more than a repetition of the preceding,
180. The same Doctrine professed at the time in England and Spain,
The same doctrine is clearly expressed or supposed in numerous
mixed assemblies or councils, held in England, in the seventh
and eighth centuries. The Council of Becancelde, assembled in
' Baluze, Capitularia Reg. Franc. Praef. n. 35, &c. Bemardi, De I'Origine
et des Progrfes de la Legislation Fran9aise, book ii. ch. i.
* " Otim separati a cseteris essent (optimates, tarn clerici quam laici), in
eorum manebat potestate, quando simul, vel quando separatim residerent,
prout eos tractandse causae qualitas docebat, sive de spiritualibus, sive de
saecularibus, sen etiam commixtis." — Hincmar, Epist. 14 (alias 13), ad Proceres
Eegni, cap. xxxv. Thomassin, Ancien. et Nouv. Discipline, vol. ii. book iii.
ch. xlvii. n. 1 ; ch. Ii. n. 12. De Marca, De Concordia, lib. vi. cap. xxv. n. 4.
^ See the first part of this Inquiry, ch. i. n. 28.
* Labbe, Concil. torn. viii. p. 324, B. ; torn. ix. p. 366, Fleury, Hist. Eccl.
vol. xi. book 1. n. 41 ; book liii, n. 49,
190 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
694, to confirm the immunities of churches and monasteries,
prohibits laics and even kings themselves to interfere, in any
manner, in the election of abbots and abbesses ; and ordains that
the superintendence of such elections should be reserved exclu-
sively to the bishop. " For/' it adds, " as it belongs to the
king to appoint secular princes, governors, and dukes, so it
belongs to bishops to govern the churches, to select and confirm
abbots, abbesses, priests, and deacons." * The Council of Gal-
cuth, which was held a century later (in 782), is equally express.
" As the dignity of kings is exalted above all others (in the
temporal order), so the dignity of bishops is exalted above all
others, in all that appertains to the worship of God." -
The numerous councils held in Spain about the same period,
especially those of Toledo, which, for the most part, were States-
General of the nation, manifestly suppose the same principles ;
in them we see bishops alone regulating all ecclesiastical govern-
ment, while they interfered in temporal enactments, only in
concert with the temporal lords, with the consent and even at
the request of the king.'
181. TJm Doctriiie generally acknowledged under Gregory VII, — Testimony of
St. Peter Damian.
We are not acquainted with any respectable writer who con-
tradicted these principles before the pontificate of Gregory VII.
There are abundant grounds for believing that they were pro-
fessed generally, even during his reign. Such appears to be
clearly the inference from the doctrine of St. Peter Damian, a
contemporary and friend of Gregory VII., and one of the most
' " Regis ssecularis est, principes, praefectos, seu duces saeculares statuere.
Metropolitani episcopi est, ecclesias Dei regere, gubernare, atque abbates,
abbatissas, presbyteros, diaconos eligere, statuere et sanctificare, finnare et
amovere." — Concilium Eecanceldense (Labbe, ConcLl. torn. vi. p. 1357). Fleury,
Hiat. Eccl. vol. ix. book xli. n. 4.
' " Sicut reges omnibus dignitatibus praesunt, ita et episcopi, in his qu<E ad
Deum attinent." — Concilium Calchutense, can. 11 (Labbe, ibid. p. 1866). See,
in support of these principles, Lingard's Anglo-Saxon Church, ch. v.
^ " Instituendum credimus ut, trium dierum spatiis percurrente jejunio. de
mysterio sanctse Trinitatis, aliisque spiritualibus, sive pro moribus sacerdotum
corrigendis, nuUo ssecularium assistente, inter eos (sacerdotcs sive episcopos)
habeatur collatio." — Concil. Tolet. xvii. cap. i. Thomassin, Ancien. et Nouv.
Discipline, vol. ii. book iii. ch. xlvii. ; 1. n. 10. Perez Valieute, Juris Hispanici
Public! Apparatus, torn. ii. cap. vi. n. 31.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 191
celebrated prelates of his day, both for piety and learning.^
At the conclusion of his synodal disputation against the anti-
pope Cadalous,^ he addresses the deputies of the pope and of
the emperor, and exhorts them, in the following strain, to com-
bine together, for the harmony of the priesthood and of the
empire. " 0 now, you illustrious officers of the imperial court,
and you august ministers of the Holy See, combine your exer-
tions to procure the union of the Church and of the empire ;
that the human race, governed by these two sovereign powers,
which preside, the one over the temporal, the other over the
spiritual — may no longer be divided into parties, as it has been
by Cadalous. Since Jesus Christ, sole mediator between God
and man, has established, by his divine wisdom, a harmony
between the two powers — the priestly and the royal, the deposi-
taries of both ought to be so strictly united by the bonds of
mutual charity, that the emperor may be seen in the person of
the Roman pontiff, and the Roman pontiff in the person of the
emperor ; saving, however, those prerogatives which belong
exclusively to the sovereign pontiff. The pope, when the case
requires, must coerce the evil-doer by the law of the prince ;
and the prince, in concert with the bishop, must enforce all that
the holy canons prescribe for the salvation of souls ; let the
pope, as father, have the pre-eminence due to that august title,
and let the prince, as his only and well-beloved son, repose in
his bosom.'' ^ Thus, according to St. Peter Damian, the world
' The doctrine of St. Peter Damian on this subject is carefully discussed by
Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. ii. cap. xxviii. xxix.
' Cadalous, bishop of PaiTua, was elected pope in 1061, with the title of
Honorius II., by the faction of the emperor Henry IV. He made various
attempts to take possession of Rome ; but all were fruitless. The question
between the two popes was discussed in the council of Mantua (in 1064 or
1067), which recognised Alexander II. as legitimate pope ; and in consequence
of this decision, Cadalous was abandoned by the bishops of Henry's party.
Shortly after, Cadalous died miserably, having obstinately refused to renounce
the title of pope. (Annales Bai-on. tom. xi. ann. 1061, et seq.) Fleury, Hist.
Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ix. n. 47, &c. ; book Ixi. n. 11. This work of Peter
Damian was composed on occasion of a council convoked to Osbor, in Saxony,
by St. Annon, archbishop of Cologne, who on this, as on many other occasions,
had rendered most important services to the Church. It is probable that the
work of St. Peter was read in this council. P. Labbe has inserted it in vol. ix.
of his Collection of Councils.
^ " Amodo igitur, dilectissimi, illinc regalis aulas consiliarii, hinc sedis apos-
tolicae comministri ; utraque pars in hoc uno studio conspiremus laborantes, ut
summum sacerdotiimi, et Roman\im simul confcederetur imperium ; quatenus
192 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
is governed by two powers, which preside equally over human
affairs ; one over the temporal, the other over the spiritual :
both are sovereign, each in its own sphere ; they ought to be
closely united, as friends and allies ; but not as subject one to
the other in matters which belong to their proper competence.
If the prince is permitted to issue orders which tend to the
salvation of souls, it is solely by enforcing the sacred canons, in
concert with the bishops. In like manner, if the pope represses
the evil-doer by temporal penalties, it can be solely by appealing
to the law of the prince, and not by virtue of the power attached
to his sacred character. Whence, the author concludes, that the
pope, as father, is entitled only to the pre-eminence due to tliat
august character ; a pre-eminence which by no means implies
the right of regulating temporal things, a right reserved, he
asserts, by God, to the temporal power.
182. Pretended Evidences of the Theological Opinion of the Divine Right before
Gregory VII,
We are aware that many modern ^rriters, either not adverting
to the testimonies just cited, or believing them to be incon-
clusive, suppose that, in the period in question, from the seventh
to the tenth century, evidences may be found of the theological
opinion of the divine right. In proof of their opinion, they
cite, first, the mi.xture of the temporal and spiritual, so common
at the time in the acts of the civil and ecclesiastical legislation.'
Secondly, the mutual encroachments of the two powers : in
proof of which they insist particularly on the influence of the
French kings and lords on ecclesiastical elections, under the
humanum genus, quod per hos duos apices in uti-aque substantia regitur, nullis
(quod absit) partibus, quod per Cadaloiim nuper factum est, rescindatur ;
.... et quatenus, ab uno mediatore Dei et hominum, hsec duo, regnuni
scilicet et sacerdotium, divino sunt conflata mysterio ; ita sublimes istae duae
personae tanta sibimet unitate jungantur, ut quodam mutuae caritatis glutino,
et rex in Romano pontifice, et Eomanus pontifex inveniatur in regc ; salvo
scilicet suo privilegio papae, quod nemo prseter eum usurpare permittitur.
Caetertun et ipse delinquentes, ctim causa dictaverit, forensi lege coerceat ; et
rex cum suis episcopis, super animarum statu, prolate sacrorum canonum auc-
toritate, decemat ; ille tanquam parens, paterno semper jure prceemin^at ; iste,
velut unicus ac singularis filius, in amoris illius amplexibus requiescat." — St.
Peter Damian, Opuscul. 4 (Open torn. iii. p. 30). See also Epistol. lib. vii.
epist. 3 (Oper. torn, i.) ; Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ix. n. 49.
' Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. 3rd Discourse, n. 9, 10 ; vol. xix. 7th Dia-
course, n. 5. Annalea du Moyen Age, vol. iv. p. 225 ; vol. v. pp. 462-464,
CHAP. HI.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 19*3
first race of kings,^ the deposition of Waruba, king of Spain,
in the twelfth Council of Toledo, in 681 ; and that of Louis
le Debonnaire, in the Council of Compiegne, in 833." Thirdly,
the answer of Pope Zachary to the French, on the deposition of
Childeric III. Fourthly, the dignity of consul offered to Charles
Martel, by Pope Gregory III. ; that of patrician, conferred on
Pepin by Stephen 11. ; and that of emperor, given to Charle-
magne by Leo II I. ^ Fifthly, and finally, the right attributed to
the bishops in France, from the ninth century, of judging,
and even deposing kings in the name and by the authority
of God.*
183. Discusswn of the Facts alleged. — 1. Admixture of the Temporal and the
Spiritual in Acts of Legislation.
Nevertheless, in all these facts, we cannot discover anything
that implies the theological opinion of the divine right. And,
first, with regard to the admixture of the temporal and spiritual
in the acts of civil and ecclesiastical legislation, it is true, that
it was very common at this period ; as it, indeed, continued
during the whole course of the middle ages. Many capi-
tularies of the French kings, and a multitude of councils
held in those ancient times, regard, in their enactments, the
government both of the Church and of the state, the mainte-
nance of ci^dl order and of ecclesiastical discipline.^ This
mixture, however, singular though it may at first sight appear,
ceases to be surprising, and can be easily reconciled with the
principle of the distinction and mutual independence of the
two powers, if we l)ut reflect, that the decrees in question were
the result of the concurrence and strict union of the two
powers ; that they were authorized by the express or tacit
' Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. 3rd Discourse, n. 10. Thomassin, Ancien. et
Nouv. Discipline, vol. ii. book iii. ch. xi. &c. Hericoiirt, Abridgment of same
work, part ii. ch. xxxi.
^ See, for development of these facts, the authors cited above, ch. i. n. 63,
note 4 ; n. 67, note 2.
^ Tliese facts are cited, in support of their opinion on the divine right, by
Cardinal Bellarmiu, and many others.
* See the authors cited in the preceding chapter, n. 133, note 1.
* Se^Analysis of the Capitularies, in the Hist, des Auteurs Eccles. by D.
Ceillier, vol. xviii. p. 380, &;c. , An analysis of the councils of the middle ages
is given in vol. xix. and following, of the same work. These analyses are
scattered over vols. ix. x. and following of the Hi.st. de I'Eglise Gallicane.
VOL. II. 0
194 POWER OF THE POPB [PAUT II
consent of both, and generally published in those mixed assem-
blies, so common at the time, which were at once ecclesiastical
councils and political assemblies, and in which the two powers
combining ordained in concert all that concerned the good of
the Church and of the state.' However independent the two
powers naturally may be one of the other, it can be easily con-
ceived how they could unite for their common good, for mutual
protection against their common enemies, and by nmtual conces-
sions to allow to each other a right of making laws on matters
that were not properly within their competence. These are the
principles by which even authors the most devoted to the doctrine
of the independence of the two powers, explain the mixture of
the temporal and the spiritual so frequently found in eccle-
siastical and civil legislation under the Christian emperors.*
The same explanation manifestly applies with much greater
propriety to the legislative acts of the Christian states in the
middle ages ; during which, the union of the two powers was
much more close than it had ever been under the Christian
emperors. Even Fleury has been compelled to admit this in his
Ecclesiastical History. " After the establishment of the bar-
barian domination in the West, the temporal seigniories became
a great source of distraction to the bishops. The lords had a
considerable share in the management of state affairs, which
were discussed ordinarily either in general assemblies or in the
private councils of princes ; and the bishops, as lettered men,
were more useful on those occasions than the other lords.
These assemblies were by primary institution parliaments ; but
they became councils incidentally," from the opportunity of
having so many bishops assembled together. " Their principal
objects, therefore, were temporal, or state affairs ; in which the
bishops could not avoid taking a part, being convoked for that
purpose, as well as the other lords. Hence came that confusion
of the temporal and the spiritual," so pernicious to religion.''
" The latter councils of Spain, under the Goths," observes the
' See supra, cli. i. art. i. n. 28, &c.
^ See, on this subject, the authors cited in our Introduction, supr^ vol. i.
p. 61, notes.
' Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. 3rd Discourse, n. 9. See also vol. xix. 7th
Discoui-se, n. 141.
CHAP. in. J OVER SOVEREIGNS. 195
same writer, " and all the coimcils of France, under the second
race, were mixed assemblies, in which all the great men of
the kingdom assisted ; hence, it is not surprising that laics
appear to be legislating on spiritual, and ecclesiastics on temporal
matters. This confusion was, however, productive of fatal con-
sequences in the end." ^ We are not now discussing the conse-
quences of this confusion ; they have been demonstrated, we
think, in another place not to have been so pernicious as Fleury
supposes." For the present, it is enough to remark, that by his
own admission, the bishops could not avoid taking a part in
the political assemblies, in which great state affairs were dis-
cussed ; that they were more useful in those assemblies than
other lords ; and that the confusion of the temporal and spiritual
in these decrees, can be very naturally explained by the concur-
rence of the two powers.
184. Mutual Encroachments of the Two Powers,
2. Neither do the mutual encroachments of these two powers on
each other prove that they were ignorant of the true principles
on their respective limits. Similar encroachments have been
made in all ages, even the most enlightened, and in which the
true principles on the distinction and mutual independence of
each power were best known. "We have seen the first Christian
emperors publishing decrees on ecclesiastical affairs, and even in
favour of heresies,^ notwithstanding the reclamations of the
Church. In the last century, and even at the present time,
do not sovereigns and civil magistrates arrogate to themselves
the right of regulating points as purely spiritual as any contained
in the Christian religion. The innovations of Joseph II. in
Germany, the pretensions of the French parliaments, and the
civil constitution of the clergy, are too notorious examples of
this usurpation. The practical inference from these abuses is,
that sovereigns, as well as private individuals, often forget, in
practice, the best-established principles ; often contradict, by
' Fleury, Nouveaux Opuscules, p. 193.
" Supra, ch. i. art. ii. and iufi'a, ch. iv.
^ In the history of the Church, the troubles occasioned by the edicts of Con-
stantius in favour of the Arians, and by Zeno's Henoticon in favour of the
Eutychians, and by the Ecthesis of Heraclius, and the Tyjie of Constantiue, in
favour of the Monothelites, are unhappily notorious.
o 2
196 POWER OF THE POPE [PART IF.
their conduct, the very principles openly proclaimed by them-
selves, before they had raised the standard of revolt against the
Church.
As to the deposition of Wamba, king of Spain, and of Louis
le Debonnaire, of France, it is absurd to cite them as usurpa-
tions of the temporal by the ecclesiastical power. First, for it
has been already proved that Wamba was not deposed by the
twelfth Council of Toledo, but that he voluntarily abdicated ;
and that, properly speaking, the Council of Compiegne did not
depose Louis le Debonnaire, but merely approved his deposition,
which had already been effected by Lothaire in an assembly of
the principal lords of his army.^ Secondly, this twelfth Council
of Toledo, and the Council of Compiegne, to which the deposi-
tions of Wamba and of Louis le Debonnaire are attributed, were
not purely ecclesiastical assemblies, but mixed assemblies, with
the double character of parliament and council ; and in which
the bishops, in their capacity as temporal lords, could regulate
the affairs of the state in concert with the other lords.^ Even
admitting, therefore, that the conduct of the bishops in those
assemblies had been reprehensible, they cannot be accused, at all
events, of having usurped their power over temporalities ; the
worst that could be said is, that they abused an authority with
which they were really invested by the state.
185. Tlie A iiswer of Pope Zachaiij to tlie French on the Deposition of Childcric III.
3. Neither does the answer of Pope Zachary to the French on
the deposition of Childcric IIL imply the theological theory of
the divine right. From the narrative of the ancient authors,
it follows clearly, as Bossuet and Fenclon^ observe, that Pope
Zachary did not, by that answer, pretend to exercise an act of
temporal jurisdiction over the kingdom of France, but merely
gave a doctrinal decision on a case of conscience, which the
French had voluntarily submitted to his tribunal.* This is
manifestly the meaning of all the ancient annalists who have
recorded the fact ; nor can it be explained in any other way,
' Supra, ch. i. n, 63, 67-
* Supra, ch. i. art. i. n. 28, &c.
' We have already cited their testimony, supra, n. 9, 172.
* See details on this subject in part i. ch. ii. n. 93.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 197
without attributing to Pope Zachary a doctrine diametrically
opposed to that which Pope Gregory II., after the example of
his predecessors, openly professed some years before, on the dis-
tinction and reciprocal independence of the two powers.^
186. The Titles "Consul," "Patrician" " Emperor ," given to the Kings of France
by the Popes of tJte Eighth Century,
4. There are no better grounds for pretending that the popes
Gregory III., Stephen II., and Leo III., when giving to the
French monarchs the titles of "consul," "patrician of the
Romans," and " emperor," pretended to do so in virtue of a
power of temporal jurisdiction, even indirect, attached to their
sacred character by divine right. On the contrary, it is certain,
that those popes, in conferring these titles on the French kings,
never appealed to such a power, but solely to that which they,
in concert with the Roman lords, exercised in the name and as
the representatives of the Roman people, who had voluntarily
intrusted their temporal interests to the Holy See."
187. The King considered as amenable to the Council in France during the
Ninth Century.
5. In line, the right attributed to the French bishops in the
ninth century, of judging, and even of deposing the king, in
the name and by the authority of God, can be easily reconciled
with that principle of the distinction and reciprocal independence
of the two powers, which was then generally admitted in France,
as weU as in the other states of Europe. To reconcile these two
points, we need but observe, that the bishops, considered "as
ministers of God," and as exercising " a purely directive power,"
judge in the name and by the authority of God, who has
appointed them to enlighten and direct the people in the order
of salvation. The language of these ancient authors who are
cited against us, can be very well understood in this sense ; and
even Bossuet readily admits our explanation.' It will appear
more natural, if we reflect what was at that time the constitu-
' Supra, n. 179, ch. iii.
^ See details on this point iu the first part of this work, ch. i. n. 19, &c. ;
ch. ii. n. 90.
•* Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. ii. cap. xliii. cited supra, n. 172.
198 POWER OF THE POPE [PABT II.
tion of the French monarchy.^ According to that constitution,
the clergy, as the first body of the state, was entitled to take a
very active part in all public affairs, even in the general assem-
blies of the nation, which elected the sovereign, and which could
prescribe in his election, conditions, whose violation would entail
the forfeiture of his rights. It may be easily understood, that,
under such a government, notwithstanding the distinction and
mutual independence of the two powers, the judgment of the
bishops, arraigning and deposing a sovereign in a general assem-
bly of the nation, could be considered as the judgment of God.
This mode of speaking is the natural conse(|uence of the princi-
ples of religion, which teach us that all power comes from God,
and that authority, in whatever hands it be placed, derives all
its force from the divine sanction. It was by virtue of this
principle that a king of Judah, when establishing judges in the
principal cities of his dominion, addressed to them this admirable
instruction: "Take heed what you do; for you exercise the
judgment, not of man, but of the Lord.'- If this be true of
secular magistrates in general, with how much greater propriety
may it be said of bishops, at a time when they were invested
with so great a temporal power, acknowledged by sovereigns
themselves, and grounded on the profound respect of princes and
people for their sacred character ?
188. Inference from these Explanations.
From these explanations, and from all the testimonies in
support of our first proposition, we conclude, that the theological
theory of the divine right, either was not held, or only by a few,
before the pontificate of Gregory VII. ; that, consequently, it
could not have been the foundation of the general belief which
attributed, at that time, to the pope and to the Church so great
a power over sovereigns. So far was this power from being
founded on the theological theory of divine right, that, on the
contrary, the theory was very probably founded on the existence
of the power ; some authors imagining that this power was
founded on the same divine right, to which they had also traced
' Supra, ch. i. art. i.
* " Videte (luid fciciatis ; uon cnim houiiiiis excrcetis judicium, sed Dei,"-
2 Paralip. xix. 6.
CUAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 199
many other privileges and immunities wliicli were in reality
granted to the Church by the liberality of princes.^
189. Tht Tlteological Tlieory of the Divitie Sight hardly hwwn befwe the
Twelfth Century.
II. But whatever may be thought of that conjucture, it can,
we believe, be confidently maintained, that the opinion which
attributes to the Church and to the pope, by divine right, a
jurisdiction, even indirect, over temporalities, was not only almost
unknown in the time of Gregory VII., but that it did not
begin to be received, or at least to have a respectable number of
advocates, until long after that period. True, in the course of
the following century it began to be gradually introduced, and,
subsequently, it made very great progress ;" but we do not find
that it had at first many defenders. The most eminent authors
of the twelfth century expressly oppose it, and say notliing that
cannot easily be understood of a directive power, of di\'ine
institution, combined with the power of temporal jurisdiction, of
human institution, in the sense explained by Fenelon.* They
assert, it is true, or suppose, with all preceding ages, that the
temporal power is subordinate to the spiritual, even by divine
right ; in this sense, that the second is more excellent than the
first, and is bound to enlighten and direct the conscience of
princes and of nations in temporal matters, as well as in others ;*
but the majority of them are far from supposing that this sub-
ordination is founded on the divine right, in this sense, that
the Church and the pope have any jurisdiction, direct or indirect,
over temporal things, except fiefs and other temporal sovereignties
which they may have acquired by a special title. We are free
' Many theologians have assigned the di\'ine law, natural or positive, as the
title to tithes, and to immunities of ecclesiastics, both real and personal, and
to other similar usages, which seem rather to be founded on positive human
laws. See, on this subject, Bellarmine, Controv. de Clericis, cap. xxv. xxviii.
xxix. (Oper. torn, ii.) See also in our Introduction, n. 93, 107, supra, vol. i.
^ John of Salisbury, bishop of Chartres, in the twelfth century, is the first
author known to us that maintained this opinion ; but in tlie beginning he does
not appear to have had many followers. See, in Xo. 8, Confirmatory Evidence,
at the close of this volume, some details on the origin and progress of this
opinion.
3 Supra, n. 12, 170.
■* See the texts of popes Gelasius, Gregory II., Nicolas I., and Stephen V.,
which we have cited above, n. 9, part i. and n. 179, part ii.
200 rOWER OF THE POPE [PAIIT- II.
ti» admit, tliat some of those ancient authors do not express
themselves witli all the exactness and precision desirable on so
imj)ortant a matter. Precision of language was, in fact, unusual
Avith authors of this period, at least before the rise of scholastic
philosophy ; and on this subject they were the more careless in
weiffhino; their words, as there was, at that time, no controversy
on the titles of that power which popes and councils attributed
to themselves over sovereigns. The power itself being generally
recognised, few persons troubled themselves about inquiring into
its origin, or distinguishing how much of it was founded on
divine, how much on human law. Admitting, however, that
some persons had those confused and unsettled notions on the
subject, it can be proved, we think, nevertheless, that the more
enlightened men, and the popes in particidar, never attributed
to the Holy See or the Church a jurisdiction, even indirect,
over temporalities by divine institution.
The limits which we have prescribed for ourselves do not
admit of a detailed examination of all those writers ; it will be
enough for us to state the doctrine of Gregory VII. liimself,
and of the most eminent authors of the following century.'
190. Tht Laiif/uaye of Gregory VII. docs not suppose that Opinion.
Gregory VII., who is considered by many modem writers to
have been the first that broached the theological opinion of the
divine right," really says nothing on the subject which may not
very well be explained in the moderate sense just stated. The
authors who attribute the first opinion to him, assign as their
principal arguments, the sentences of excommunication and
deposition which he pronounced against the emperor Ileni^ IV.,
at first in lOVG, and afterwards in 1080 ; and on his letters to
' It must be remarked, that Bossuet and the majority of French authors
readily admit our moderate explanation of the most eminent authoi-s of the
eleventh aud twelfth centuries. (Defens. Declar. lib. ii. cap. xxviii. xxix. ;
lib. iii. cap. xiii.-xviii.) Gregory VTI. is the only author of this period whom
he interprets as claiming a direct or indirect ])0\ver by divine institution.
Mamachi, I'ianchi, and many advocates of this opinion, endeavour, but with-
out effect, in our opinion, to interpret according to their own system the
authors whom we interpret in the sense of the directive power. (Mamachi,
Origines et Antiquit. Christ, vul. iv. pp. 171, 251.)
^ This is the common opinion of French authors. See, among others, Nai.
Alexandre, Di.ssert. '2, in Hist. Ecul. 8a?c. xi. art. i.\. ; Bossuet, Defens. Declar.
lib. i. sect. i. cap. vii.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 201
Herman, bishop 'of Metz, in answer to the question which that
prelate had addressed to him regarding this sentence.^ But if
these documents be examined attentively and dispassionately,
no expression will be found in them which may not, and ought
not to be, interpreted in the moderate sense for which we are
contending.
191. Explaiiation of the Two Sentences of Deposition issued against the Emperor
Henry IV.
In the two sentences pronounced against the emperor, the
pope grounding himself on the divine power of binding and
loosing, excommunicates that prince, and " absolves all Chris-
tians from the oath of allegiance which they have taken or may
take to him." 2 These words, it must be confessed, seem at
' We omit the twenty-seven maxims or sentences, intituled Dictatus Papse,
attributed to Gregory VII. by some modern authors. (Labbe, Concil. torn. x.
pp. 110, 111. Baronii Annales, ann. 1076, n. 31.) These maxims are gene-
rally considered apocryphal ; and moreover, they contain nothing on our subject
that may not easily be explained by the observations which we are about to
offer on the authentic writings of Gregory VII. On this subject, consult Fleury,
Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ixiii. n. 11 ; Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. iii. cap. v. ;
Christ. Lupus, Canones et Decreta, vol. iv. p. 338, &c. ; Nat. Alexandre,
Dissert. 3, in Hist. Eccl. sajc. xi. ; D. Ceillier, Hist, des Auteurs Eccl. vol. xx.
p. 659 ; Voigt, Hi.st. de Greg. VII. book viii. ann. 1076, p. 380.
Neither do we speak here of the censures passed on Gregory VII. and his
successors, with regard to the rights of sovereignty which they attributed to
themselves over many states. On this point, there cannot be any pretence for
charging the popes with claiming the divine right ; for they never pretended
that such rights of sovereignty were founded on divine institution. Gre-
gory VII. in particular never assigns to them any other title than ancient custom,
or the titles preserved, in his time, in the archives of the Koman Church. On
this latter point we give more ample details in the next article.
2 The following are the terms of the first sentence, pronounced in 1076 : —
" Beate Petre, apostolorum princeps ; . . . credo qufid mihi, tua, gratia, est
potcstas a Deo data ligandi atque solvendi in ccelo et in terra. Hue itaque
fiducia fretus, pro Ecclesise tuie honore et defensione, ex parte omnipotentis
Dei Patris, et Filii, et Spiritfts sancti, per tuam potestatem et auctoritatem,
Henrico regi, filio Henrici imperatoris, qui contra tuam Ecclesiam inaudita
superbia insun-exit, totius regni Teutonicorum et Itahfe gubernacula contra-
dico [i. e. adimol ; et omnes Christianas a vinculo juramenti, quod sihi fecere vcl
facient, absolvo ; et ut nuUus ei sicut regi serviat, interdico." — Labbe, Concil.
tom. x. p. 356.
In the second sentence, pronounced in 1080, the pope at first sums up at
length the principal crimes committed by Henry, and then proceeds as follows :
— " Quapropter, confidens de judicio et misericordia Dei, ejusque piissimiE ma-
tris semper virginis Marise, fultus vestra auctoritate [auctoritate scilicet bea-
torum Petri et Paidi, quos Gregorius hie alloquitur], ssepe nominatum Hen-
ricum, quem regem dicunt, omnesque fautores ejus, excommimicationi subjicio,
et anathematis vinculis alligo ; et iterum regnura Teutonicorum et Ttalise, ex
parte Dei oranipotcntis ct vtstrd, interdicens ei, omneni potestatem ct dignitatem
illi regiam toUo ; et ut uullus Chriatianorum ei sicut regi obediat, interdico ;
202 POWER OF TUE POPE [PART II.
first sight to imply, that Gregory VII. consiJered the divine
power of binding and loosing, the sole grounds of that power
which he attributes to himself of deposing the emperor.^ But
on a closer examination of the matter, it will be seen that his
words admit a sense entirely different, and that he could appeal
to the divine power of binding and loosing without regarding it
as the sole foundation of the naiht which he claimed for himself
of deposing the emperor.
To prove our assertion, we need but state again the incon-
testable fact, evidently proved by all contemporary history, that
in the time of Gregory VII., and for a considerable period before,
an emperor persisting obstinately under excommunication during
an entire year, without taking any measures to make satisfaction
to the Church, forfeited his throne by the laws of the empire.*
At a time when the laws of the empire annexed this terrible
effect to excommunication, it is manifest, that the sentence by
which the pope excommunicated and deposed the emperor was
founded both on the divine law and on human law. It was
founded on divine right, not only inasmuch as it excommuni-
cated the emperor, but also because it instructed the conscience
of his subjects on the extent and limits of their obligations,
arising from the oath of allegiance which they had taken to him.
It was founded also on human law, in so far as it declared the
prince deprived of his rights, in punishment of his obstinately
omnesque qui ei juraverunt vel jurabunt de regni dominatione, h, juramenti
promissione absolve." — Labbe, Concil. torn. x. p. 384. See also Fleury, Hist.
Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ixii. n. 29 ; book Ixiii. n. 1 ; Voigt, Hist, de Gr^g. VII.
pp. 378, 525, &c.
There is a slight difference between the first sentence, which was issued in
1076, and the second, issued in 1080. In the first, deposition is announced
before excommunication ; in the second, on the contrary, the excommunication
precedes the deposition. The latter form is, no doubt, the more exact ; for
Gregory intended to depose the emperor by excommunication ; but the in-
formality of the first sentence is the less important, as Gregory did not intend
by it to depose Henry, but merely to threaten deposition in the event of his
obstinately refusing to amend (supra, ch. ii. n. 95, &c.).
' This is supposed by all the modern authors who charge Gregory VTI. with
exorbitant pretensions in temporal matters. See especially Bo&suet, Defens.
Declar. lib. i. sect. i. cap. vii. ; lib. iii. cap. iii. &c. ; Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol.
xiii. 3rd Discourse, n. 18.
^ The details which we have given in the preceding cha))ter (n. 95, &c.) from
contemporary authors, on the contest between Gregory VII. and Henry IV.,
clearly prove this important fact, which, indeed, is also generally admitted by
modern authors.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 203
remaining under excommunication. To pronounce this deposi-
tion, the pope had no necessity of attributing to himself any
power of jurisdiction, direct or indirect, over temporal things,
by divine institution ; the directive power already explained in
the commencement of this chapter was enough for the purpose.
We can thus easily comprehend why the pope's sentence
mentioned only the divine right, or the power of binding and
loosing given by Jesus Christ to the Church and to the successor
of St. Peter ; while it does not allude to the ancient laws of
the empire, on which the sentence, so far as it deposed the
emperor, was grounded. In truth, the sentence, considered as
to its principal, direct, and immediate object, was grounded on
the divine right ; for the deposition was not effected except
through excommunication, from which it followed naturally
according to the laws of the empire. Neither in the eccle-
siastical nor in the civil tribunals does the judge consider
himself always bound to state in detail the grounds of his
sentence ; he frequently mentions only the principal ones ; and
the omission of the others is very natural when they are suffi-
ciently known by the universal custom and belief; as were the
laws of the empire at this period, which declared the emperor
deposed if he persisted obstinately under excommunication
during a year. Moreover, if Gregory VII. omits this point in
his sentence, he asserts, or at least insinuates it clearly enough,
in the letter which he wrote to the German lords, on the motives
of his proceeding. " Being deeply affected with grief," he says,
" we wrote again to Henry exhorting him to repent ; and we
sent to him three pious men, his own subjects, to admonish him
privately to do penance for his numerous crimes, for which he
deserved to be not only excommunicated, but even deprived of
the royal dignity, according to the laws of God and man."^
These words prove that, in deposing the emperor, Gregory VII.
' "Qua de re, gravi dolore percussi, , . . misimus ad eum tres religiosos
viros, suos utique fideles, per quos eum secreto monuimus, ut pcBnitentiam
ageret de sceleribus suis, quae quidem horrenda dictu sunt, pluribus autem
nota, et in multis partibus divulgata : propter quse eum excommunicari, non
soltim usque ad dignam satisfactionem, sed ab omni honore regni, absque spe
recuperationis, debere destitui, divinarum ct humanarum Icgum hstatur aucto-
ritas." — Paiil Bemiied, Vita Greg. VII. Ingolstadii, 1610, 4to. cap. Ixxviii.
(Muratori, Her. Ital. Script, tom. iii. part, i, p. 337). See also the authors
cited above, n. 95.
204! POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
did not mean to rest his proceeding on the divine right solely,
but on laws human and divine, as we have already explained.
192. Explanation of his Letters to Herman, Bishop of Metz.
His letters to Herman, bishop of Metz, may also be explained
in the same way.* Some of Henry's partisans, to elude the
sentence pronounced against him by the pope, went so far as to
pretend that a sovereign could not be excommunicated.^ Embar-
rassed by their objections, the bishop of Metz proposed it to Gre-
gory himself, who, as Fleury remarks, "found it very easy to prove
that the power of binding and loosing was given to the apostles
generally, without excepting any person ; and that it included
princes as well as others." ' Tliis is really the subject of the
letters of Gregory VII. to Herman, and especially of the first.*
To answer the main question in these letters, he cites, first, the
example of Thcodosius, and of some other excommunicated
sovereigns ; and thus proves the superiority of the spiritual
over the temporal power, according to the institution of Jesus
Christ himself. He proves this superiority, not only by the
words of our Saviour giving to St. Peter the power of binding
and loosing ; but also by the constant doctrine of tradition,
binding all the faithful, and princes themselves, to respect the
authority of the successor of St. Peter. In his second letter to
' Greg. VII. EpistoljB ad Herimannum Episcopum Metensem, Epist. lib, iv.
epist. 2 ; lib. viii. epist. 21 (Labbe, Concil. toin. x. pp. 149, 267). Fleury,
Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ixii. n. 32. Voigt, Hist, de Gr^g. VII. book viii.
p. 390, &c. D. Ceillier, Hist, des Auteurs Ecclds. vol. xx. p. 633, &c.
^ See note 4, n. 96, ch. ii.
' Fleury, ubi supra, 3rd Discourse, n. 18.
* We have already remarked (supra, ch. ii. n. 96, note 2), that in his first
letter to Herman, Gregory VII. proposes solely to discuss the objection of
those who pretended that a king ought not to be excommunicated. In the
second, besides the first point, which is always his principal object, Gregory
also discusses the objection of those who asserted that the pope could not
absolve subjects from their oath of allegiance. Considering this double object
of the second letter, it cannot be expected that all Gregory's arguments should
apply ecjuaUy to the two points ; it is enough if each of his proofs applies to
one of these points, as Nat. Alexandre has judiciously obsei-ved (ubi supra,
art. X. 2nd paragraph). From not having observed this, Fleury and sonie
other writers criticise Gregory VII. very severely for the very inconclusive
arguments by which he proves, in his letter to Herman, the power which he
claims of deposing sovereigns. All these censures fall to the ground the nio-
meut one forms a correct notion of the principal question wliich Gregory VII.
discusses in liis letters. See, on this subject, a note by M. Jager, in the Hist,
de Gr%. VII. book viii. p. 392.
CHAP. ITI.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 205
Herman on this subject, Gregory VII. cites the doctrine, and
even the very words of Pope Gelasius, which manifestly assert
that the two powers are distinct, and both sovereign in their
own sphere.^ All this has a manifest bearing on Gregory's
object ; for the chief design which he proposed to himself in his
two letters, and especially in the fii'st, was to establish the
power of excommunicating sovereigns ; a power which had been
denied by some partisans of Henry, on account of the terrible
effects which excommunication then entailed, according to the
general belief, and especially by the laws of the empire. In
these letters, we also find, that, far from denying the principle of
the distinction and mutual independence of the two powers,
Gregory VII. expressly acknowledges it, in the very words of
Pope Gelasius, whom he cites. He only maintains that the
temporal power can be judged by the spiritual, and that sove-
reigns, like private individuals, may be excommunicated, in
punishment of certain crimes. This language supposes certainly
the directive power of the Church and of the pope in temporal
matters ; it also supposes the temporal effects which the general
belief of the day, and especially the constitutional law of the
empire, attached to excommunication ; but this by no means
implies that the Church and the pope have, by divine right, the
power of deposing sovereigns ; for, in the very letter in which
Gregory VII. claims the deposing power, he manifestly adopts,
with Pope Gelasius, the principle of the distinctive and mutual
independence of the two powers, by divine institution.
193. These Explanations confirmed by the Comrmn Consent of Contemporary
Authors.
However novel and extraordinary this explanation of St. Gre-
gory's language may appear, it is clearly confirmed by the opi-
nions of the most celebrated doctors of his time. And, supposing
even that his language appeared obscure or equivocal, it would
be most natural to explain it by the common opinion of his
contemporaries ; for nothing but the most evident proofs could
justify us in attributing to him, on so important a subject, a
singular opinion, hardly known to his contemporaries. Now,
we have already proved, that the theological opinion of the
' See supra, n. 178.
20G POWER OF TTTE POPE [PART II.
divine right of jurisdiction, direct or indirect, over temporals,
was hardly known before the pontificate of Gregory VII., and
we shall prove immediately, that until long after his time,
it did not begin to be maintained by any considerable number
of authors. Besides, it is certain that Gregory VII. never
intended to depart from the received doctrine of his day, nor to
attribute to liimself a new right over sovereigns, but simply to
exercise the right vested in him by the general opinion of his
contemporaries. The authors even who censure his conduct
boldly, acknowledge this fact expressly, and admit that the
maxims on which he founded his power over sovereigns, were
conformable " to the general belief of pious and enlightened
men." ^ It is, therefore, not only without proof, but against all
probability, that those authors attribute to him the theological
theory of the right divine, direct or indirect.
194. Doctrine of tJu Blessed Ivo of Cliartres.
The doctrine of Ivo of Chartres appears to be identical ^^th
that of Gregory VII., and may be useful to explain the true
sentiments of that pope, to whom he was very much attached."
We have already seen, that in many of his writings, and
especially in his letter to Laurent, a monk of La Charitc', the
bishop of Chartres clearly supposes the existence of the disci-
pline on the temporal effects of excommunication, even in the
case of sovereigns, in the pontificate of Gregory VII. ;' but he
supposes, at the same time, and expressly teaches, that this
discipline was not founded on the divine right alone, but on
laws human and divine : * which agrees perfectly with the
explanation just given of the language of Gregory VII.
Ivo's doctrine, in the fifth part of his Decretum, or collection
of canons, can be naturally explained in the same sense. lie
proves therein the superiority of the temporal over the spiritual
power by a long fragment of that second letter of Gregory VII.
to Herman, which we have already cited ; and in which the
testimony and the very text of Gelasius, on the distinction and
' See supra, ch. ii. n. 100, 101, 118.
^ Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. iv. cap. xiv.
^ See supra, ch. i. n. 80 ; ch. ii. n. 111.
* Ibid. ch. i. 11. SO.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 207
reciprocal inclcpcntlence of the two powers, are cited ; whence
it is manifest, that the bishop of Chartres must have admitted
on this point the doctnnes of antiquity.^
These observations may serve to explain a letter of the same
prelate to Henry I., king of England, in which many modern
writers believed they had found the theological opinion of the
divine right.- Exhorting the king of England to protect religion
and the churches of his kingdom, the prelate repeats those prin-
ciples which had been at all times admitted, on the union
desirable between the priesthood and the empire, and on the
subordination of the temporal to the spiritual power. " As
human affairs," he says, " cannot be governed except by the
union of the priesthood and the empire, I implore your excel-
lency to allow full liberty to those who announce the word of
God in your kingdom, and never to forget that the kingdoms of
this earth are subject to the kingdom of heaven, which God
hath confided to his Church ; for as the body ought to be
subject to the soul, so secular power ought to be subject to the
Church."^ Here, as in many others of his letters,^ the writer
does no more than prove the principle, — the union of the two
powers, and the subordination of the temporal to the spiritual,
in the sense of the purely directive power ; but he says not a
single word implying a jurisdiction of divine right, direct or
indirect, over temporalities.
195. Gratian's Doctnnc.
Gratian's doctrine appears precisely the same ; and whatever
objections his Decretum, or collection of canons, may be liable
to under other respects, it can easily be vindicated on this point.
For, in very many passages, it lays down the the principle of
the distinction and mutual independence of the two powers.
' Ivonis Decretum, part. v. cap, ccclxxviii.
" Mamachi, Origines et Antiquit. Christianse, torn. iv. p. 251.
' " Celsitudinem vestram obsecrando monemus, quatenus in regno vobis
commisso verbum Dei currere pennittatis, et regnum terrenum ccelesti reg-
no, quod Ecclesias commissum est, subditum esse debere semper cogitetis.
Sicut enim sensus animalis subditus debet esse rationi, ita potestas terrena
subdita esse debet ecclesiastico regimini." — Ives de Chartres, Epist. lOG (edit,
de Juret).
* Idem. Epistol. 214, 239.
208 POWER OF THE POPE [part it.
enounced in the most formal manner, and enforced by tlie rao?t
decisive testimonies of antiquity. We may mention in par-
ticular those of Pope Gelasius/ of St. Isidore of Seville," and
of Pope Nicholas I.,' who is confidently cited, even by Bossuet,
among the most unequivocal evidences of antiquity on this
subject.*
The chief ground for attributing a diflfcrcnt opinion to Gratian,
is the insertion in the second part of his Decretum, of a fragment
of Gregory's letter to Herman, which states, that Pope Zachary
"had substituted Pepin for Childeric, king of France, and
absolved the French from their oath of allegiance to the latter."
At the head of that fragment, Gratian places the following title,
which clearly shows the object which he had in view: — "The
Roman pontiif absolves even from the oath of fidelity, when he
deposes persons from their dignity." ^
It is unaccountably strange that the authors who censure
severely this language of Gratian, should allow it to pass with
impunity in Ivo of Chartres. This passage of Gregory's letter
to Herman is, in fact, inserted literally in Ivo's as well as in
Gratian's Decretum.^ The only difference in this point between
the two collections, consists in the titles placed at the head of
the fragment. In place of the title adopted by Gratian, Ivo
adopts the following : " No secular dignity, not even the
emperor's, is equal to that of a bishop ;" but, in support of that
title, Ivo, as well as Gratian, cites the authority exercised by
the Church and the pope in certain cases, in absolving subjects
from their oath of allegiance.
But what completely solves the olyection founded on this
passage against the doctrine of Gratian is, that the expressions
which he uses here, after Ivo of Chartres and Gregory VII.,
' Gratiani Decretum, part. i. Dist. 96, cap. x.
' Ibid. part. ii. causa 23, qusest. 5, cap. xx.
^ Ibid. part. i. Dist. 10, cap. viii. ; Dist. 96, cap. vi.
* Bossuet, Def. Declar. lib. i. sect. ii. cap. xxxiii. &c. xxxvi. et alibi passim.
* "A fidelitatis etiam juramento Eomanus pontifex nonnullos absolvit, ohm
aliquos h sua dignitate deponit." — Ibid. caus;1 15, rpijest. 6, cap. iii. It is
principally on this passage that Bossuet and many other French theologians
attribute to Gratian the theological theory of the right divine. — Defens. Declar.
lib. iii. cap. xiv. xv. De Hericourt, Analy.se du Dt'cret. de Gratien (p. 40),
prefixed to the Lois Ecclt^siastiques de France, P.aria, 1771, fol.
* Ivonia Decretum, part. v. cap. ccclxxviii.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 209
were used, with others equally strong, by a great number of
authors whose language appears, even to the most severe critics
on Gratian, susceptible of a very fair meaning. We have
already cited ^ the remarkable passage in which Bossuet vindi-
cates the language of the ancient authors cited by Gregory VII.,
Ivo of Chartres, and Gratian, relative to the decision of Pope
Zachary.
From these explanations it clearly follows, that Bossuet,
though denying to the pope the power of absolving subjects
from their oath of allegiance, by an act of jurisdiction, properly
so called, does not pretend to deny him the power of so doing by
a doctrinal decision, or by an act of simply directive power.
Now this is evidently sufficient to justify the language of
Gratian, as well as of the ancient authors, who, Bossuet believes,
can be understood in that sense.
196. Doctrine of Hugo de Sancto Victore.
Hugo de Sancto Victore, one of the most eminent writers of
the same century, both for the solidity of his judgment and the
variety and extent of his learning, expresses himself in the
clearest terms on this subject. We think it necessary to ascer-
tain his real sentiments accurately, because, from misapprehension
of the connection and sequel of his discourse, he has been some-
times misrepresented.- In his treatise on the Sacraments of
the New Law, he thus explains the distinction and the limits of
the two powers : " One is called temporal, the other spiritual ;
they are subdivided into different orders and different degrees ;
but each under its own head, having its own distinct principle
and end. The prince is the source of the temporal power, and the
pope of the spiritual. All that is temporal, all that regards
civil life, belongs to the royal power ; all that is spiritual or
that relates to spiritual life, belongs to the power of the pope."^
' Supra, n. 172. Bossuet's interpretation of these ancient authors is gene-
rally adopted by French authors. See, among others, Dupin, Traitd de la
Puissance Ecclesiastique, prop. 1, p. 245, &c.
* Mamachi, and some other advocates of the theological theory of the di\'ine
right, appear not to have seen the true sense of this author. (Origines et
Antiquit. vol. iv. pp. 171, 252.) Bossuet examined it more closely, and pre-
sented it in its time light. (Defens. Declar. lib. iii. cap. xvii.)
^ " Ilia potestas dicitur saecularis, ista spiritualis nominatur. In utrique
potestate diversi sunt gradus, et ordines potestatum, sub uno tamen utrinque
capite distributi, et velut ab uno principio deducti, et ad unum relati. Ter-
VOL. II. P
210 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
Here, then, are two distinct powers, each sovereign in its own
sphere, and distinguished from each other both by their peculiar
functions, and by the head on which they depend. The
author, no doubt, after having established these principles, goes
on to prove the superiority of the temporal over the spiritual
power, and teaches that the latter can appoint the former, and
judge it, if it do evil. " As much as the spiritual life is more
noble than earthly life, and the spirit than the body, so much
docs the spiritual power siu-pass in honour and dignity the
earthly or secular power ; for the spiritual power can both
establish the temporal, so as to give it birth, and judge it, if it
does evil. The spiritual power, on the contrary, has been in the
beginning established by God, who alone can judge it, if it do
evil ; as it is written : ' The spiritual man judgeth all things ;
and he himself is judged of no man.' " ^ Some modem authors
believed that, from his citing this text, he maintained the
theological theory of the divine right ; but the following part
of his discourse does not bear out that inference. " That
the spiritual power,'" he says, "is prior to the temporal and
superior in dignity, is proved clearly from the history of the
people of God in the Old Testament ; for we there see, that
God first established the priesthood, and that it afterwards
established the royal power, by order of God. Hence, in the
Christian Church also, it is the bishops that consecrate kings,
sanctifying the regal power by their benediction, and directing
it by sage counsels. If, therefore, as the apostle asserts, ' the
lesser is blessed by the greater,' it follows manifestly, that the
temporal power is inferior to the spiritual, from which it receives
a benediction," ^ Here we see the sense in which the author
rena potestas caput habet regem, spiritualis potestas summum pontificem. Ad
potestatem regis pertinent quae terrena sunt, et ad terrenani vitam facta omnia ;
ad potestatem summi pontificis pertinent quae sunt spiritualia, et vitae spirituali
attributa universa." — Hugo de St. Victor, De Sacram. lib. ii. part. ii. cap. iv.
(Oper. torn. iii. p. 607).
• " Quantb autem vita spiritualia dignior est qukm terrena, et spiritus qukm
corpus ; tant6 spiritualis potestas, terrenam sive saecularem potestatem honore
ac dignitate pnecedit. Nam spiritualis potestas terrenam potestatem, et insti-
tuere habet, ut sit, et judicare, si bona non fuerit ; ipsa verb k Deo primbm
instituta est ; et ctmi deviat, Ji solo Deo judicari potest, sicut est scriptum :
Spiritualis homo dijudicat omnia, ct i^^se a iiemine judicatur (1 Cor. ii. 15)." —
Hugo de St. Victor, ibid.
' " Qu6d autem spiritualis potestas, quantum ad divinam institutionem
CHAP. III.] OVER SOTEREIGNS. 211
had previously stated that it belongs to the spiritual power to
establish the temporal. He alludes here to the history of Saul's
appointment as king by Samuel, who had received from God an
express and extraordinary mission for that purpose ; but he does
not mean the ordinary power of the priesthood, whose functions
he had so manifestly restricted to objects of the spiritual order.
So far is he from attributing to the priesthood the ordinary
power of appointing temporal sovereig-ns, that when discussing,
a little farther on, the title on which the Church holds temporal
property, he teaches expressly, that the superiority of the
spiritual over the temporal power does not justify the former
in invading the rights of the latter. *' If the spiritual power,"
he states, " holds the fii'st rank, it yet cannot injure the other ;
no more than the temporal power can ever, without sin, usurp
what belongs to the spiritual." ^ Then discussing in how many
ways justice can be administered by the secular power, he thus
explains one of those modes : " Justice or right is determined
according to the nature of the cause ; that is, that temporal
things ought to be judged by the temporal, and spiritual thing's
by the spiritual power. The head of the temporal power is the
king or emperor, who communicates it to subordinate officers,
dukes, counts, governors, and other magistrates ; all the latter
hold their authority from the sovereign power that raised them
above other subjects." -
From these explanations we infer, that Hugo de Sancto
Victore admitted no power of divine right in the Christian
spectat, et prior sit tempore, et major dignitate, in illo antiquo veteris instru-
m^enti populo manifeste declaratur, ubl primtim k Deo sacerdotium institutum^
est, postea vero per sacerdotium, jubente Deo, regalis potestas ordinata. Unde
in Ecclesia adhuc sacerdotalis dignitas potestatem regalem consecrat, et sanc-
tificans per benedictionem, et formans per institutionem. Si ergo, ut dicit
apostolus, 5«i benedicif major est, et minor qui benedicitur (Heb. vii. 7) ; constat
absque omni dubitatione, qucjd terrena potestas, quas a spiritual! benedictionem
accipit, jure inferior existimetur." — Hugo de St. Victor, ubi supra.
' " Spiritualis siquidem potestas non ideo praesidet, ut terrenae, in suo jure,
pr«judicium faciat : sicut ipsa potestas terrena, quod spirituali debetur, num-
quam sine culpa usurpat." — Hugo de St. Victor, ibid. cap. vii. p. 608.
* " Secundilm causam justitia determinatur, ut videlicet negotia stecularia h
potestate terrena, spiritualia verb et ecclesiastica h spirituali potestate exami-
nentur. Saecularis autem potestas caput habet regem sive imperatorem, ab
illo per subjectas potestates, et duces, et comites, et prasfectos, et magistratus
alios descendens ; qui tamen omnes k prima potestate auctoritatem sumunt, in
60 quod subjectis prselati existant." — Ibid. cap. viii.
p2
212 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
Church over kings, but that of sanctifying their authority by
her blessing, and of directing it by wise counsels ; which by no
means implies a power of jurisdiction, direct or indirect, over
temporals.
197. Doctrine of St. Bernard — Seme in which he allies the Allegory of the
Two Swords.
St. Bernard, the light of the Church of France, and even
of the whole Church at this period, held the same opinions.'
At least, Bossuet and Fenelon, with whom we agree, believe
that such is the meaning of some passages in his \\Titings, which
appear, at first sight, favourable to the theological theory of the
divine right, and which have been cited as such by the advocates
of that opinion.2 We refer especially to the two passages in
which, under the allegory of the two swords which the apostles
had at the time of our Lord's passion, St. Bernard saw an
emblem of the two powers granted to the Church. The first
of these passages occurs in the fourth book De Consideratione,
in which the holy doctor urges Pope Eugenius to labour for the
reform of the people of Rome, not with the material sword,
but with the spiritual sword of the word. He there discusses
whether the material sword belongs to the Church, and in what
sense it can be said to belong to it. " Attack," he writes, " the
rebel Romans ^vith the word, and not with steel. Why do you
wish to use the sword (material), when you have been ordered
to place it in its scabbard ? Nevertheless, whoever denies that
you have that sword, has not attended suflBciently to the words
of Jesus Christ ordering St. Peter to return it to its scabbard.
This sword then is really in your possession, to be drawn by
your orders, but by another hand. If it docs not belong to you
at all, when the apostles said to Jesus Christ, ' Here are two
swords ;' he would not have said to them, ' It is enough ;' but
he would have said, ' It is too much.' The two swords, there-
fore, the spiritual and the material, belong to the Church ; she
' BoBsuet, Defens. Declar. lib. iii. cap. xv. xvi. Fenelon, De Auctoritate
Summi Pontificis, cap. xxvii. xl. xlii. pp. 335, 338, 397. Fleury, Hist. Eccl.
vol. xiv. book Ixix. n. 14, 60. Pey, De I'Autorit^ des Deux Puissances, vol. i.
p. 124.
■^ Bianchi, Delia Potest^ e della Politia della Chiesa, vol. ii. book v. § 12.
Maraachi, Originea et Antiquit, Christ, vol. iv. p. 251.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 213
herself draws the spiritual by the hands of the pope ; the
material must be drawn for the defence of the Church by the
soldier, but at the pope's request, and by the order of the
prince ; and of this we have elsewhere treated." ^ These
latter words allude to a letter of the holy doctor's to Pope
Eugenius, in which he states the same thing regarding the two
swords ; which proves that he must have had the same object in
both passages. Let us see now what was his object, and what
the occasion of his speaking of the two swords in that letter to
Pope Eugenius. He is telling the pope there, as in his books
De Consideratione,^ of a great defeat of the Crusaders in Pales-
tine ; and after having narrated the fatal catastrophe, he thus
continues : " Both swords must now be drawn in the passion of
Christ, for Christ is now suffering again where he suffered before.
By whom are they to be drawn, if not by you ? Both are
Peter's; and to be drawn when necessary, one by his own hand,
the other at his request. It is time, and there is need of
drawing both now in defence of the Eastern Church." ^ These
words show clearly the sense in which St. Bernard claims the
material sword for the Church ; it is in this sense solely that
the prince is sometimes bound to employ it, under the direction
and by the advice of the pope, as happened in the Crusades ;
St. Bernard's idea, therefore, is, that in certain cases, it is the
pope's right and duty, by advice and exJiortation, to urge princes
to take up arms, but that the prince alone can give orders to
that effect ; whence, in the opinion of St. Bernard, the material
1 " Aggredere eos {Romanos contumaces), sed verbo, non ferro. Quid tu
denuo usurpare gladium tentes, quem semel jussus es ponere in vaginam?
Quem tamen qui tuum negat, non satis mihi videtur attendere verbum Domini,
dicentis sic : Converte gladium tuum in vaginam, Tuus ergo et ipse, tuo for-
sitan nutu, etsi non tua manu evaginandus. Alioquin si nullo modo ad te
pertineret et is, dicentibus apostolis : Ecce gladii duo hic, non respondisset
Dominus, Satis est; sed, Nirais est. Uterque ergo Ecclesiae, et spiritualis
scilicet gladius, et materialis ; sed is quidem pro Ecclesia, ille verb et ab
EcclesiS, exerendus ; ille sacerdotis, is militis manu, sed sanfe ad nutum sacer-
dotis, et jussum imperatoris ; et de hoc alias (egimus)." — S. Bernard. De
Consider, lib. iv. cap. iii. (Oper. tom. i. p. 438).
2 Ibid. lib. ii.
3 " Exerendus nunc uterque gladius in passione Domini, Christo denuo
patiente, ubi et altera vice passus est. Per quem autem, nisi per vos ? Petri
uterque est : alter suo nutu, alter sua manu, quoties necesse est, evaginandus.
, . . Tempus et opus esse existimo ambos educi, in defensionem Orientalis
Ecclesiae." — S. Bernard. Epist. 256, ad Eugenium Pontif. (ibid. p. 257).
214 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
sword, which belongs properly to the prince, belongs also, in a
certain sense, to the pope, because a religious prince will wil-
lingly take up arms in defence of the cause of God and the
Church, at the request of the pope.^ This, no doubt, clearly
implies the directive power of the Church in temporal matters,
but not a power of jurisdiction, which St. Bernard attributes
exclusively to the prince, by reserving to him the right of giving
orders on this matter.
198. 1)1 what Sense he attributes to the Pope the Right of disposing of Kingdom*
ami of £mpircs.
Tlie same explanation applies to another passage of St. Ber-
nard, which might be plausibly objected to us, though it has not
been noticed by many defenders of the indirect power.^ Having
heard that the cardinals had elected as pope, Eugenius III., who
had formerly been his disciple at Clairvaux, he expresses his
surprise in the following terms : " May God pardon you : what
have you done ? you have drawn a man from the tomb, and
cast into the turmoil of affairs one whose great ^ish was
to avoid them. "Was there, then, no person among yourselves
whose wisdom and experience would be more adapted for so
great a dignity ? "Was it not ridiculous to select a poor creature,
covered with rags, to preside over princes, to command bishops,
to dispose of kingdoms and empires ?" ^ These words can be
easily explained by the principles developed in the other extracts
from St. Bernard which we have cited. For, as the pope can
in a certain sense command the use of the material sword, by
his ad\ace and exhortation, so can he, in the same sense, dispose
of kingdoms and empires, by announcing to princes and people
' Fleury adi^pts this explanation of St. Bernard's text, Hist. Eccl. ubi supra,
n. 60, last paragraph.
* S. Bernard. Epistol. 237, ad Cardinales. Bianchi (ubi supra, n. 3) was the
first that endeavoured to prove the indirect power from tliese word.s. The
abbe Leroy, in a note on ch. xv. lib. iii. Defens. Declarat., undertook to solve
the objection that might be founded on it. See edit, of 1745.
3 " Parcat vobis Deus ; quid fecistis ? sepultum hominem revocastis ad
homines ; fugitantem curas et turbas curis denut) implicuistis, et immiscuistis
turbia. . . . Sic non er.it inter vos sapiens et exercitatus, cui potiiis ista con-
venirent? Ridiculum profectb videtur pannosum homuncionem assumi, ad
praesidendum principibus, ad imperandum episcopis, acl regna et imperia dis-
poncnda." — S. Bernard. Epist. 237, ubi supra. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiv.
book Ixix. n. 8. Hist, de I'Eglise Gall. vol. ix. p. 119.
CHAP. ITI.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 215
the obligations arising from their oaths and reciprocal engage-
ments ; and such language could have been used in St Bernard's
time with the greater propriety, as the laws of the empire and of
other states attached to excommunication the penalty of deposi-
tion. This legislation once established, it naturally followed,
that the pope could, in certain cases, dispose of kingdoms and
empires by excommunication, as we have already explained,
when speaking of the sentence of Gregory VII. against the
emperor Henry IV.^
199. Different Interpretatioiis of the Allegory of the Two Swords in the Authors
of tJds Period.
The same principles may explain the language of a great
number of contemporary authors, who, like St. Bernard, used
the allegory of the two swords to express the union of the two
powers in the hands of the Church and of the pope. It is true,
that some of them carried the allegory so far as to assert that
the two powers had been given directly to the Church, and that
she, not being able to use the material sword in person, should
intrust it to princes, to use it conformably to the order of God ;
and should deprive them of it, if they used it against that
order.2 But most of the authors who used this allegory of the
two swords, can easily be explained in the sense of a purely
directive power of the Church in temporal matters.
200. Seme in which it is used by Geoff roy of Vend6me.
Such is certainly the meaning of Geoffrey of Vendome, a
contemporary of Ivo of Chartres, and who is generally supposed
to have been the first that used the allegory of the two swords to
express the distinction of the two powers.^ The folloAnng are the
exact words of this author, in his fourth treatise on the Inves-
' See supi-a, n. 191,
^ John of Salisbury, bishop of Chartres in the twelfth century, appears to
have been the first author that maintained that opinion. See supra, note,
n. 189.
' Bossuet supposes that St, Bernard was the first that used the allegory of
the two swords on this subject. (Defens. Declar. lib. i. sect. ii. cap. xxxvii.
p. 392.) The abbe Leroy has already detected that mistake. (Note on ch. xvi.
of book iii.) Fleury had also remarked long before, that this allegoi-y first
occurred in the writings of Geofi^roy of Vendome. (Fleury, Hist, Eccl. vol. xiv.
p. 301 ; vol. xvii. p. 41.)
f)
16 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
titures : " Jesus Christ willed that the spiritual and the
material sword should "he employed in defence of the Church.
If one of them hlunts the other, it is contrary to his wish ;
this it is that banishes justice from the empire, and peace from
the Church ; hence flow scandals and schisms ; and, conse-
quently, the loss both of souls and of bodies ; and while the
priesthood and the empire are at war against each other, both
are exposed to the greatest perils." ^ Here we find the author
only enforcing the principles universally admitted on the concord
of the two powers, and on the necessity of employing the tem-
poral power also for the good of religion. In the course of the
same work, no doubt, when representing tlie evils resulting
from discord between the priesthood and the empire, he mentions
the deposition of princes who had been excommunicated by the
Church. " The king," he says, " is deprived both of ecclesias-
tical communion, and of his royal dignity."* These latter
expressions, however, by no means imply the theological
theory of the right divine ; they merely suppose, what every
one knew, that the general belief and custom of the day
attached the penalty of deposition, in certain cases, to excom-
munication.
201. And hy Hildehert, Bisltop of Mans, and the Majonty of Ancient Authors.
About the same period we find the allegory of the two swords
used by Hildebert, bishop of Mans, in a letter from the prison,
in which he was detained by the Count du Perche. The letter
was addressed to Serlon, bishop of Seez, requesting him to
excommunicate the count, and compel him to restore the writer
to liberty. "You know," it states, "that at the last supper
there were two swords in the hands of the apostles ; and most
appropriately too ; for these two swords are still possessed by
members of the body of Jesus Christ, the king and the bishop
' " Voluit bonus Dominus et magister noster Christus, spiritualem gladium
et materialem esse in defensione Ecclesise. Qu6d si alter ab altero retunditur,
hoc fit contra illius voluntatem. Hac occaaione, de repno ju.stitia tollitur, et
l>ax de Ecclesia ; scandala suscitantur et schismata ; et fit animanim perditio
simul et corporuni. Et dum regnum et sacerdotiuni ununi ab altero inipu-
gnatur, periclitatur utrumqiie." — Geoffroy de Vendome, Opuscul. iv. (Bibliotb.
Patrum, torn. xxi. p. 61, col. 2, H). Fleury, ubi supra.
^ " Rex sacvosancta commuuione pariter et regiS, dignittite privatur." — •
Geoffrey de Venddme, ubi supra.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 217
beinsc botli members of that divine head. You know wbat the
bishop's sword is, and the king's. The latter is the judgment
of the palace ; the former, the penalties of ecclesiastical law.
If the king's sword delivered me, I would not appeal for help to
the bishop." ^ Now this whole passage can be perfectly recon-
ciled with the distinction and mutual independence of the two
powers ; Hildebert only proves that there are two swords, or
two distinct powers ; that both belong to members of the Church,
and that, in certain cases, the sword of the king is bound to
succour the Church ; but no part of the letter justifies the belief
that he held the theological theory of the divine right, or even
that he inclined to that opinion.
It could be easily shown that most of the authors who used
this allegory of the two swords, understood it in the moderate
sense just explained. This is certainly its meaning in all the
decrees issued by the Holy See, which we shall examine in
another place.^ The examples already cited are, however,
abundantly sufficient to show how groundless was the general
and unmitigated censure pronounced by Fleury and other
modern writers on the application of this allegory by all the
authors of the middle ages.^ One should think that Fleury
ought to have been more cautious on this matter, for in many
passages in his history he does not presume to censure the
application of that allegory by St. Bernard, and he even adopts
plainly enough the moderate interpretation of the saint's words,
approved by Bossuet."*
' " Duos in ccEna (nosti) fuisse gladios ; . . . . Apte profect5 inventus est
uterque apud discipulos Christi, quia adhuc uterque ostenditur in membris
corporis Christi. Membrum enim Cliristi, rex : niembrum Christi, sacerdos.
Scienti loquor ; nosti gladium regis, nosti gladium sacerdotis. Gladius regis,
censura curiae ; gladius sacerdotis, ecclesiasticse rigor disciplinse. Hos Evan-
gelistam figurasse legisti, dicentem : Doniine, ecce gladii duo hlc. Si esset qui
in gladio regni liberaret me, non peteretur duci gladius sacerdotii propter
me." — Hildeberti Epist. 40, ad Herlonem, Sagiensem Episc. (Biblioth. PP.
torn. xxi. p. 136). Hildeberti Opera, Epistol. lib. ii. epist. 18.
"^ See, a little farther on, an inquiry into the doctrine of Innocent III. and
of Boniface VIII. on this subject.
^ Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xvii. 5th Discourse, n. 12.
* Ibid. vol. xiv. book Ixix. n. Ii, 60.
218 POWER OF THE t»OPE [PART 11.
§ 2. Discussion of the principal acts and decrees of Councils
a7id Popes, cited iii support of the theological opinion of the
divine right.
202. Tins Discttsston, though very useful for our Purpose, is not indispemahle.
The most conclusive argument against that system which
represents the theological theory of the divine right as the
foundation of the power exercised by popes and councils in the
middle ages, is that this opinion was never taught nor supposed,
much less defined as an article of faith, by councils or popes.
The language of Gregory VII., vrc have already proved, can
and must be understood in quite a different sense. The same,
we believe, may be said of the councils and popes after
Gregory VII., even of those who seemed to have given the
greatest stretch to their authority in temporal matters.
But before we enter on the detailed inquiry necessary to
establish this latter point, we must remark that it is by no
means necessary for our purpose, and that our opinion is suffi-
ciently proved by the preceding observations, though we should
fail in fully vindicating the language of all the councils, and of
all the popes after the time of Gregory VII. For, even admit-
ting that many of these councils or popes insinuated or supposed
in their decrees the theological theory of the divine right, the
fact still remains untouched, that during the pontificate of
Gregory VII. that opinion was either unknown or adopted only
by a few ; and that it was not until a much later period that
this opinion began to spread, or at least to be maintained by a
considerable number of writers ; finally, that Gregory VII. him-
self never taught or even supposed it ; the extraordinary power,
therefore, which the Holy See attributed to itself over sovereigns
from that period, could not be gTounded on the theological
opinion of the divine right. If the popes and councils, after
the pontificate of Gregory VII., have sometimes insinuated or
supposed that opinion, the most that can thence be inferred is,
that they admitted the notions of their time on the origin and
titles of the extraordinary power which they possessed ; and that,
in \indicating a power sanctioned by universal consent, and
other solid arguments, they sometimes introduced a principle
liable to objection. Nevertheless, it may be asserted confidently,
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 219
that no popes or councils, after the pontificate of Gregory VII.,
ever taught or supposed in their solemn acts or decrees, this
theological theory of the divine right ; and that their language,
as weU as his, admits an entirely diiferent interpretation.^ A
detailed examination of all the testimonies and of all the facts
that might be objected to our opinion, would lead us far beyond
our limits ; we shall discuss those only which seem most plausible,
and the refutation of which will supply general principles for
solving all the others.
203. Pretended Donation of Ireland to the King of England hy Adnan IV.
Many modern writers have asserted that Adrian IV., not con-
tent with attributing to himself the right of judging sovereigns,
had also attributed to himself the right of disposing of states with
absolute control, for the greater good of religion.^ It was by
virtue of this pretended right, if we believe these authors, that
Adrian IV. granted Ireland to Henry II., king of England, in
1156, "to subject it to the laws of Christianity, saving, how-
ever, the right to the Peter pence, which were to be paid every
year by each house." ^
The letter of Adrian IV., for which he is charged with this
extraordinary assumption, makes no such claim.^ He certainly
assumes in the letter as a certain fact, acknowledged by the
kino- of Eno-land himself, " that Ireland, and all the islands
' However great the respect which we had from the beginning for the au-
thority of Fenelon, who explains by the directive power all the decrees of
popes and councils on this subject, the dLEBculties of his theory appeared so
great that we at first hesitated to adopt it absolutely. (See first edition of this
Inquiiy, p. 303.) But on more mature reflection we have adopted it. We
think, "moreover, that it may be applied even to many of the ancient theolo-
gians, who are generally considered advocates of the theological opinion of the
divine right. See, on this subject, No. 8, Confirmatory Evidence, at the close
of this volume.
* Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. i. cap. ii. ; lib. iii. cap. xviii. pp. 209, 653.
Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xv. book Ixx. n. 16.
3 Epist. Adriani IV. ad Henricum II. (Labbe, Concil. torn. x. p. 1143).
■• Bianchi, Delia Potestk e della Politia della Chiesa, vol. ii. book v. § 14,
n. 10. We must remark, that M. Augustin Thierry, who cites all this letter,
changes the order of the sentences in such a manner as to misrepresent totally
the context, and the mind of Adrian IV. By the aid of such inversions, an
author can be made to say directly the contraiy of what he means. See Au-
gustin Thierry, Hist, de la Conquete d'Angleterre par les Normands, vol. iii.
ann. 1156. (See Translator's Appendix, on this bull of Adrian, at the close of
this volume.)
220 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
enlightened by the Christian faith, belong to the jurisdiction of
St. Peter, and of the holy Roman Church : ' ad jus beati Petri
et sacrosanctaB RomansB Ecclesia? pertinere.' " But what juris-
diction does the pope mean here ? Is it spiritual jurisdiction or
temporal ? Most certainly the former, as manifestly appears
from the following part of the letter ; for, immediately after
the words cited, it recites that, the king of England having
formed the design of conquering Ireland, and of maintaining
there the rights of the churches, the pope praises and approves
the project, for the good of religion and the sanctification of
souls ; saving the rights of the churches and the Peter pence,
which the inhabitants used to pay to the Holy See.' Here
there is not a single word that supposes or authorizes the extra-
vagant right of disposing, with absolute control, of Ireland,
and of all the islands enlightened by the light of the Gospel.
The only right which the pope attributes to himself over Ireland
is the right to the Peter pence, which the Irish were in the
habit of paying annually to the Roman Church, before the
conquest of their country by the English.
204, Beo-ees of the Third and FourtJi Councih of Lateran on Temporal Matters,
sanctioned by Sorereijns.
The third and fourth councils of Lateran, which were held
in 1179 and 1215, decree against the Albigenses, and many
other heretics of that period, temporal penalties, among which
were the forfeiture of all civil rights and temporal dignities, by
lords who either embraced or favoured heresy.-
' " Significasti nobis, fill in Christo carissime, te Hibemiae insulam, ad sub-
dendum ilium populum legibus, et vitionun plantaria inde extirpanda, velle
intrare, et de singulis domibus annuam unius denarii beato Petro velle solvere
pensionem, et jura ecclesianim illius terrse illibata et Integra conservare. . . .
Nob itaque pium et laudabile desiderium tuum cum &vore congruo prose-
quentes, et petitioni tuae benignum impendentes assensura, gratum et accep-
tum habemus ut, pro dilatandis Ecclesiae tenninis, pro vitiorum restringendo
decursu, pro corrigendis moribuSj et virtutibus inferendis, pro Christianae
religionis augmento, insulam illam ingrediaris, et quod ad honorem Dei et
salutem illius terrse spectaverit, exequaris ; et illius terrae populus honorific^
te recipiat, et sicut Dominum veneretur ; jure nimirum ecclesiastico illibato et
integro permauente, et salvS beato Petro et sacrosanctae Romanse Ecclesiae, de
singulis domibus, annua unius denarii pensione. Si ergo quod conccpisti animo,
effectii diLceris complendum, stude gentem illam bonis moribus informare, etc." —
Adriani Epist. 1, ad Henric. II. ubi supra.
* We have cited elsewhere the texts of these councils, ch. ii. n. 88, &c.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOYEREIGXS. 221
But the objections winch might be proposed against us from
those decrees have been fully solved by the explanations already
given in a preceding chapter. From these explanations it
follows, that the councils never assumed to decree those temporal
penalties by their own authority, but v^iih the consent and co-
operation of the Christian princes, who assisted at these councils
either in person or by their ambassadors. It must be remem-
bered, moreover, that when these councils were held, the temporal
penalties which they enacted against heresy had been already
established by universal custom, and applied even to sovereigns
themselves, by the constitutional laws of their states ; ^ so that,
in truth, these councils merely confirmed by their authority a
point of law already long established and recognised in Catholic
Europe.
205. Doctrine of Innocent III. — In what Sense Tie maiTUains the Pre-emineTice of
the Spiritual over the Tern£j(/ral Power.
Many letters of Innocent III., some of which were inserted
in the canon law, have been interpreted as asserting the theo-
logical theory of the di"^dne right ; but AT. de Marca, and even
Bossuet, with whom we agree, contend that these letters admit
quite a different meaning, and that every position of Innocent III.
can be fully reconciled with the principle of the distinction and
mutual independence of the two powers.^
The first letter which we must discuss, contains a discourse
pronounced by the pope in full consistor}', in presence of the
ambassadors of Philip of Swabia (then a can'Iidate for the
empire), who had sent them to Rome to support his pretensions
against those of Otho, duke of Saxony.^ To dispose men to
receive his decision with respect, the pope proves, by many
' Proofe of this fcict shall be given in the following article.
* Neither M. de IStarca nor Bossuet speaks of the first of these three letters ;
nor ■would we have mentioned it at all, had it not been so confidently cited by
Fleury, as favouring the theologic-al theory of the divine right. M. de Marca
defends the second letter, but thinks that the third does not admit of a satis-
factory explanation. Bossuet discusses none except the third, which is in
reality more difficult than the others ; and he manifestly inclines to interpret it
conformably to the doctrine of antiquity on the distinction and mutual inde-
pKindence of the two powers.
' Eesponsio Domini Papse, facta NuntUs Philippi in Consistorio (vol. i.
Baluze, Epistol. Innocent. III. pp. 547, 692). See supra (ch. ii. n. 154, p. 496)
some details on this point. See aUo Hurter, Hist, d'limooent III. vol. i. p. 2'6Q,
222 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
passages from Scripture, the pre-eminence of the spiritual over
the temporal power. " The power of princes," he says, " ia
exercised on earth, that of the priesthood in heaven ; the former
govern the body, the latter the soul. Hence the priesthood is
as much above royalty, as the body is above the soul. The
power of every prince is confined to his province, and that
of every king to his kingdom ; but Peter surpasses them all,
by the extent and plenitude of his power, because he is the
vicar of Him ' to whom belongs the universe, and all that it
contains ; the earth, and all its inhabitants.' " '
It is strange that Floury and other historians could have
cited these words so confidently, as confounding the two powers,
and investing the priesthood with temporal authority ; though
the pope so clearly distingiiishes the two powers by saying that
princes have power on earth and over bodies, but that the priest
has power in heaven and over souls. He adds, it is true, that
Peter surpasses all princes and kings by the extent and plenitude
of his power ; but it is endent, from the context, that he means
the extent of the spiritual jurisdiction of Peter, which includes
the whole world. Fleury could not take Innocent's words in
any other meaning, without adding to them an explanation
entirely opposed to the natural meaning of the text.* This
interpretation is the more unjustifiable because, at the close of
his discourse, the pope himself grounds his rights in the election
of an emperor, not on the divine right, but solely on the origin
of the empire itself, and the constant usage which reserved to
' " Principibus datur potestas in terns, sacerdotibus autera potestas tribuitur
et in ca?lis ; illis solummodo super corpora, istis etiam snper animas. Unde
quantb dignior est aninia corpora, tantb dignius est sacerdotium qukm sit
regnum. . . . Singuli (principes) singular habent pro^-incias, et singuli reges,
singula regiia ; sed Petrus, sicut plenitudine, sic et latitudine, praeeminet uni-
versis ; quia vicarius est ejus, cujus est terra et jilenitudo ejus, orbis tei'varum et
imiversi qui hahitatit in ed." — Baluze, ubi supra, p, 548, col, 1.
" Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xvi. book Ixxv. n. 32.
Berault-Bercastel, in his Hist, de I'Eglitie (book xxxviii. edit. Toulouse, 1809,
vol. vi. p. 409), repeats substantially, though in a different form, this interpreta-
tion of Fleury's. M. Henrion, in his new edition of Bercastel, suppre.sses these
interpretations, and explains Innocent's language by the jurisprudence of the
time, according to which he considered himself a legitimate and supreme judge
of political questions of the first order. (Paris edit. 1841, vol. v. p. 208.) We
admit fully the existence of this ancient jurisprudence ; but it seems to us by
no means necessary to have recourse to it for an explanation of the passage of
Innocent III., of which there ia question here.
CHAP. III.] OVEB SOVEREIGNS. 223
tlie pope the right of crowning the emperor elect. " Long
since/' he declares, " they ought to have applied to the Holy
See, which, they are aware, has the principal and definitive
right of deciding this matter ; the principal rights because the
Holy See transferred the empire from the East to the West ;
the definitive right, because the pope confers the imperial
crown.'' ^ Any obscurity in Innocent's discourse, moreover,
should be explained natm-ally by the doctrine which he expressly
professed, about the same time, in a letter to the count of Mont-
pellier, in which he acknowledges and clearly defines the dis-
tinction of the two powers, as Fleury himself admits. " It
is far from our intention," the pope states in that letter, "• to
prejudice the right of another," or to usurp a power which does
not belong to us ; for we are not ignorant of that word of Jesus
Christ in the Gospel, ' Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
and to God, the things that are God's.' ^ For the same
reason, when solicited to divide an inheritance between two
brothers, he answered them, ' Who hath appointed me judge
between you?' "*
206. Seme in which he employed the Allegory of the Two Great Lwminaries.
The second letter of Innocent, which we have to examine,
was written by him in the first year of his pontificate, to the
emperor Alexis Comnena, to exhort him to efiect the reunion
of the Greeks to the Eoman Church, and the deliverance of the
Holy Land.^ The emperor at first gave these proposals a favour-
able reception, but he soon repented of his promises ; and in a
' " Verhm ad apostolicam sedem jampridem fuerat recurrendum, ad quam
negotium istud pr-inclpaliter et Jinaliter dignoscitur pertinere ; principaliter,
quia ipsa transtulit imperium ab Oriente in Occidentem ; Jinaliter, quia ipsa
concedit coronam imperii." — Baluze, ubi supra, p. 549, col. 1.
^ " Non quod alieno juri prsejudicare velimus, vel piotestatem nobis indehitam
usurpare ; chm non ignoremus Christum in Evangelio respondisse : Reddite quce
sunt Ca'saris Ccesan, et quce sunt Dei Deo. Propter quod, postulatus ut hsere-
ditatem divideret inter duos, Qziis, in quit, constituit me judicerti supei- vos f —
Baluze, Epistol. Innocent. III. torn. i. p. 676, col. 1. Fleury, Hist. Eccl.
vol. xvi. book Ixxv. n. 42.
3 Matt. xxii. 21. * Luke xii. 14.
* Gesta Innocentii III. n. 62, 63 (Baluze, Epistol. Innoc. III. tom. i. p. 28,
&c.). Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xvi. 4th Discourse, n. 7 ; book Ixxv. n. 14 ;
vol. xvii. 5th Discourse, n. 12. D. Ceillier, Hist, des Auteurs Eccles. vol. xxiii.
p. 432. De Marca, De Concordia, lib. ii. cap. i. n. 8.
224 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
letter which he wrote to evade them, he maintained that the
empire was superior to the priesthood. The pope in his reply
refutes this paradox at great length, as being evidently contrary
to the constant doctrine of tradition ; and concludes the dis-
cussion in the following terms : " You should know, moreover,
that God hath made two great lights in the heavens ; the
greater to rule the day, and the lesser to rule the night. Heaven,
in this passage, represents the Church ; the day means spiritual
things, and the night corporal things. God has, therefore,
placed in the heavens tAvo great lights, that is to say, two great
dignities, — the pontifical and the royal dignity ; but that which
presides over the day, namely the spiritual, is greater than that
which presides over corporal things ; and as great as the differ-
ence between the sun and moon, so great also that between
prince and pontiff." ^ The sole object of this allegory, as the
sequel manifestly shows, is to prove the superiority of the
spiritual over the temporal power ; such is this superiority,
according to Innocent III., that the temporal power derives all
its splendour from the spiritual, as the moon borrows its light
from the sun ; because princes receive from bishops the neces-
sary rules for living and governing well. We recognise here the
same doctrine taught long before by Pope Gelasius, and by all
antiquity, on the superiority of the spiritual as compared with
the temporal power ; but to infer from this, as some authors
have done, that in Innocent's opinion, the prince derives his
authority from the Church, or that she can take it away, if they
' " Praeterea nosse debueraa qu6d fecit Deus duo magna luminaria injlnna-
mento cceli, luminare majus et luminare minus ; luminare majus ut praesset diet,
et luminare minus ut prceesset nocti; utrumque magnum, sed alterura majns ;
quia nomine c<£li prsesignatur Ecclesia, juxta quod Veritas ait : Simile est reg-
num ccelorum homini patrifamilias, qui summo mane conduxit operarios in vineam
suam. Per diem ver6 spiritualis (potestas) accipitur ; et per noctem, carnalis,
secundtun propheticum testimonium : Dies diei eructat verbum, et nox nocti
indicat scientiam. Ad firmamentum igitur coeli, hoc est, universalis Ecclesiae,
fecit Deus duo magna lumiuai-ia, id est, duas magnas instituit dignitates, quae
sunt pontificalia auctoritas, et regalis potestas ; sed ilia quae prseest diebus, id
est, spiritualibus, major est ; quae verb carnalibus, minor est ; ut quanta est
inter solem et lunam, tanta inter pontifices et reges difiFerentia cognoscatur. " —
Decretal, lib. i. tit. xxxiii. cap. vi. (Baluze, ubi supra, n. 63, col. 2). Pope
Innocent III. uses this allegorj- in some other letters also. See, among others,
Epist. lib. i. ep. 401 ; lib. ii. ep. 296. In this last letter he uses the allegory
of the two sworda to illustrate the union which ought to exist between the two
powers.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 225
abuse it/ is manifestly stretching tlie comparison beyond the
limits required by the object and general connection of the
pope's letter. To justify such a meaning, it should be proved
that the allegory used by the pope vras understood in that com-
prehensive sense by the common usage of his day ; but so far is
this from being certain, that a contemporary of Innocent III.,
Berengose, abbot of St. Maximin of Treves, explains this same
allegory in such a ■way as to obviate its injurious application to
the authority of princes ; for, representing the two powers as
figured in the two great lights, he supposes, at the same time,
that each is sovereign in its own sphere ; and expressly states,
'" that it is not contrary to the principles of Catholic faith, nor
to those of the Christian doctrine, that for the honour both of
the empire and of the priesthood, the king should obey the
pontiff, and the pontiff should obey the king." -
207. He appoints himself Arhiter of Peace between Pldlip Augustus and
John LacMand.
Another letter of Innocent III. presents, at first sight, a
greater difficulty, but, in reality, it reduces the temporal power
of the pope to a merely directive power. The occasion and
subject of the letter were as follow : ^ John Lackland, king of
England and duke of Normandy, had assassinated and cast into
the Seine, at Eouen, in 1 202, his nephew Arthur, count of Bre-
tagne, who was disputing his claim to the crown of England.
At the news of this crime, Philip Augustus, king of France,
who was a near relative of the deceased, and feudal superior,
moreover, of the duke of Normandy, as well as of the count of
' This is Fleury's interpretation of the text ; and, starting with it, he imputes
absurd reasoning to the pope. In defence of Innocent we need only state, that
Fleury's interpretation is purely arbitrary : nor would he have proposed it so
confidently, had he known, or read attentively, the passage from M. de Marca,
which we are about reciting, and which we adopt. See the authors cited in
last page, note.
* " Sciendum est qubd nee Catholicae fidei, nee Christianse contrarium est
legi, si, ad honorem regni et sacerdotii, rex pontitici, et pontifex obediat regi."
—Berengose, De Mysterio Ligni Domini (Biblioth. Patrum, tom. xii. p. 374,
col. 2, H). This text is cited by M. de Marca, De Concordia, ubi supra.
3 Raynaldi Annales, ann. 1202, n. 25 ; ann. 1203, n. 54, &c. Spondani
Annales, ann. 1202, n. 7, 8. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xvi. book Ixxv. n. 57, &c.
D. Ceillier, Hist, des Auteurs Eccl^s. vol. xxi. p. 731. Lingard, History of
England. Hurter, Hist, d' Innocent III. vol. i. ann. 1203, pp. 595, &c. 696,
&c. Hist, de I'Eglise Gall. vol. x. ann. 1203, p. 250, &c.
VOL. II. Q
226 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
Bretagne, cited John, as his vassal, to stand his trial before the
French barons. John having refused to appear, the court of
peers pronounced him guilty of felony and treason, and con-
demned him to forfeit all the fiefs which he held in France as
vassal of the king. In execution of this sentence, Philip
immediately marched into Aquitaine, then into Normandy,
where he conquered many fortresses and cities of the king
of England. .Innocent III., grieved at this contest, which
he foresaw must prove ruinous to the prospects of the Crusade,
on which Europe was then entering, interposed his authority to
pacify the two kings, and ordered them, by his legates, to sus-
pend hostilities, to assemble the lords and bishops of the kingdom,
and to examine anew the conduct of the king of England.
208. Motives of this Conduct — TIu Pope's Vindication of it.
Such an injunction of a pope to two sovereigns appears, at the
present day, most extraordinary ; but there was nothing strange
in it at a time when the pope was invested, by the confidence
of all Christian powers, with so great an authority for the
direction of the Crusades, of which religion was the soul, and
the pope the prime mover. ^ However, the king of England,
aware that his interests required a suspension of hostilities,
appeared inclined to enter into the pope's views ; Philip, on the
contrary, was so opposed to them, that he even declared to the
legates, he was not accountable to the pope in matters that
concerned his vassals, and that the dificrences between the kings
were no concern of the pope's. On receiving this answer, the
pope wrote to the king and bishops of France, " that he never
intended to diminish or trouble in any way the king's juris-
diction, nor to attribute to himself in any case the right of
adjudicating on a fief which belonged to the king, unless he had
acquired such right by a special privilege or by custom ; but
that he intended solely to judge of sin, because he was entitled
and bound to exercise his authority in that matter over all the
faithful without exception." - Here we find the pope attributing
' See supra, ch. i. n. 51.
* " Non enim intendimus judicare de feudo, cujus ad ipsum {rcgem GaJIice)
spectat judicium, nisi fortfe juri cominuni, per speciale privilegium vel con-
trariam consuetudinem, aliquid sit detractxim ; sed decemere de peccato, cujua
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 227
to himself, not a power of jurisdiction over temporalities, but
solely a power to judge of sin, or the right of directing the
consciences of princes in temporal, as well as in other matters ;
which implies no more than a directive power, in the sense
explained in the commencement of this chapter.^
209. Injustice of tlie Censures passed on him in this Matter.
Many modern authors have imagined, it is true, that Inno-
cent's words imply a claim of intermeddling in the government
of all kingdoms, under the pretext of the sins which princes
might commit in governing them." There would be some
grounds for this imputation, had Innocent III. claimed a power
of jurisdiction, direct or indirect, over temporalities ; but an
attentive perusal of the letter proves, that he claims none but a
directive power in temporal matters ; a power, no doubt, which
may be abused, but which is essentially different from the power
of jurisdiction, which the pope certainly does not claim for
himself
The principal pretext for charging him with these extravagant
pretensions was, that, not content with admonishing as a father
the kings of England and France, he ordered them formally
to suspend hostilities, and to submit the case of the king of
England to a new inquiry. But admitting, even, that the desire
of peace between those kings had led Innocent to stretch his
authority at first beyond its proper limits, what inference can
thence be drawn against his doctrine, which manifestly expresses
no more than a purely directive power in temporal matters ? At
worst, his conduct could be charged with imprudence or pre-
cipitancy, though we are far from admitting even such censures
on a pontiff so eminent for virtue, for intelligence, and for
prudence, as Innocent III. ; on the contrary, we are convinced
that his conduct was fully justified by the circumstances in
ad DOS pertinet sine dubitatione censura, quam in quemlibet exercere possumus
et debemus." — Decretal, lib. ii. tit. i. De Judiciis, cap. xiii.
1 Bossuet manifestly inclines to this explanation in his Defens. Declar.
book iii. ch. xxii. Even Sismondi, though censuring severely the pope's
intervention between the two kings on this occasion, applauds this letter, and
considers that it atones for the extravagant pretensions which he had at first
put forward. — Sismondi, Hist, des Franjais, vol. vi. pp. 225, 226.
* Fleury, ubi supra, u. 60, versus finem. Lingard, ubi supra. De Marca,
De Concordia, lib. ii. cap. iii. n. 6, &c. ; lib. iv. cap. xiv.
q2
228 POWER OF THE POPE [part ir.
which he was placed, and on which we have often insisted in
the course of this work.^ It is a generally admitted, and indeed
notorious fact, that during the Crusades the popes were often
chosen by sovereigns themselves as guarantees of their treaties,
and arbiters of their differences ; and that in the holy wars
especially, the princes were pleased to have the popes at the
head of these expeditions, that all things might be conducted
with greater harmony, and greater respect for religion. Such a
combination of circumstances naturally entitled the pope to
interfere in many temporal concerns, with at least the tacit
consent of sovereigns themselves. Is it strange, then, that on
such an occasion, Innocent III. believed that he might assume
a tone of authority, to put an end to fatal dissensions, which
had already caused, and could not fail still more to cause, such
fricihtful evils in church and state ?
210. Wise Remonstrances of the Pope with Philip Augustus.
These views were fully laid before Philip Augustus by the
pope himself, in a letter in which he complains of that prince's
rejection of the adnce of the papal legates. " We have
deputed to you," he writes, " the abbot Casamario, with propo-
sitions of peace, hoping that this difference may terminate like
that which you had with Richard.- But judge of our astonish-
ment, to find you endeavouring to restrict the jurisdiction of
the Holy See, a jurisdiction established in spiritual matters by
the Man-God, in a manner so clear and comprehensive that it is
impossible to exaggerate it ; for plenitude admits of no increase.
You should have remembered, moreover, that the Holy See gave
to you, as to your predecessors, counsels for your greater good ;
that the chances of war are doubtful ; that we asked nothing
either disgraceful or unjust to you. "We would be a hireling
and not a true shepherd, if we could look with indifference on
churches destroyed, the servants of God troubled in their func-
tions, temples pillaged, the consecrated virgins of the Most
High dishonoured, and compelled to return to that world which
' Supra, ch. i. art. ii. n. 51, &c.
* Innocent lit. had been mediator of a peace, some years before, between
Philip Augustus and Richard, king of England, predecessor of John Lackland.
— Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xvi. book Uxv. n. 11. Daniel, Hist, de France,
vol. iv. p. 107, &c.
CHAP. III.] OYER SOVEREIGNS. 229
tliey had renounced. The Gospel orders us to be reconciled
with our brother, to hear witnesses, or to refer to the decision of
the Church. The kino; of England, vour brother in the faith,
complains that you have sinned against him ; he has admonished
you ; he has taken a great number of his barons to witness his
desire for peace ; and finding all these measures useless, he makes
his complaint to the Church. The Church has wished to show
the kindness of a father, and not the severity of a judge ; she
exhorts you to conclude a peace, or at least a truce. Xow, if
you refuse to hear the Chuix-h, ought you not to be regarded as a
heathen and a publican ? Could we remain silent ? Certainly
not. Once more we admonish vou : hearken to our counsel :
it comes from a disinterested heart. "We have charged the
archbishop of Bourges and the abbot Casamario to judge, not
the rights of the suzerain (that question belongs to yourself),
but to decide on the sin, the punishment of which belongs to
our office. If the complaint of King John be well grounded,
we shall be obliged to use the arms of ecclesiastical discipline to
compel you to desist from the war. If you slight a mother's
mildness, you must feel a father's severity. Come what will,
we fear God more than man ; we shall brave aU persecution for
justice sake ; we shall not sacrifice truth to escape any evil ;
and we shall make the abbot execute those measures which our
duty and our office require."^
211. CondiKt of Innocent III. on this Occasion vindicaied ly M. Hurter.
The circumstances in which the pope was placed being con-
sidered, this statement fully explains his conduct, and justifies
him in the estimation of all impartial persons. Hence, he has
been defended in our times by a Protestant author, whose pro-
found researches on the life and times of this pope qualify him,
in an eminent degree, for justly appreciating his conduct.
" The pope's language to the two kings," observes M. Hurter,-
" is the energetic expression of his sense of duty. The ques-
tion whether it belongs to the pope to inteifere in the concerns
of kings, is at once solved by the idea which every one forms to
' Innocent III. Epist. lib. vi. ep. 163. Hurter, Hist, d' Innocent III.
vol. i. p. 593.
* Hurter, Hist, d' Innocent III. vol. i. p. 600, &c.
230 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II
himself of the nature and limits of the influence of a divine
empire including the whole world. Who can deny, that if
a purely moral influence could always be recognised in the affairs
of nations, the interests of the people would be much better
preserved than by conferences and congresses, and exchange of
diplomatic notes, Avhich, for the most part, give scope solely to
a craft and dexterity of negotiation that never troubles itself
about moral principle ? Innocent speaks here like a man who
was superior to all parties, and who proposes in the clearest light
to each, the arguments which must make him feel more strongly
the advantages and the necessity of peace. His great object
was to make peace between the two monarchs, whose power could
most effectually contribute to the deliverance of the Holy Land.
In both his letters he enforces the necessity of that peace, and
dwells on his own duty of preventing bloodshed ; and tliough
he states that Philip is most in the wrong, though he addresses
him with greater severity, he nevertheless does not conceal
from John, that he would sustain the rights of his adversary in
proper time and place. Free from all party spirit, and steering
his coui'sc according to the light in which matters appeared to
him, he soars above the rivality of kings, and seeks only to calm
and avert it from those whom it midit involve in ruin."
o
212. Deposition of the Emperor Frederick II. in tlve First General Council
of Lyons.
The sentence of deposition pronounced in 1245, against the
emperor Frederick II., in the first general Council of Lyons,
can be explained, like that of Gregory VII. against Henry IV.,
by a purely directive power of the Church and of the pope in
temporal matters.^ The pope's sentence against Frederick, after
a long enumeration of crimes, concludes in the following terms :
" For all these excesses, and for a great many others equally
revolting, after a careful deliberation with our brethren, and
^rith the holy council, by virtue of the power of binding and
loosing which Christ has given to us in the person of St. Peter,
unworthy though we be ; we declare and pronounce, that the
said emperor, who has rendered himself so unworthy of the
' Fleury, Hist. Eccl^s. vol. xvii. book Ixxxii. n. 29. See also the authora
cited above, ch. ii. n. 86, note 1.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 231
empire, of all honour and dignity ; .... we declare and pro-
nounce him, in the name of God, bound for his sins, rejected,
and deprived of all honour and dignity ; and we hereby deprive
him of them by this sentence, absolving for ever from all their
oaths to him, those who have sworn allegiance to him." ^
213. The Sentence of Pope Innocent IV. against the Emperor explained hy the
same Principles as that of Gregory VII.
The explanation already given- of the sentence of Gregory VII.
against the emperor Henry IV., may evidently be applied to
that of Innocent IV. against the emperor Frederick II. The
divine power of binding and loosing which the pope invokes in
support of his sentence, relates solely to the power of excom-
municating obstinate sinners, and to the directive power, in the
sense explained in the commencement of this chapter. The
deposition pronounced in the same sentence, was simply a conse-
quence of excommunication, according to the general belief of
the age, founded on the ancient laws of the empire ; it was no
more than an interpretation of the oath of allegiance, given by
virtue of the said directive power. Such is the explanation of
this sentence given by the archbishop of Cambray, in his Dis-
sertation on the Authority of the Pope. " The Ultramontanes
will answer/' he says,^ " that the pope could well say, ' We
' " Nos itaque, super prseraissis et conipluribus aliis ejus nefandis excessibus,
cum fratribus nosti-is et sacro concilio deliberations praehabita diligenti, chm
Jesu Christi vices immeriti teneamus in terris, nobisque in beati Petri apostoli
persona sit dictum : Qiiodcumque ligaveris super terram, etc., memoratum prin-
cipem, qui sese imperio et regnis, omnique honore ac dignitate reddidit tam
indignum, quique, propter suas impietate?, k Deo ne regnet vel imperet est
abjectus, suis ligatum peccatis, et abjectum, omnique honore et dignitate pri-
vatum k Domino ostendimus, denuntiamus, ac nihilominus sententiando priva-
mus ; omnes qui ei juramento fidelitatis tenentur adscript), k jurameuto hujus-
modi perpetub absolventes." — Concil. Lugd. I. Sententia contra Fridericum in
Concilio lata (Labbe, Concil. tom. xi. part. i. p. 645).
^ See supra, n. 191.
' " Transalpini dicturi sunt pontifieem ita pronuntiavisse, Sententiando pri-
vamus, eo quod pontifices contendant Francum et Germanicum recens hoc
Romanum imperium, solS, pontificia auctoritate fuisse institutum, atque adeo
hoc imperium essefeudum Romance sedis. Innocentius ait, Sententiando pi-iva-
mus, in hoc scilicet, quod absolvimus omnes qui ei juramento fidelitatis tenentur
adstricti. Idem est prorsus ac si diceret : Declaramus eum, ob facinora et
impietatem, indignum esse qui gentibus Catholicis prsesit : declaramus con-
tractum ab imperatore palam violatum, jam populos imperii non adstringere ;
quandoquidem populi, non nisi pactis conditionibus, subesse et parere volunt.
In hoc, Innocentius exercet potestatem k Christo datam : Quodcumque ligaveris
232 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
deprive, by this sentence, the emperor Frederick of all honour
and of all dignity ;* because the popes maintain, that the new
empire of the Franks and Germans had been established by their
authority alone, and that it is, by the very fact, a fief of the
Holy See.' These words of Innocent IV., ' We deprive by this
sentence,' signify, ' we loose all those who are bound to him by
the oath of allegiance.' It is precisely as if he had said, We
declare him unworthy, on account of his crime, to rule a
Catholic people ; we declare that the contract which has been
openly violated by the emperor, is no longer binding on the
people of the empire ; because those people never engaged to
obey him except on certain stipulated conditions. In pronoun-
cing this sentence. Innocent IV. exercises that power which
Jesus Christ liad given to him, by the words, ' Whatsoever you
shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven ;' he exer-
cises, I say, that power, by declaring Frederick bound by his
sins, and the people freed from their oath of allegiance."
214. Why he does not mention the Laics of the Empire.
It may, perhaps, be asked, why Innocent does not appeal to
the laws of the empire, on which his sentence against the
emperor was founded ? We have anticipated this objection in
discussing the sentence of Gregory VII. against the emperor
Henry IV. We have remarked that, as the sentence of the
pope deposed the sovereign by excommunication, this latter was
the principal, direct, and immediate object of the sentence ;
and, consequently, that of which the grounds should be more
fully stated, as it was the cause of the deposition, which it then
entailed, in certain cases, by the constitution of the empire.
We added, moreover, that neither in the ecclesiastical nor in the
civil tribunals, is the judge considered bound to state in detail
the grounds of his sentence ; frequently, he states only the
principal ones. Even French authors apply this principle to the
super terram, etc. ; videlicet, ut Fridericum ligatum peccatis, et populos jura-
men to fidelitatis solutos declaret." — Fenelon, Dissert, de Auctorit. Summi
Pontificis, cap. xxxix. p. 387.
' We have seen already that the empire was not a fief of the Holy See, in
the proper and rigorous sense of that term ; but in a more general sense, "im-
plying a special dependence of the empire on the Holy See." See supra, ch. ii
n. 142, &c.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 233
sentence of Innocent IV. against Frederick ; for they admit that
it was, to a great degree, founded on the special dependence of
the empire on the Holy See, at that period, though the pope
does not expressly mention that dependence.^
215. Examination of the Bull of Boniface VIII., Unam Sanctum.
Of all the acts of the Holy See on this matter, the most cele-
brated, and beyond all question the most difficult at first sight,
is the bull of Boniface VIII., Unam Sanctam, published by that
pope in 1302, in the warm contests which he had with Philip
the Fair." It has been asserted that, in this constitution, Boni-
face VIII. carried his authority farther than any pope since the
time of Gregory VII., and attributed to himself, manifestly, the
right of disposing, as universal monarch, of all the kingdoms of
the earth.3 This interpretation of the bull Unam Sanctam is,
however, very far from being unquestionable. Fenelon explains
it as the directive power,* and such, we also believe, its real sense
must appear to all unprejudiced readers. The chief difficulty
lies in the following passage : " The gospel teaches us that there
are in the Church, and that the Church has in her power, two
swords, the spiritual and the temporal ; both are in the power of
the Church ; but the first must be drawn by the Church, and by
the arm of the sovereign pontiff; the second, for the Church,
by the arm of kings and soldiers, at the pontiff's request. The
temporal sword ought to be subject to the spiritual ; that is, the
temporal power to the spiritual, according to these words of the
Apostle: ' There is no power but from God ; and those that are,
are ordained of God :'^ now the two powers would not be well
ordained, if the temporal sword were not subject to the spiritual,
as the inferior to the superior. It cannot be denied that the
spiritual power as much surpasses the temporal in dignity, as
* Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. iv. cap. ix. Fleury, ubi supra, n. 29.
-Hist, du Difierend entre Boniface VIII. et Philippe le Bel, ann. 1302.
Raynaldi et Spondani Annales, ann. 1302. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xix. book
xc. n. 18. Hist, de I'Eglise Gall. vol. xii. ann. 1302, p. 342, &c. Daniel,
Hist, de France, vol. v. ann. 1302, p. 75. Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. iii.
cap. xxiii. &c. Fenelon, De Auctoritate Summi Pontif. cap. xxvii. De
Marca, De Concordia, lib. iv. cap. xvi.
3 Bossuet, Fleury, De Marca, ubi supra.
* Fenelon, ubi supra. ^ Piom. xiii. 1.
234 POWER OF THE POPE [PART IT.
spiritual things in general surpass the temporal. The very
origin itself of the temporal power demonstrates this ; for,
according to the testimony of truth, the spiritual has the right
of appointing the temporal power, and of judging it when it
errs ; thus also is verified in the Church and the ecclesiastical
power the oracle of Jcremias : ' Lo, I have set thee this day over
nations and over kingdoms.'' If, therefore, the temporal power
errs, it must be judged by the spiritual ; if the spiritual power
of inferior rank commit faults, it must be judged by a spiritual
power of a superior order ; but if the supreme spiritual power
pommit faults, it can be judged by God alone, and not by any
man, according to the words of the Apostle : ' The spiritual man
judgeth all things, and he himself is judged of no man.'-
This sovereign spiritual power has been given to Peter by
those words : ' Whatsoever thou shalt bind,'^ &c. ; whoever, there-
fore, resisteth this power so ordained by God, resisteth the order
of God."*
216. The strongest Expressions of tliis Bull borrowed from, St. Bernard and
Hugo de Sancto Victore.
The boldest assertions in this passage are, " that the Church
' Jer. i. 10. * 1 Cor. ii. 15. ^ Matt. xvi. 19.
* " In ecclesia ejusque potestate duos esse gladios, spiritualera videlicet et
temporalem, Evangelicis dictis instruimur. . . . Uterque est in potestate eccle-
siae, spiritualis scilicet gladius et materialis ; sed is quideni pro ecclesi^ ille
verb ab ecclesia exerendus ; ille sacerdotis, is nianu regum et militum, sed ad
nutuni et patientiam sacerdotis. Oportet autem gladium esse sub gladio, et
temporalem auctoritatem spirituali subjici potestati ; nam ctim dicat apostolus :
Non est potestas nisi d Deo; qme autem sunt, a Deo ordinuta sunt ; non autem
ordinata essent, nisi gladius esset sub gladio, et tamquam inferior reduceretur
per alium in suprema. . . . Spiritualent autem, et dignitate, et nobilitate, ter-
renam quamlibet prrecellere potestatem, oportet tantb clarifis nos fateri, quantb
spiritualia temporalia antecellunt. Quod etiam ex decimarum datione, et
benedictione, et sanctificatione, ex ipsius potestatis acceptione, ex ipsarum
rerum gubematione, claris oculis intuemur. Nam veritate testante, spiritualis
potestas terrenam potestatem instituere habet, et judicare, si bona non fuerit :
sic de ecclesia et ecclesiastic:! potestate verificatur vaticinium Jeremise : £cce
constitui te hodie super gentes et regna, etc. Ergo si deviat terrena potestas,
judicabitur k potestate spirituali ; sed si deviat spiritualis minor, h, suo supe-
riori : si vei6 suprema, k solo Deo, non ab homiae poterit judicari, testante
apostolo : Spiritualis homo judical omnia, ipse autem a nemine Judicatur. Est
autem haec auctoritas (etsi data sit homini, et exerceatur per bominem) non
bumana, sed potiiis divina, ore divino Petro dat.a, sibique, suisque succes-
soribus, in ipso quern confessus fuit, petni firmata : dicente Domino ipsi Petro :
Quodcumque ligareris, etc. Quicumqu€ igitur huic potestati, h, Deo sic ordinatae
resistit, Dei ordinationi re^w^iV."— Extravag. Commun. lib. i. ; De Majoritate
et Obed. cap. i. Hist, du Differend, &c. Preuves, p. 54, &c.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 235
has at her command two swords, or two powers/' that "the
temporal sword is subject and subordinate to the spiritual, as the
inferior to the superior \' that " the power of the prince ought
to be exercised at the request of the pontiff;" finally, that " it
belongs to the spiritual power to appoint the temporal, and to
judge it, when it errs." Now, however strong such assertions
may appear, their difficulty disappears when they are compared
with those of St. Bernard and Hugo de Sancto Victore, which
we have already explained, and which this bull of Boniface VIII,
repeats, almost word for word. In truth, the holy doctor
expressly teaches in many of his works, " that the two swords
belong to the Church, to be drawn when necessary, one by the
arm of the pontiff, and the other at his request ;" expressions
which Bossuet and Fleury explain in the sense of the directive
power, by virtue of which the Church and the pope are entitled,
and even bound, to solicit princes, by advice and exhortation,
to take arms.^
The other expressions of Boniface VIII. — " that it belongs to
the spiritual power to appoint the temporal, and to judge it,
when it errs" — are taken from Hugo de Sancto Victore, who
certainly intends by these words, not the ordinary power of the
priesthood, but the extraordinary power which Samuel had
received from God to establish kingly government among tlie
Hebrews.^ That is the meaning given by Bossuet himself to
the words of Hugo, and which the glossarist gives to Boni-
face VIII. ; so that the sole design of the pope, as well as of
Hugo, was to prove the superiority of the spiritual over the
temporal power, by the mission and authority which the first had
received to establish the latter. This explanation, which
naturally results from the context of Hugo's discourse, is not
less obvious from that of Boniface VIII. ; for his sole object in
the passage cited is to prove the superiority of the spiritual over
the temporal power, " by the very origin of the latter, according
to the testimony of truth ;" that is, according to sacred history,
to which the allusion is manifestly made. We may add, with
Fenelon and Bossuet himself, that by virtue of a power merely
directive, the Church can, in a certain sense, " appoint, judge.
' See supra, n. 197. ^ Ibid. n. 196.
236 POWER OF THE POPE [PAPvT II.
and depose the temporal power ;" not by conferring or taking
away civil or temporal jurisdiction, but by pointing out, like a
good mother, to the electors, those whom they ought to choose
as sovereigns, and to depose them, or confirm them in that
exalted state, as Pope Zachary once acted with regard to the
French barons.^
217. Remarhable Conclusion of this Bull.
After these observ^ations, which are grounded on the text
itself of the bull, should any doubts yet remain on the true
sense of Boniface VIII., they must, we believe, be completely
removed by the conclusion of the bull itself For it is certain,
that in that conclusion the pope only defines this Catholic
dogma, which has been at all times admitted in the Church ;
namely, " that every human creature is subject to the pope." -
Now, is it credible that Boniface VIII. would have drawn only
that conclusion from the principles laid down in his bull, if his
object had been to establish therein a jurisdiction, even indirect,
of the Church and pope over temporal matters ? Should he not
naturally infer from such principles, that the secular power was
subject to his jurisdiction, even in the temporal order. So
natm'ally should this conclusion follow from the principles attri-
buted to Boniface VIII., that even the authors who charge him
with them, are surprised to find so moderate an inference from
principles so extravagant.^
218. Moderate Explanation of this Decree given by Boniface VIII. himself.
Finally, admitting even that there was something obscure or
ambiguous in this bull, should it not be naturally explained by
the pope's language in the very council in which its promulgation
was decided. In- reply to the reproach made by the French in
that council, that the pope " required the king of France to
acknowledge that he held his temporalities from the pope,"
Boniface states, " We have had now an experience of forty years
' Fenelon, ubi supra, n. 213. See the other passages of Fenelon and
Bossuet cited above, n. 10 and 172.
" Even the authors who censure most severely Boniface VIII. admit that
the conclusion of his bull defines no more than this Catholic dogma. See,
among others, Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. iii. cap. xxiv. ; Fleury, ubi supra.
' De Marca, Bossuet, and Fleury, ubi supra.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 237
in the law, and we know that there are two powers ordained by
God. How is it possible, then, to attribute such an absurdity to
us ? We protest, therefore, solemnly, that we never intended
to usurp, in any manner, the king's jurisdiction ; but the king
cannot deny, any more than any other Christian, that he is
subject to us with regard to sin." ' Here we recognise that
doctrine of Innocentlll., which consists, as we have already
seen, in maintaining the subordination of the temporal to the
spiritual power, in the sense of the directive power. Bossuet
himself manifestly favours this explanation of the words of
Innocent III., which Boniface VIII. merely copies in his
buU.2
219. His Doctrine hy no means favourable to the Tlieological System of the
Divine Might.
From this discussion we infer, that the views of Boniface VIII.
on this matter were the same as those of his predecessor ; that
the bull Unam Sanctam especially gives no countenance to the
theological theory of the divine right ; finally, that if, in the
heat of conversation, as it was reported at the time, Boniface VIII.
had dropped any expressions favourable to that opinion, he has
manifestly disavowed them by an authentic declaration of his
real sentiments. Philip the Fair was, no doubt, very indignant
at Boniface's doctrine, and especially with what had been
announced in the bull Unam Sanctam ; and believing that this
bull was destructive of the independence of sovereigns, he spared
no exertions to get it revoked. But it is equally certain that
all his exertions were fruitless ; the most he could obtain was
* " Quadraginta anni sunt qu5d nos sumus expert! in jure ; et scimus qubd
duae sunt potestates ordinatae k Deo. Quis ergo debet credere vel potest, qubd
tanta fatuitas, tanta insipientia sit vel fuerit in capite nostro ? Dicimus qu5d
in nuUo volumus usurpare jurisdictionem regis ; . . . non potest negare rex, seu
quicumque alter fidelis, quin sit nobis subjectus, fatione peccati." — Hist, du
DifFerend ; Preuves, p. 77, ver. finem. Hist, de I'Eglise Gall. vol. xii. ann.
1302, p. BiO. Daniel, Hist, de France, vol. v. ann. 1302, p. 75.
^ See supra, n. 208. M. de Marca imagined tliere was some difference on
this matter between the doctrine of Innocent III. and of Boniface VIII. (De
Concordia, ubi supra, n. 5). According to him. Pope Innocent III., when
adjudicating on the war between the king of England and the king of France,
did not, like Boniface "ST^II., attribute to himself the right of judging the king
of France "in matters relating to the government of his kingdom." A little
reflection, however, must satisfy any one, that the act of a king declaring war
against another king is a most important "act in the government of a
kingdom."
238 POWER OF THE POPE [PAllT II.
the following declaration from Clement V. : " We define and
declare that the bull or decretal Unam Sanctam of our prede-
cessor Boniface VIII., of happy memory, shall not prejudice the
rights of the king or kingdom of France ; and that the said
king, and his kingdom, and his subjects, are not more subject
than before the said bull to the Roman Cliurch ; but that all things
shall be considered to be in the same state as before that bull,
in regard both to the Church, the king, the kingdom, and the
subjects." '
220. Why it was at first understood in a Sense favourable to that System,
The declaration certainly contains nothing contrary to the bull
Unam Sanctam, understood in the moderate sense which we
have given to it. We may therefore infer, that if it was at
first understood in a different sense, the misapprehension must
have arisen wholly from the troubled circumstances in which the
bull was published, and which made it be viewed in France with
the most bitter prejudices. In such circumstances, nothing is
more common than to fix the most malignant interpretations on
the most harmless expressions. Such was really the state of
feeling at this time in France, as we learn from the best his-
torians,'' and even many modern writers notoriously prejudiced
against the Holy See, and most severe in their censures on
Boniface VIII., have also acknowledged that the prejudices
against the pope were carried to extravagant excess in France.
Sismondi thinks so ; for though he charges Boniface VIII. with
haughtiness of character and insolence in his contests with
Pliilip the Fair, he accuses that prince of having, by his
excesses, incurred the just censures of the pope ; and of
having, by his influence, involved the clergy of his kingdom in
proceedings prejudicial to the liberty of the Church. '' Then,"
' "Nos regi et regno (Francorum), per definitionem ac declarationem bonse
memoria; Bonifacii Papae A^III., prsedecessoris nostri, quae incipit Unam sanc-
tam, nullum volumus vel intendimus praejudicium generari ; nee qu6d per illam
rex, regnum, et regnicolae prfelibati, ampliiis Ecclesiae sint subject! Romanae,
quhm an tea existebant ; sed omnia intelligantur in eodem esse statu, quo erant
ante definitionem praefatam, ta,m quantum ad Ecclesiam, quam etiam ad regem,
regnum, et regnicolas superiils nominatos." — Extra vag. Comm. lib. v. tit. De
Privileg. cap. ii. Meruit. Hist, du DifiF^rend, Preuves, p. 288. Feneloa, ubi
supra, p. 333. Bossuet, ubi supra, cap. xxiv. vers, finem. Fleury, Hist. Eccl.
vol. xix. book xci. n. 2.
* See in particular, Eaynaldi and Spondanus, ubi supra.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGIfS. 239
he says, " for the first time, the nation and the clergy were up
in action to defend the liberties of the Galilean Church. Hun-
gering for slavery, they styled as 'liberty,' the right of sacri-
ficing even their conscience to the caprice of their masters, and
of repelling that protection which a foreign and independent
chief secured to them against tyranny. In the name of these
liberties of the Church, they denied to the pope the right of
taking cognizance of the arbitrary taxes which the king levied
on his clergy, of the arbitrary imprisonment of the bishop of
Pamiers, of the arbitrary seizure of the ecclesiastical revenues
of Rheims, of Chartres, of Laon, of Poictiers ; they denied to
the pope the right of directing the king's conscience, of remon-
strating- with him on the administration of his kingdom, and of
punishing him by the censure of excommunication, whenever he
violated his oaths.^ The court cf Rome had no doubt mani-
fested a grasping ambition, and kings were bound to be on their
guard against its omnipotence ; but too happy would it have
been for the people, had despotic sovereigns acknowledged above
them a power from heaven, which might arrest them in the
career of crime." ^
221. Decrees of the Holy See for the Partition of newly-discovered Cowntries.
More than a century after these fatal contests, we see popes
Nicholas V., Calixtus III., Sixtus IV., Innocent VIII., and
Alexander VI., partitioning between the kings of Spain and
Portugal many newly-discovered islands and provinces of Africa
' Lettres du Clerge de France au Pape, in 1302. (Eaynaldi Annales, ann,
1302, §§ 11, 12.)
* Sismondi, Hist, des R^publiques Ital. vol. iv. ch. xxiv. p. 143, &c. The
author confirms these observations in his Histoire des Fran^ais, in which he
gives a more detailed exposition of the contest between Boniface VIII. and
Philip the Fair (vol. ix. ch. xx. ann. 1301, 1302). It mnst be remembered,
too, that our most respectable historians, in spite of all their indulgence and
consideration for Philip the Fair, adopt more or less Sismondi's judgment on
this matter, and admit that in many respects Philip well deserved the censures
passed on him by Boniface. See especially Bossuet, Abreg^ de I'Hist. de
France, art. Philippe le Bel, towards the end ; Hist, de I'Eglise Gall. vol. xii.
ann. 1297, 1302 (see especially p. 574) ; Daniel, Hist, de France, vol. v.
p. 124, et alibi passim ; Pey, de I'Autorit^ des Deux Puissances, vol. i. p. 165 ;
L'Ami de la Religion, vol. cvi. p. 243 ; L'Universite Catholique, vol. x. p. 233.
There was also an interesting Dissertation on Boniface VIII. read by M. (Car-
dinal) Wiseman in a session of the Academy of the Catholic Religion in Rome,
June 4, 1840. This dissertation is published in vol. xvi. of the Demonstrat.
Evang^liques, published by the Abb^ Migne, Paris, 1843 (p. 691).
240 POWER OF THE rOPE [part II.
and America : from this many modern writers have taken
occasion to charge those popes with claiming to dispose, with
absolute control, of all the kingdoms of the earth, for the good
of religion. 1
If we examine, however, the decrees of these popes in this
matter, the charge is proved to be utterly baseless.^ The object
of these decrees manifestly was, not to authorize the kings of
Spain and Portugal to conquer the newly-discovered countries,
but solely to terminate, as arbitrators freely chosen and approved
by the interested parties, the disputes raised on the subject ;
and, at the same time, to excite the two monarchs to procure
the blessings of the Gospel for the barbarous nations of the
new world. This is the sense in which those decrees are gene-
rally explained by historians, — by those of Spain and Portugal in
particular ;'' and even by Protestant writers, who never omit an
opportunity of venting their spleen against the popes.* Nor
' Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. i. cap. ii. ; lib. iii. cap. xviii. pp. 209, 653.
Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. x.\iv. book cxvii. n. 41.
' See especially, on this subject, Raynaldi, Annal. Eccles. ann. 1484, n. 82 ;
ann. 1493, n. 18, &c. ; ann. 1494, n. .31, &c. ; Bianchi, ubi supra, lib. vi. § 9 ;
Bellarmin, De Rom. Poutif. lib. v. cap. ii. ; Mamachi, Origines et Antiquit.
Christianae, vol. iv. p. 176.
* See, in particular, Mariana's History of Spain, and Ferrera's, ann. 1492,
1493 ; Hist, de Portugal, by Lequien de la Neuville, ibid. ; Hist. Gen. de
Portugal, by De la Clede, ann. 1493, Paris edit. 1828, vol. iv. p. 487.
* Grotius plainly inclines to this opinion in many passages of his treatise
De Mari Libero, published for the first time about the year 1609, to support
the rights, then claimed by the Dutch, of navigation to certain islands of the
East Indies, — a right which \t'as contested, for various reasons, by the Spaniards
and Portuguese. See some interesting details on that controversy in the
Biographie Universelle, arts. Selden and Grotius. Discussing particularly
the title which the Spaniards and Portuguese might ground on the bull of
Alexander VI., Grotius answers it in the fi)llowiug terms: "Si Pontificis
Alexandri Sexti divisione utentur (Liisitani), ante omnia illud attendendum
est, volueritne pontifex contentiones tantiim Lusitanorum et Castellanorum
dirimere ; quod jiotuit sane, ut lectus inter illos arbiter, sicut et ipsi reges jam
antfe inter se, e& de re, fcedera quaedam pepigerant ; et hoc si ita est, ctim res
inter alios acta sit, ad cseteras gentes non pertinebit ; an verb propfe singulos
mundi trientes duobus populi.s donare (cap. iii.). . . . Chm denique jus suum
auferre alicui Papa mininife possit, quag erit istius facti (scilicet, donationis
pontificice) defensio, si tot populos immerentes, indemnatos, innoxios, ab eo
jure quod ad ipsos non mintis quam ad Hispanos pertinebat, uno verbo voluit
excludere ? Aut igitur dicendum est, nuUam esse vim ejusmodi pronuntia-
tionis ; aut, quod non minus credibile est, eura pontificis animum fuisse, ut
Castellanorum et Lusitanorum inter se certamini intercessum voluerit, aliorum
autem juri nihil diminutuni" (cap. vi.). This work of Grotius, the most re-
markable that appeared during this memorable controversy, was reprinted
several times, especially in 1618, in duodecimo, and 1633 in 32mo. (Lugd.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 241
is there anything in those decrees inconsistent with this expla-
nation ; it is even manifestly confirmed by the bull of Alex-
ander VI. (Inter csetera), which is considered the strongest
argument against us.
222. Examination of the Bull of Alexander VI. {Inter ccetera).
After a glowing panegyric on the king of Spain, for the zeal
which he had shown in procuring the light of the Gospel for the
barbarous nations of the New World, the pope encourages that
monarch to persevere in the holy work ; and the more eflBcaciously
to excite him, he declares, that ''propria motu, and of his pure
liberality, and certain knowledge, and by the plenitude of his
apostolic power, he gives to the king of Castille and Leon, and
to his successors, for ever, the dominion and jurisdiction of the
islands and continent already discovered, or which he may
discover," within certain limits, which the pope himself deter-
mines.*
Batav. Elzevir.) It was printed in 1680, with Gronovius's edition of the trea-
tise of Grotius, De Jure Belli et Pacis (Hagse-Comitis, 8vo.). It has been given
since that time in many editions of the same treatise.
Maltebi-un, in I'Histoire de la Geographic, which serves as an introduction
to his Precis de la G^ographie Universelle (Svo. edit. 1831, vol. i. p. 619),
pronounces still more decisively for the explanation given by Grotius to the
decree of Alexander VI. " Spain and Portugal," he observes, "jealous of each
other's discoveries, applied to the pope for a decision, which should divide the
world between them, assigning to the ambition of each its own hemisphere."
The author, it is to be supposed, must have forgotten this explanation, when
he advances in another passage of the same work, that the pope at first endea-
voured to reconcile both parties, " by authoritatively tracing the famous line
of demarcation," a hundred leagues west of the isles of Cape Verd. (Ibid,
vol. xi. p. 648.)
' " Et ut tanti negotii provinciam, apostolicae gratise largitate donati, libe-
rihs et audacitis assumatis ; motu proprio, non ad vestram vel alterius pro
vobis super hoc nobis oblatse petitionis instantiam, sed de nostra mera liberali-
tate, et ex certa scientiS, ac de apostolica potestatis plenitudine ; omnes insulas
et terras fiimas, inventas et inveniendas, detectas et detegendas vershs occi-
dentem et meridiem, fabricando et construerido unam lineam k polo arctico,
scilicet septentrione, ad polum antarcticum, scilicet meridiem ; sive terrse
firmse, et insulae inventse et inveniendte sint verstis Indiam, aut versiis aliam
quamcumque partem ; quaB linea distet h, qualibet insularimi, quae vulgariter
nuncupantur de los Azores y Cabo- Vierde [the Azores and Cape de Verd], centum
leucis versiis occidentem et meridiem ; ita quod omnes insulse et terrse firmae
repertse et reperiendee, detectse et detegendse, a prsefata linea versus occiden-
tem et meridiem, per alium regem aut principem Christianum non ftierint
actualiter possess^ usque ad diem Nativitatis Domini nostri Jesu Christi
proxime prseteritum, k quo incipit annus prsesens, millesimus quadragentesimus
nonagesimus tertius, quando fuerunt per nuntios et capitaneos vestros inventse
aliquEB prasdictarum insularum ; auctoritate omnipotentis Dei, nobis in beato
Petro concesso, ac vicariaidi Jesu Christi, qud fungimur in terris ; cum omnibus
VOL. II. R
242 POWER 01' THE POPE [PART II.
This decision may be considered under two aspects ; first, as
to its substance ; that is, so far as it determines the respective
rights of the kings of Spain and Portugal over the countries in
question ; and, secondly, as to its form ; that is, the language
in which the decision is expressed, and which appears, at first
sight, not a little extravagant. Considered in the first light, it
manifestly imjJies no claim of disposing, as absolute master, of
countries which he had been expressly invited to partition, by
the authority of the two contending monarchs themselves. The
occasion, the circumstances, and the object of his decree, which
was addressed, not to the whole Church, nor even to all kings,
but to the king of Spain alone, prove clearly, that he had no
intention of actins: in this matter as absolute master of the
countries in question ; but solely as an arbitrator, selected by
the contending parties, to terminate their disputes, and to fix
their respective rights ; so that his decision in no degree pre-
judiced the rights of the other sovereigns, on which he had not
been consulted, and which he does not examine in his decree.
The form of this decision, that is, fhe terms in which it is
conceived, may also be easily explained by the same circum-
stances. The selection of Alexander VI. by the two monarchs
as umpire of their disputes, being founded principally on the
respect whitli both professed for the sacred character of the
pope, he was, by the very fact, authorized to " promulgate his
decision, not only as given with full liberty, and an entire know-
ledge of the cause submitted to him, but also as given in vii'tue
of that apostolical authority,^' which had been the main cause
why the two monarchs had submitted to him so important a
question. The pope, moreover, in giving this decision, was so
illarum dominiis, civitatibus, castris, loois et villis, juribusque et jurisdictionibus
ac pertinentiis universis, vobis hseredibusque et successoribus vestris (Castellae
et Legionis regibus) in perpetuum, tenore prsesentium, donamus, concedimus
©t assignamus ; vosque et haeredes, ac successores praefatos, illarum dominos,
cum plena, liberd et omnimodA potestate, auctoritate et jurisdictione, facimus,
constituimus et deputamus ; decementea nihilominus, per hujusmodi dona-
tionem, concessionem et assignationem nostram, nulli Christiano principi, qui
actualiter prsefatas insulas et terras firmas possederit usque ad dictum diem
Nativitatis Domini nostri Jesu Christi, jus quaesitum, sublatum intelligi posse,
aut auferri debere." — Alex. VI. Constit. 2 (Bullar. Eom. tom. i. p. 454).
This bull of Alexander VI. has been inserted in the 7th book of the Decretals,
lib. i. tit. ix. De Insulis Novi Orbis (after the Extravagantes Communes, in
many editions of the Corpus Juris Canouici). See also Raynaldi, ubi supra,
ann. 1493, n. 19, &c.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 243
far from attributing to himself the absolute dominion of the
countries in question, that he expressly, and more than once,
declares, in the bull itself, that he does not interfere with the
rights of any Christian princes who may have taken possession
of those isles or territories before Christmas day of the pre-
ceding year, 1492 ; giving it thereby to be understood, that the
sole object of his decree was to put an end to the disputes which
had arisen, or might arise, between the kings of Spain and
Portugal, who had voluntarily chosen him as arbitrator, and by
no means to intrude himself as judge between them and other
monarchs, who had neither asked nor accepted his mediation.
223. Injustice of the Censures passed on the Popes for Decrees of this Tcind.
Assuredly these observations demonstrate sufficiently that the
decrees of the Holy See, in this matter, by no means prove that
the popes claimed a right of disposing, as absolute masters, of
kingdoms and countries, for the greater good of religion. These
decrees rather supply an additional proof of the salutary influ-
ence of the papal authority during the middle ages, in pre-
serving peace between Christian princes. " A magnificent spec-
tacle it undoubtedly was,"" exclaims Count de Maistre, " to
behold two nations consenting to submit their present, and even
future quarrels, to the disinterested judgment of the common
father of all the faithful, and to establish for ever a most
venerable court of arbitration, in place of interminable wars.
A great benefit it was to mankind, that the Holy See still
retained ascendancy enough to obtain this great concord.
So worthy was this noble arbitration of a true successor of
St. Peter, that it is a pity the bull ' Inter ceetera' does not
belong to some other pope." ^
224. Decrees of the Councils of Constance and Basil in Temporal Matters
authorized by Princes.
Many decrees of the general Councils of Basil and of
Constance decree temporal penalties against heretics, schisma-
tics, and abettors of heresy or schism, so as to deprive them, in
' De Maistre, Du Pape, vol. i. book ii. ch. xiv.
r2
244 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
certain cases, of tlieir properties and rank, even regal or imperial'
These penalties are decreed not only against those who should
impede the operations of these councils in the extinction of the
schism which then desolated the Church ; ^ but also against the
partisans and abettors of future schisms,'' and against the par-
tisans and abettors of the errors of Wicliflfe and John Huss."*
These decrees can present no difficulty after the observations
which we have made on those of the third and fourth Councils
' Consult on these decrees, Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. iv. cap. x. ; Tour-
nely, De Ecclesia, torn. ii. p. 459, &c. ; De la Hogue, De Ecclesia, p. 275, &c. ;
Pey, De I'Autorit^ des Deux Puissances, vol. i. pp. 106, 117, &c. ; Bianchi,
Delia Potestk e della Politia della Chiesa, vol. i. book i. §§ 12, 19.
* " Sacrosancta synodus exhortatur invictissimum principem Dominum
Sigismundum, Romanorum et Hungariae regem, quatenhs placeat patentes
litteras sub sua majestatis sigillis dare, et omnibus principibus, vassallis et
subditis sacri imperii, et praesertim civibus et incolis civitatis Constantiensis,
praecipere et mandare, qu^d manutenebunt et defendent praedictum concilium,
. . quamdiu duraverit ; et quicumque . . . (decretum islud) non observaverit,
cujuscumque dignitatis, statfts aut conditionis existat . . . eo ipso sententiam
imperialis banni incurrat, perpetub sit infamis, nee ei umquara portae dignitatis
pateant, nee ad aliquod officium publicum admittatur ; quinimmb omnibus
feudis, ac aliis bonis quae Ji Komano tenet imperio, sit ip.«o jure privatus." —
Concil. Constant, sess. 14 et 17 (Labbe, Concil. torn. xii. pp. 115, 161. Concil.
Basil, sess. 9 (Ibid. p. 501).
3 " Ut autem metus, seu impressionis molestia, in electione Papae, e6 formi-
dolosids evitetur, qu6 toti Christianitati lamentabilitis eorum incussio perpe-
tratur ; ultra praedicta duximus specialiter statuendum, qu5d si quis hujus-
modi raetum vel impressionem aut violentiam electoribus ipsis, aut alicui
ipsorum, in electione Papae intulerit seu fecerit, aut fieri procuraverit, aut
factum ratum habuerit, aut in hoc consilium dederit vel favorem ; . . . cujus-
cumque statfls, gradds aut praeeminentiae fuerit, etiamsi imperiali, regali, pon-
titicali, vel alia quiivis ecclesiastica aut saeculari praefulgeat dignitate, illaa
pcenas ipso facto incurrat, quse in constitutione felicis recordationis Bonifacii
papae octavi, quae incipit, Felicis, continentur, illisque efiFectualiter puniatur."
— Concil. Constant, sess. 39 (p. 240, &c.).
The constitution of Boniface VIII., to which the Council of Constance alludes
here, is given in the Decretals (lib. v. tit. ix. De Pccnis, cap. v.). It declares
infamous, and deprived of their temporal rights and honours, all who unjustly
use violence against a cardinal. See an extract and explanation of this decree
in Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. iv. cap. xx.
* " Volumus insuper, ac statuimus et decemimus, . . . ut contra omnes et
singulos utriusque sexGs, hujusmodi errores tenentes, approbantes, ac fautores
et receptatores eorum, cujuscumque dignitatis, statds vel conditionis existant,
auctoritate nostra inquirere studeant (episcopi et inquisitores hsereticae pra-
vitatis) ; et eos quos hujusmodi haeresis et erroris labe respersos repererint,
etiam per excommunicationis poenam, suspensionis, interdict!, necnon priva-
tionis dignitatum, personatuum, et ofi&cionim, aliorumque beneficiorum eccle-
siasticorum, ac feudorum, quae ^ quibuscumque Ecclesiis, monasteriis, ac aliis
locis ecclesiasticis obtinent, ac etiam bonorum, et dignitatum saecularium, ac
graduum scientiarura quarumcumque facultatum, et per alias pcenas, senten-
tias et censuras ecclesiasticas, ac vias et modos, quos ad hoc expedire viderint
. . . corrigant et puniant." — Concil. Const, sess. 45 ; Bulla Martini V. contra
errores Wiclefi et Joan. Hus. (p. 270, &c.).
CHAP. III.] OVEK SOVEREIGNS. 245
of Lateran, &c.^ In the decrees of Constance and of Basil, as
in those of Lateran, the bishops do not claim for themselves the
right of enacting temporal penalties by their own authority ;
they did so only by the express or tacit consent of the Christian
princes, who assisted at these councils either in person or by
their ambassadors. The Councils of Constance and Basil could
the more easily count on the assent of Christian princes to the
decrees in question, because they merely revived or confirmed the
temporal penalties which had long since been attached to heresy
and excommunication, by the universal custom and legislation
of Catholic Europe. Hence, we find no protest from any prince
against the decrees of Constance or of Basil in temporal matters,
either during these councils or after their close.
225. Similar Decree of the Council of Trent.
A decree of the Council of Trent, Session 20, prescribes
temporal penalties against duellists, and their abettors.^ The
following are the terms of this decree : — " The emperor, kings,
dukes, princes, marquises, counts, and all temporal lords per-
mitting duels on their properties are, ipso facto, excommunicated,
and deprived of the jurisdiction and dominion of that city,
chateau, or place, in or near which they have permitted the duel,
if suck places are held under the Church ; and if they be fiefs,
they revert immediately to the direct lord. ... As to the duellists
and their seconds, they incur excommunication, the confiscation
of all their property, and perpetual infamy." ^
To remove all the objections which may be raised on this
decree, we need only observe, first, that it does not deprive the
abettors of duellists of all their property, and of all their tem-
poral jurisdiction, but only of the properties or jurisdiction
' Supra, ch. ii. n. 87, &c.
* Bossuet, Dei. Declar. lib. iv. cap. xi. See also authors cited note 1, p. 244.
^ " Imperator, reges, duces, principes, marchiones, coraites, et alio quo-
cumque nomine domini temporales, qui locum ad monomachiam in terris suis
inter Christianos concesserint, eo ipso sint excommunicati, ac jurisdictione et
dominio civitatis, castri aut loci, in quo vel apud quem duellum permiserint
fieri, qtiod ah Ecclesid ohiinent, privati intelligantur ; et, si feudalia sunt,
directis dominis statim acquirantur. Qui ver6 pugnam commiserint, et qui
eorum patroni vocantur, excommunicationis, ac omnium bonorum proscrip-
tionis, ac perpetuse infamise pcenam incurrant." — Concil. Trid. sess. 25, De
Eeform. cap. xix, (Concil. torn. xiv. p. 916).
246 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
which they may hold under the Church. The decree, therefore,
does not imply that the Church has, by divine right, any juris-
diction, direct or indirect, over the temporalities of princes ; but
solely that the Church herself had acquired, in the lapse of
ages, properties and temporal jurisdiction — an assumption which
cannot reasonably be denied. We must observe, in the second
place, that the temporal penalties enacted generally in this
decree against all duellists and their seconds, are enacted only in
the supposition of the assent of sovereigns to the decree. It is
well known, that though generally received in the Catholic
states of Europe, it was not received in France and some other
states ; and that the Holy See never interfered on that point
with the independence of the French kings ; which clearly
proves that the Church did not intend to encroach on the rights
of sovereigns, nor to make laws on temporal concerns, without
their consent.
226. Decrees of the Holy See against the Monarchs of England in the Sixteenth
Century. — General Principle for the Explanation of tfuse Decrees.
Some years before the opening of the Council of Trent,
arose that deplorable schism which separated the kingdom of
Eno-land from the Catholic Church. This melancholv event
gave rise to several decrees of the Holy See, which raised among
Catholic theologians, both in England and in foreign countries,
very severe and protracted controversies on the respective au-
thority of the two powers. All these controversies might have
been cut short, and, perhaps, decided at their very birth, had a
careful distinction been made between the power which the
Holy See attributes to itself, in those decrees, by divine institu-
tion, and which cannot be contested consistently with Catholic
faith ; and that which the Holy See formerly possessed, by a
constitutional law, voluntarily established by man, and generally
admitted at the time. This distinction solves, in our opinion,
most of the objections against those decrees. The reader can
judge for himself, after the observations which we shall now
offer on the most remarkable of those documents.*
' See Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. iv. cap. xxiii. ; Bianchi, Delia. Potestk e
della Politia della Chiesa, vol. ii. tit. vi. § 10, n. 2-5 ; Affre, Essai Historique
sur la Supr^matie TemporeUe du Pape, ch. xxv.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 247
227. Bulls of Excommunication and D€2)Osition issued by Pope Paul III. against
King Henry VIII.
After having employed, to no purpose, the most paternal
exhortations, and the most earnest entreaties to Henry VIII.,
to compel him to dismiss Anna Boleyn, his adulterous mistress,
and to take back his lawful wife Catherine of Arragon, Pope
Clement VIL at last excommunicated him, in 1534. Far from
submitting to the pope's sentence, the king openly raised the
standard of schism, renouncing obedience to the Holy See, and
declaring himself supreme head of the Church within his
states. Paul III., successor of Clement VII., despairing of
this king's conversion, resolved to employ more severe measures,
and prepared a bull, not only renewing the excommunication
already pronounced by Clement VIL, but ordering the king,
under pain of excommunication and deposition, to present him-
self in Eome, either in person or by procurator, within the
space of three months, to submit his cause to the judgment of
the Holy See. In this bull, the pope added, that if the king
did not comply with this injunction within the prescribed time,
he incurred, ipso facto, excommunication, and the forfeiture of
all his dominions ; all his subjects would be absolved from their
oath of allegiance ; all princes freed from the treaties and
engagements made with him ; and authorized to wage war on
him, and take possession of his dominions.^ This bull, though
' " Qubd si Henricus rex et alii prsedicti (ejus complices et fautores), intra
dictos terminos eis praefixos non comparuerint, et preedictam excomruunica-
tionis sententiam per tres dies, post lapsum dictorum terminorum, anirao (quod
absit) sustinuerint indurato ; censuras ipsas aggravamus et successive reaggra-
vamus, Henricumque regem privationis regni et dominiorum, et tam eum qukm
alios praedictos, omnes et singulas poenas praedictas incurrisse, decernimus et
declaramus (No. 7) ; ... Ipsiusqtie Henrici regis vassallos et subditos k jura-
mento fidelitatis, et omni erga regem et alios prffidictos subjectione absolvimus,
ac penitus liberamus (No. 10). . . . Prceterea, omnes et singulos Christianos et
principes, per viscera misericordise Dei nostri (cujus causa agitur) hortamur
et in Domino requirimus, ne Henrico regi, ejusque complicibus et fautoribus,
etiam sub prsetextu confoederationum aut obligationum quarumcumque, etiam
juramento roboratarum, h quibus eos absolvimus, . . . consilium, auxilium vel
favorem quomodocumque pr^stent (No. 15). . . . (Eosdem) similiter hortamur
et requirimus, quatenus contra Henricum regem, ejusque complices et fau-
tores, dura in erroribus praedictis permanserint, armis insurgant ; eosque et
eorum singulos persequantur, ac ad unitatem Ecclesise, et obedientiam sanctss
sedis redire cogant et compellant ; . . . eorumque bona mobilia et immobilia,
etiam extra territorium dicti Henrici regis ubilibet consistentia, capiant (No.
16)."— Pauli III. Constit. 7 (Bullar. Eom. Luxemburgi, 1742, torn. i. p. 707).
See, on this decree, the Annals of Spondanus, ann. 1535, n. 15 ; ann. 1538, n. 14 ;
Lingard, History of England.
248 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
dated 80th August, 1535, was not issued until the month of
December, 1538 ; the pope having judged it advisable to
suspend its execution, at the request of some sovereigns, who
still hoped to win over the king of England to a better course.
But the fresh excesses of that prince soon convinced the pope
that the time had come to employ extreme remedies ; and he
was encouraged in that resolution by many sovereigns ; among
others, the king of France and the emperor, who promised to
give eflfect to his sentence against the king of England.
228. Tliis Decree hy no means supposes the TJieologiccd Theory of the Divine Right.
The question is not here, whether this bull was prudent, a
point on which writers unfavourable to the Holy See have not
failed to raise doubts, which were afterwards adopted by well-
meaning authors. The sole question is, did the pope really
attribute to himself, in this decree, a power, direct or indirect,
by divine right, of deposing sovereigns, and of disposing of
their dominions ? Now, there is nothing in the bull of Pope
Paul III. to justify such a supposition. He appeals, it is true,
to the divine power of binding and loosing, as the title for his
sentence, considered as to its direct and immediate object, namely,
the excommunication of the king of England ; but he does not
assert that deposition of that king was, by divine right, the
consequence of that excommunication ; he only supposes that,
in the circumstances of the case as it then stood, deposition did
follow, as a matter of course, from excommunication ; a thino-
which was, in fact, then generally admitted, and considered as a
point of constitutional law in all the Catholic states of Europe,
and especially in the kingdom of England.^ Besides the general
arguments which establish this provision of constitutional law
in all the Catholic states of Europe, it was moreover confirmed,
with regard to England, by a special title, namely, the rio-ht of
sovereignty which many of its kings had voluntarily conferred
on the pope over themselves and their subjects, and which had
been solemnly recognised on many occasions, by foreign princes.*
' In the preceding chapters we have given the proofs of this ancient belief.
In the following article we shall see that it was really founded on the consti-
tutional law of all the Catholic states of Europe during the middle ages.
' We have already spoken of this right of sovereignty in the preceding
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS, 249
This point of constitutional law once assumed as in force, the
deposition of the king of England was a natural consequence of
his rebellion against the Church, and of his obstinate persistence
in heresy and excommunication ; to pronounce that deposition,
the pope had no necessity of appealing to or supposing the
theological opinion of the direct or indirect power ; it was
enough for him to declare the king deprived of his royal dignity,
in punishment of his crimes. This was the sense in which Pope
Paul III. himself explained his bull, in the letters which he
wrote to the emperor Charles V. and to the king of France,
when making the matter known to them.^ In the first of these
letters he expressly states, " that the king of England deprived
himself, by his crimes, of his kingdom and his royal dignity ; so
that nothing remained but to declare against him the fact of
that deposition ; and though," adds the pope, " such a declara-
tion is not necessary, the fact being so notorious, we resolve to
proceed with it, in concert with the cardinals of the Holy Roman
Church." - The pope repeats the same thing, in nearly the
same terms, in his letter to the king of France ; and remarks
to him, moreover, that the declaration in question was grounded
on laws both human and divine : ' an evident proof that the
pope did not consider the divine right as the sole foundation of
the sentence pronounced against the king of England.
chapter (art. iii. n. 136). Additional illustrations on this point shall be given
in the next article.
' These letters are cited by Eaynaldi, Annales, ann. 1535, n. 11, 13 ; and by
Bianchi, ubi supra, n. 2.
' " Ex quibus, et aliis quae hoc toto triennio accumulavit, sceleribus, ut ejus
dedecora breviter recenseamus, hsereticus, schismaticus, adulter notorius,
homicidaj sacrilegus, rebellis, Isesor majestatis, multorumque aliorumque cri-
minum reus effectus est, ac se ipse illo regno, et regid dignitate pnvavit ; ita ut
sola declaratio privationis adversils euni supersit ; quae tamen, ob notorietatem
prwmissorum, necessaria non esset ; ad quam, una cum venerabilibus fratribus
nostris S. E. E. cardinalibus, omnin5 procedere intendimus."- — Epist. Pauli III.
ad Carolum V. imperat. (Eaynaldi and Bianchi, ubi supra.)
* " Nos, maximo quidem cum dolore animi nostri, sed tamen extreme neces-
sitate compulsi, ad ea remedia, cum venerabilibus fratribus nostris S. E. E.
cardinalibus, idipsura nobis unanimiter suadentibus, venire decrevimus, qua; jus
commune tarn divinum, quam Jtumanitm, nobis ivjungit; ut scilicet eumdera
Henricum, qui pritis per rebellionem, per hasresim, et schisma, aliaque enor-
raissima crimina, novissimfe autem per indignam casdem S. E. E. cardinalis, et
tot aliorura clex-icorum et religiosorum, regjio se, ac regid dignitate privavit,
privatum declaremus." — Epist. Pauli III. ad Franciscum I. Francoinim regem.
(Eaynaldi and Bianchi, ubi supra.)
250 POWER OP THE POPE [PART II.
229. The Bull of Pius V. against ElizabetJi explained by the same Principles.
The bull of Pius V. against Elizabeth may be easily
explained by the same principles.^ Finding the queen obstinate
in schism, openly persecuting the Catholics in her dominions,
rejecting the advice and remonstrances of foreign princes on the
subject, and refusing even to admit into her dominions the
ambassadors of the Holy See, the pope resolved to proceed
against her, as his predecessor Paul III. had done against
Henry VIII., the author of the schism. He vras confirmed in
this resolution by the instances of the king of Spain, and of a
great number of English Catholics, who believed the measure
necessary for the preservation of religion in England. He
accordingly published against the queen a bull, dated Feb. 25th,
1570, in whicli, after having enumerated her crimes and im-
pieties, he declared her, by virtue of his apostolic power, a
heretic, and, moreover, deprived of her pretended right to
the crown of England ; he absolves, at the same time, all her
subjects for ever from the oath of allegiance which they have
taken to her.^ The pope's language in this bull is easily under-
stood after the observations made in the bull of Paul III.
against Henry VIII. Pius V., in the first place, declares, by
virtue of his apostolic power, that Queen Elizabeth is a heretic ;
which, as head of the Church, he had an unquestionable right
to declare. Explaining, moreover, the consequences of that fact,
he further declares, that the queen is deprived of her right to
the crown of England ; and that her subjects are absolved from
• See the authors cited above, last note, n. 226. See also Mamachi, Origines,
&c. vol. iv. p. 256, Dote 4. Tliis last author, as well as Bianchi, expresses hia
surprise that Bossnet, in the third book of his Defens. Declarat. (ch. xxvii.
xxviii.), has altogether' omitted the bull of Pius V. against Elizabeth. They
were not aware that Bossuet does speak of it in the following book (ch. xxiii.).
* " Illius itaque auctoritate suffulti, qui nos in hoc supremfe justitise throne,
licfet tanto oneri impares, voluit collocare ; de apostolicae potestatis plenitudine ;
declaramus j)r3edictam Elisabeth haereticam, et haereticorum fautrieem, eique
adhferentes in praedictis, anathematis sententiam incurrisse, esseque h, Christi
corporis unitate praecisos ; quin etihm ipsam praetenso regni praedicti jure, nec-
non omni et quocumque dominio, dignitate, privilegioque privatam ; et item
proceres, subditos et populos dicti regni, ac caeteros omnes qui illi quomod5-
cumque juraverunt, k juramento hujusmodi, ac omni prorsus dominii, fideli-
tatis, et obsequii debito, perpetu6 absolutes, prout nos illos, praesentium auc-
toritate, absolvimus ; et privamiis eamdem Elisabeth praetenso jure regni,
aUisque omnibus supradictis." — Pii V. Constit. 101, n. 3, 4, 5 (BuUar. Rom.
torn. ii. p. 324). Spondanus, Annales, ann. 1570, n. 3, 4. Lingard, History of
England.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOTEREIGNS. 251
their oath of allegiance to her ; and this was really a conse-
quence of heresy, according to the general belief, not only of
the English CathoHcs, but of all the Catholic nations of
Europe at that time, -who regarded this consequence as a part
of their constitutional laws.^ Assuredly the pope could, and
even should, suppose this law still in force, as it had never been
repealed by any competent authority ; and as it was generally
admitted at this time, not only by the English Catholics, but by
all those of other states, and by the foreign kings, who inter-
fered with the queen on behalf of the English Catholics.^
230. Oaths of Supj'emacy and AUegiance required of the English Catholics
at this Period.
But of all the decrees of the Holy See relating to the English
schism, none gave rise to more protracted or warm disputes than
the briefs of Paul V. against the oaths of supremacy and alle-
giance required by King James I., in 1606.^ From the com-
mencement of the schism the government had always exacted
from a certain number of ecclesiastics and laymen an oath of
supremacy, acknowledging " that the supreme authority in
matters both spiritual and temporal belonged to the king alone,
and that none other, prince or prelate, had any jurisdiction or
authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within the kingdom of
England."-* After the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot,
" See note 1, p. 248.
^ Additional proofs of tliis fact shall be given in the following article. See
also the authors cited No. 9 of Confirmatory Evidence, at the end of this vol.
^ Dupin, in the fourth part of his Ecclesiastical History of the Seventeenth
Century (p. 622), gives a list of the principal works published on both sides
during this controversy. He should have added, Suarez, Defensio Fidei
Catholicse adversiis Anglicse Sect£e En-ores, Colonise, 1614, fol. Various acts
of the Faculty of Theology, Paris, in the collection entitled. Censures et Con-
clusions de la Faculty de Theologie de Paris, touchant la Souverainete des
Eois, Paris, 1720, 4to. See especially p. 186, &c. 393, &c.
A summary of that controversy may be seen in the following works : Bossuet,
Defens. Declar. lib. iv. cap. xxiii. ; Bianchi, Delia Potesta della Chiesa, vol. ii
book vi. § 11, n. 5 ; Spondanus, Annales, ann. 1606, n. 4 ; Lingard, History of
England ; Dupin, Hist. Eccl^s. du xvii. Sifecle, part i. p. 370 ; D'Avrigny,
M^moires pour servir k I'Hist. Eccles. du xvii. Siecle, vol. i. 22 Sept. 1606 ;
26 Nov. 1610 ; 2 June, 1614 ; Vie du Cardinal Bellai-min, by Pere Frizon,
p. 322, &c. ; Hist. Societatis Jesu, part. v. tom. ii. lib. xiii. n. 62, 147, &c. ;
L'Abbe Goujet, Hist, du Pontificat de Paul V. vol. i. p. 287, &c. We must
remark, that this latter work should be read with caution, in consequence of
the well-known prejudice of the author against the Jesuits and the Holy See.
* Lingard, History of England, vol. vii. pp. 92, 97, fifth edit. The text
252 POWER OF THE POPE [part ir.
James I. judged it necessary to adopt new measures against some
Catholics ■who regarded his authority, even in temporals, as
subordinate to the pope's. He had accordingly adopted in the
two chambers a new form of oath, which all persons suspected of
being Catholics should be bound to take, on being summoned by
the local authorities. The following is the tenor of that oath.'
" I do sincerely profess and declare in my conscience, before
God and the world, that our sovereign lord King James is
rio-htful king of this kingdom, and of all his other dominions
dependent thereon ; that the pope, neither by himself, nor
by any authority of the Church or the See of Rome, nor by
any other means, hath any power to depose the king, or to
dispose of his kingdoms or his other dominions ; or to au-
thorize any foreign prince to invade or annoy him or his coun-
tries, or to discharge any of his subjects of their allegiance and
obedience to his majesty ; — that, notwithstanding any declara-
tion or sentence of excommunication or of deprivation, made or
granted by the pope or by his successors, or by any authority
whatsoever, against the king or his successors, or any absolution
of the said subjects from their obedience, I will bear true faith
and allegiance to his majesty, his heirs and successors. I do
further swear, that I do abhor, from my heart, as impious and
heretical, this damnable doctrine and proposition, that princes
which be excommunicated, or deprived by the pope, can be de-
prived or murdered by their subjects, or by any other person
whatsoever. And I do believe, and am resolved in my con-
science, that neither the pope, nor any person whatsoever, hath
the power to absolve me from this oath, or from any part thereof.
I acknowledge this oath by good and lawful authority to be
lawfully ministered unto me, and I do renounce all dispensations
to the contrary," &c. &;c.
of this oath is given in the following works : Suarez, Defensio Fidei, lib. vi.
Prooemium ; Bellarmin, Responsio ad Apologiam pro Juramento Fidelitatis ;
Praeambul. (Oper. torn. vii. p. 640).
• We give the text of tliis oath, with the exception of some unimportant
expressions. It is given in full in the History of England, by Rapin de Thoy-
ras, vol. viii. book xviii. ann. 1606 ; Bellarmine, ubi supra, p. 641 ; Suarez,
ubi supra ; Gretser, Commentarius Exegeticus in Apologiam pro Juramento
Fidelitatis, cap. vi. (Oper. tom. vii. p. 47) ; Dupin, Hist. Eccl^s. du xvii.
Si^cle, part i. p. 371 ; Censures et Conclusions de la Faculty de Th^ologie de
Paris, p. 394 ; I'Abb^ Goujet, ubi supra, p. 290.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 253
231. Bnef of Paul V. against the Oath of AUegiaiice.
The lawfulness of this oath became a source of great contro-
versies among the English Catholics ; some condemned it, as
re^dnng under equivocal terms the oath of supremacy ; others
maintained that it could be taken without scruple, as it ex-
pressed but a promise of political or purely civil allegiance, from
which a subject cannot be dispensed, to his legitimate sovereign.
Pope Paul V. being informed of these controversies, addressed
to the English Catholics a brief, dated September 22nd, 1606,
which condemns "the oath of allegiance as unlawful, and
containing many things manifesthj contrary to faith and to
saltation." ^ This decision, however, did not set the contro-
versy at rest ; the partisans of the new oath circulated a rumour
that the brief was not authentic, or tliat it had been grounded
on false information ; that, in any case, it was not obligatory,
being only the private opinion of the pope. Informed of these
new difficulties, Paul V. addressed a second brief to the Enoiish
Catholics, dated September 22nd, 1607, confirming the first,
" and obliging the English Catholics to observe it exactly, and
to reject all interpretations that might lead them away from that
obedience." -
232. These Briefs do iwt in any manner favour the Theological Opinion of the
Divine Right.
It does not belong to our place to record the result of this
decision, which became a new source of controversy among
Catholic theologians, both in England and on the Continent,
and which was frequently confirmed by the Holy See, during the
course of the seventeenth century.-^ It is sufficient for our
' Eapin Thoyras (ubi supra), by a singular mistake, attributes this brief to
Urban VIII., who did not become pope until about twenty-eight years later.
He also dates this brief October 31, instead of September 22. The brief is
given entire in the following works : Suarez, ubi supra, p. 79 ; Bellarmin,
Responsio ad Apologiam Juramenti (Oper. torn. vii. p. 641) ; D'ji.rgentr^,
Collectio Judiciorum, torn. iii. p. 172.
* The second brief is also found in the authors mentioned in last note.
^ From a short notice, Sur le Serment d'AIlegeance, in the collection ah-eady
cited, of Censures et Conclusions de la Faculte de Theologie de Paris (p. 393),
we learn that this oath was condemned anew by Pope Innocent X. in 1648.
Kor did this new decision terminate the controversy. Many English Catholics
having consulted the Faculty of Paris on the subject, in 1680, sixty doctors
signed a response to this consultation, declaring that the English Catholics
254 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
purpose to prove that there are no grounds for citing the briefs
of Paul V, in favour of the theological theory of the indirect or
direct power. In truth, the sole object of these briefs was to
condemn the oath of allegiance, as containing many things
contrary to faith and to salvation; and the same oath manifestly
contained many things contrary to faith and to salvation, uncon-
nected altoo-ether with the theoloo;ical controversies on the direct
or indirect power.
233. JVte Oath of Alleffiance censurable independently of that Opinion; Ist, at
reviving the Oath of Supremacy.
For, in the first place, it is manifestly contrary to faith and
to salvation to attribute to any other but the pope, the vicar of
Jesus Christ, and successor of St. Peter, supreme spiritual
authority over a particular church. Now, it is certain, that by
takino; the oath of alleiriance, the Eno-lish Catholics attributed
the supreme spiritual authority over the English Church, not
to the pope, but to the king of England himself: for, in that
oath, they declare, before God, that they acknowledge King
James as their sovereiffn lord ; expressions which, in that
oath, mean supreme authority, not only in the civil and tem-
poral order, but also in the spiritual and ecclesiastical. The
words " sovereign lord" have not that meaning, it is true,
essentially and by themselves ; but they certainly had it in the
intention of the king of England, clearly manifested, not only
by the daily usage and conduct of that prince, and of the
English government of the day, but also by many other clauses
in the oath of allegiance itself, which attributed to the king the
could in conscience, and without prejudice to their faith, take the oath in
question. (Censures et Conclusions de la Faculty, &c. ibid.) Bossuet asserts
that this response was placed on the Index at Rome, in 1683 (Bossuet, ubi
supra, cap. xxiii. initio). Still we have not been able to find it in any edition
of the Index, nor in the diflPerent appendices to the Index of 1681, which we
have been able to consult. If it be not on the Index, we should incline to
believe that it was erased after the conclusion of the affairs of 1682, in order
to remove all occasion for fre?h controversies on questions so delicate. Possibly
it may be in some appendix, published between 1681 and 1704, which has
escaped our notice. Whatever be the value of this conjecture, it must be ob-
served, that Bossuet himself, notwithstanding all the decisions of the Holy See
against the oath of allegiance, appears very doubtful about the lawfulness of
that oath : on the one hand, he speaks with respect of those decisions ; on the
other, he seems anxious to excuse the Paris doctors. This chapter of the
Defence of the Declaration is probably one of those which the author would
have most extensively modified if he had given the final revision to his work.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOYEKEIGNS. 255
power of regulating the belief of the faithful in matters of
faith, "by a just and competent authority," as we shall see in
the sequel of this discussion.^
234. As covsuring as heretical a Doctrhie not condemned hy the Church.
It is manifestly contrary to faith and to salvation to forestall
the judgment of the Church, by condemning as impious and
heretical an opinion which she has not thought proper to con-
demn ; an opinion honestly entertained by a gTeat number of
pious and learned men ; now, it is certain, that the English
Catholics would be guilty of that excess by taking an oath of
allegiance, in which they would condemn as impious and as
heretical the doctrine, that the ecclesiastical authority can, in
certain cases, depose sovereigns, especially for the crime of
heresy. The English Catholics, it is true, like other Catholics,
might regard that opinion as doubtful, or even false ; " but to
condemn it as impious and heretical," without waiting for the
decision of the Church, was (to use the words of Bossuet),
" what appeared rash and extravagant." ^
' For a development of this reasoning, see Suarez, ubi supra, cap. ii. n. 2, 3 ;
Gretser, ubi supra, cap. vi. p. 49, 50.
* " Et quidem ab ea sententia abhorrere, prospectis melius rebus, uti nos
Franci facimus, erat licitum ac bonum ; damnare ut haereticum, absque Eccle-
siae auctoritate, nimium et temerarium videbatur." — Bossuet, ubi supra, p. 100.
Suarez, ubi supra, cap. iv.
It appears that the doctors of the Paris Faculty, who defended the oath of
allegiance, grounded themselves principally on the decision of the Council of
Constance, which condemns as heretical the following proposition : — " Tyrants
may be killed by their vassals or subjects, notwithstanding any oaths or con-
federation to the contrary, and even without waiting for the order or sentence
of any judge." (Labbe, Concil. vol. xii. p. 144. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xxi.
book ciii. n. 108. Hist, de I'Eglise Gall. vol. xvi. p. 14.) There is, never-
theless, a great difference between this proposition and that which the oath of
allegiance condemns as heretical. The first authorizes any vassal or subject
to put a tyrant to death, without waiting for the sentence or order of any
judge ; that is, it authorizes the first-comer to kill a tyrant by his own private
authority. The second only says that a prince excommunicated or deprived
of his states by the pope can be deposed or killed by his subjects ; but it does
not say that this can be done by private authority : whence it follows, that the
proposition can very well be restricted to the case in which subjects would be
authorized so to act by a decision emanating from a competent authority, —
such, for instance, as that of the legitimate successor of the deposed prince.
The proposition, it is true, even explained in this sense, may be impugned
without any error against faith ; but it is manifestly difierent from that which
the Council of Constance condemned as heretical. (See Suarez, ubi supra,
cap. iv. n. 20.) It would seem, even, that the English Catholics could, abso-
lutely speaking, defend it at the time when the oath of allegiance was proposed ;
256 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
235. As suhvet'ting the Mule of Faith established by Jesus Christ.
It is not less contrary to faith and to salvation to acknowledge
in a temporal prince the power of deciding on questions of faith,
or of regulating, in that matter, the belief of the faithful ; to
attribute such an authority to a temporal sovereign, is evidently
to subvert the rule of faith established by Jesus Christ ; which
consists in the teaching of the episcopal body, united to the
sovereign pontiff, their head. Now, the English Catholics, by
taking that oath of allegiance, were evidently guilty of this
excess ; for they acknowledged, in express terms, that this oath,
which laid down decisions on questions of faith, was required of
them lawfully, by a just and competent authority. In this
respect, the oath of allegiance, it is clear, did not in reality
differ from the oath of supremacy, for both equally attributed to
the sovereign a just and competent authority in matters of
faith.i
236. The Theological Opinion of the Divine Right always a free Opinion in
England as well as in other Countries.
We have merely touched on the arguments developed at the
time \\'ith great energy, by learned theologians, especially by
Cardinal Bellarmine and by Suarez, in their writings on this
controversy. These authors, it is true, also urged against the
oath of allegiance many arguments founded on the theological
opinion of the indirect power, which was then generally received ;
but it is certain that Pope Paul V. and his successors, when
condemning the oath of allegiance, never intended to oblige the
English Catholics to adopt the opinion of the direct or indirect
power ; that the Holy See never censured such of them as
rejected that opinion ; finally, that the English Catholics were
always allowed the same liberty on that question, that all
Catholics have with regard to theological opinions on which the
Church has not thought proper to pronounce a decision.^
for thej' could still suppose the old constitutional law of England in force, which
excluded from the throne heretical princes. [Not after that law had been
abrogated by competent authority. — Ed.]
' Suarez, ubi supra, cap. v. n. 6.
* See infra, Nos. 240, 241, of this first article ; and No. 8, Confirmatory
Evidence at the close of this volume.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 257
237. Bull of Sixtus V. against the King of Navarre {Henry IV.) and the
Prince of Conde.
We cannot close this discussion without devotinsr a few words
to the bull published by Sixtus V., in 1585, against the king of
Navarre (afterwards Henry IV.), and his near relative the
prince of Conde, heads of the Calvinistic party in France.^
The pope having resolved to protect the league which had many
years before been formed in France, to exclude the heretical
princes from the throne, published in the month of September,
1585, a bull, declaring them to have forfeited all their temporal
rights and honours. After a preamble, setting forth in magnifi-
cent terms the prerogatives of the Holy See, he recites the
various changes of these two princes, who, after having been
educated in Calvinism, had abjured it under Charles IX., and
had again publicly professed it, and even took arms in its
defence. "In consequence of these public and notorious facts,"
the pope adds, " we pronounce and declare, by virtue of the
plenitude of power which we have received from the King of
kings, in the name of God Almighty, and of the blessed
apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, that Henry, late king of
Navarre, and Henry, prince of Conde, are heretics, relapsed,
chiefs and abettors of heretics, guilty of treason against God,
and enemies of the Catholic faith ; that, consequently, they
have incurred the censures and penalties decreed by the sacred
canons, and by the laws general and particular against relapsed
and impenitent heretics ; that they are deprived pleno jure,
the first, of the kingdom of Navarre and of Beam, and both,
of their principalities, domains, and dignities ; that they are
disqualified and incapable of retaining such, or of obtaining
them in future ; especially in the kingdom of France, where
they have committed such excesses ; and that all their vassals
and subjects are for ever absolved from all oaths of allegiance to
them," &c. &c.^
' Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. iii. cap. xxviii. Bianchi, Delia Potestk e
della Politia della Chiesa, torn. ii. lib. vi. § 10, n. 5, &c. Mamachi, Ongines
et Antiquit. Christ, vol. iv. p. 257. For the development of these facts, see
Davila, Hist, des Guerres Civiles de France, vol. ii, ann. 1585 ; Spondanus,
Annales, ann. 1585 ; Daniel, Hist, de France, &c.
^ " QuEe omnia cilm raanifesta, publica et notoria sint ; . . . nos in pleni-
tudine potestatis, quam ipse Rex regum et Dominus dominantium Yichi nobis
indignis tribuit, constituti ; auctoritate Dei omnipotentis, ac beatorum Petri et
VOL. II. S
258 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
238. This Bull explained by the same Principles as those of Paul III, and
of Pius V.
To this bull may be easily applied the observations which we
have already made on those of Paul III. against Henry VIII.,
and of Pius V. against Elizabeth. The direct and principal
object which Sixtus V. proposes to himself in his bull against
the king of Navarre and the prince of Conde, is to pronounce
and declare, in virtue of his apostolical power, that these two
princes are heretics, relapsed, and abettors of heresy. He then
deduces the consequence of that declaration, namely, that both
princes are deprived of all their rights and temporal honours.
Such was really, in those days, the consequence of heresy,
according to the general belief of the Catholics of France, and
of all the Catholic nations in Europe, who regarded this con-
sequence as a point of constitutional law, established by imme-
P.auli apostolorum ejus, et nostril ; . . . pronuntiamus et declaramus, Henricum
quoiulam regem, et Henricum Condensem supradictos, fuisse et esse haereticos,
in hferesim rela])sos et impcEnitentes, hsereticorum quoque duces, fautores et
defensores jiianifestos, publicos et notorios, sicque laesae majestatis di\'ina5 reos,
et orthodoxae fidei ChristiauBe hostes ; . . . ac proinde eos damnabiliter iucur-
risse in sententias, censuras et poenas sacris caiionilius et constitutionibus apos-
tolicis, legibusque generalibus et particularibus contentas, ac hsreticis relapsia
et impoenitentibus debitas ; et specialiter eos fuisse et esse ipso jure privatos,
Henricum quotidam regem videlicet, praetenso Nars-arrse regno necnon Beami,
alterum ver6 Henricum, Condensi (principatu) ; et utrumque eorumque pos-
teros, omnibus et quibuscumque aliis principatibus, dominiis, necnon digni-
talibus, honoribus, muneribus, ac ofEciis etiam regis ; . . . eosdemque propterea
se illis reddidisse indignos ; ac fuisse et esse inhabiles et incapaces ad ilia
retinenda, et alia hujusmodi in postenim obtinenda ; . . . specialiter in regno
Franciae, in quo tot atrocia et nefaria crimina patrarunt ; . . . quin etiam pro-
ceres, feudatarios, vassalos, subditos et populos, . . . ac caeteros omnes qui illia
quomodocumque juraverunt, h juramento hujusmodi perpetu6 absolutos esse,
etc." — Bulla Sixti V. adversiis Henricum, regem Navarrae.
This bull, which was published at Rome in 1585 (in 8vo.), is omitted in the
BuUarium Romanum, and in most of the historical collections published in
France, on the affairs of the League, after Henry's reconciliation with the
Catholic Church. The M^moires de la Ligne (vol. i. 8vo. edit. p. 236) give
only a French translation of the edition which had appeared in 1585 (8vo.),
under the date Cologne. The Latin text is printed (from the Roman copy)
at the end of the book published against the said bull, by the famous legist
Hotraan, with the title Brutum Fulmen Papse Sixti V. adveretis Henricum
Seren. Regem Navarrag, et Illust. Henricum Borbonium, principem Condseum
(8vo. pp. 234, no date). There is a second edition of this work, published in
1603, in 12mo., with various Latin pieces. The whole work was published in
French, with the title Protest^ation et Defense pour le Roi de Navarre, centre
I'injuste et tyrannique BuUe de Sixte V., 1587, 8vo. The Latin text of this
bull is also given in the following collections : Scripta utriusque Partis, Fran-
cofurti, 1586, 8vo. ; Goldast, Monarchia S. Rom. Imperii, Francofurti, 1614,
fol. vol. iii. p. 124.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGITS. 259
morial usage. ^ Tliat this law was still in force, could not be
questioned, for it had never been reformed or changed by com-
petent authority ; and it had been publicly appealed to by the
chiefs of the League in a manifesto which received the sanction
of nearly all the princes of Europe, and of almost all France.
Accordingly, the pope's bull, after being published at the request
of the chiefs of the League, was circulated by them through
the kingdom, by the tacit authorization, at least, of King
Henry IIL, who thtn occupied the throne of France."
239. This Explanation is totally independent of the Opinions of the Popes as
Private Doctors.
It may perhaps be objected to us, that the theological opinion
of the direct or indirect power being in those times generally
admitted by theologians, especially in Italy, there is every
reason to believe that the popes Paul III., Pius V., and
Sixtus V. adopted that opinion as the grounds of the extra-
ordinary authority which they exercised over sovereigns.
It is certainly very natural to suppose that those popes held,
as private doctors, the opinion then generally received by theo-
logians.^ But whatever may have been their private opinions
on the point, it is utterly improbable that they regarded that
opinion as the principal, much less as the sole ground of their
decrees ; whilst they had a title much less liable to doubt in
the fundamental laws of France and England, whose enforce-
ment the Catholics of both kingdoms confidently requested.
Supposing the existence of those fundamental laws, the popes,
in order to depose these princes in question, had no need of
recurring to the theological opinion of the direct or indirect
power ; they need but pronounce or declare, in virtue of their
directive power, that these princes had incurred the deposition
enacted against them by the fundamental law of their own
states. Resting on this directive power, the popes had a prin-
' See note 1, n. 228, cli. iii. supra.
' See, in support of these reflections, the authors cited note 1, n. 237, supra.
All these facts shall be further illustrated in the following article, in which we
shall prove the existence of the ancient constitutional law appealed to by the
advocates of the League.
^ Of the opinion of Pope Sixtus V., especially, there seems to be no doubt.
See No. 8, Confirmatory Evidence, at the close of this volume.
s 2
260 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
ciple admitted without dispute by all theologians, even by the
advocates of the theological opinion of the direct or indirect
power ; whilst this latter opinion, though in high repute at the
time, was still a subject of great controversy among theologians ;
some admitting the direct power, others the indirect, others,
in fine, the directive power alone, which is very different from
the other two.^
240. Conclusion of this Discussion : \st, No Decree of P^es or Councils sanctions
the Theological Opinion of the Divine Right.
It is, we believe, unnecessary to protract our examination of
the decrees published by popes and councils on the present
subject. The details which we have given are more than
sufficient to authorize the assertion, that the theological opinion
of the divine right, dii-ect or indirect, was never supposed, either
by popes or by councils, in their decrees ; and that, even at a
time when that opinion was in highest repute, it never became
more than a scholastic opinion, on which the Church and the
Holy See never pronounced any decision. We could go farther,
and prove that, in these latter times, the Holy See, far from
adopting or sanctioning this opinion, has frequently intimated
that she does not by any means wish to approve it, nor to adopt
it as the principle of her conduct to sovereigns.^ The limits
prescribed oblige us to suppress these considerations, as not
being connected in any manner with the principal object of
our Inquiry.
241. 2nd, Tliis System was never defined to be an Article of Faith.
We shall close this article by simply observing, that if it be
unjust to reproach the popes and councils of the middle ages
with having authorized, by their decrees, the theological theory
of the right divine, direct or indirect, it is still more unjust to
pretend that they ever defined that opinion as an article of
faith. We confidently defy the enemies of the Church to pro-
duce a single authentic testimony in favour of such an assertion ;
the lengthened accounts which we have given of the principal
' An exposition of these different opinions is given in No. 8, Confirmatory
Evidence, at the end of this volume.
' See some important details on this point in No. 8, Confirmatory Evidence.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 261
decrees of popes and councils in this matter, clearly demonstrate
the falseness of such an assertion. The deposition of the
emperors Henry IV. and Frederick II., the most remarkable of
their kind, were human facts, not decrees of faith. The grounds
alleged by the popes in support of these sentences, are arguments
more or less liable to objection, and which the popes themselves
never proposed as articles of faith. ^ The constitution of Boni-
face VIII., Unam Sanctam, which appears to express the fullest
extension of the temporal power of the Holy See, merely decides
a point denied by* no Catholic ; namely, that all men must,
under pain of salvation, be subject to the pope ; but it does not
define that they must be subject to him " even in temporals." '^
Hence, it is generally admitted, even by the Ultramontane theo-
logians themselves, that the opinion which attributes to the
Church and the pope a jurisdiction, even indirect, over tem-
porals, has never been regarded in the Church as an article of
faith ; and that it has been always free, like any other simple
opinion left to the discussion of the schools.^
AETICLE II.
Real Ground of the Power in Question the Constitutional Law of the
Middle Ages.
242. Some Idea of Constitutio^ial Law and of Common Law.
The better to understand and develop the opinion by which
we account for the power exercised by popes and councils over
sovereigns in the middle ages, it may be desirable to give, in a
* It is a common opinion of theologians, that the arguments used even by
general councils, to prove a dogma of Catholic faith, are not themselves always
of faith, because the councils do not always propose them as such. See De la
Hogue, De Ecclesia, p. 219 ; S. Pont. Greg. XVI. II Trionfo della S. Sede et
della Chiesa, cap. xxiv. ; Carrifere, De Matrimonio, torn. i. n. 582. This sub-
ject is fully explained in Montague's work, De Censuris seu Notis Theologicis,
art. i. ad calcem Praelect. Theol. de Opere Sex Dierimi.
2 " Porro subesse Romano pontifici omnem humanara creaturam declaramus,
dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis." See
the text of Boniface VIII., cited by Bossuet, ubi supra, p. 679.
^ In siipport of these observations, see I'Hist. Litt^raire de Fenelon, part iv.
art. ii. § 1 ; Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. i. sect. i. cap. ii. ; lib. iii. cap. i. v. et
alibi passim, pp. 43, 46, 248, 571, 589, &c. ; Maraachi, Origines et Antiquitates
Ecclesiast. vol. iv. p. 244 ; Pey, De I'Autorite des Deux Puissances, vol, i.
p. 114, &c. ; Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xix. book xc. n. IS.
262 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
few words, a correct idea of what is called constitutional law
(droit public), and the meaning which we attach to that word.
We cannot better explain it than by giving, in the words of
the celebrated Doraat, the common doctrine of jurisconsults on
this point. " With regard," he says, " to that part of the
order of society which refers solely to persons united in one
state under the same government, the matters arising from this
order are of two kinds, which it is necessary to distinguish.
The first consists of those which relate to the general order of
the state ; such as those that relate to government, the
power of the authorities, and the obedience due to them, &c.
The second consists of those which regard the relations
between private individuals, their various obligations to each
other, whether with or without a contract. The first kind of
matters, having reference to the general order of a state, is the
object of constitutional law ; and the second, which regards only
what passes between private persons, is the object of that other
class of laws, which, for that reason, is called private law.
Of these two kinds of law there are two sorts, admitted in
practice by all the nations of the earth. One consists of those
which belong to the natural law ; the other, of laws peculiar to
each country ; such, for instance, as customs sanctioned by long
usage, and laws such as the reigning power may enact." ^
Thus, in the opinion of Domat and of all jurisconsults, the
constitutional law of any society is that whose object is the
general order of that society, especially its government, the
authority of its prince, the obedience due to him, Szc. Private
law regards solely the relations of private individuals among
themselves, and their mutual obligations.
243. How both can he known.
Both are founded partly on the natural law and partly on
human positive law, which may be known not only by written
statutes, but also by custom which long usage has sanctioned.
' Domat, Droit Public, Preface, pp. 15, 16. See, in confirmation of these
notions, Suarez, De Legibus, a treatise not less esteemed by lawyers than by
theologians, and generally regarded as " the most clear, the most complete,
and the most profound ever written on this subject." — Christian, de Bacon,
Discours prelim, p. Ixiv. See also Conferences d'Angers, Traits dea Lois;
Zallinger, Instit. Juris nat. lib. iii. cap. iv. n. 211.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 263
The author explains this part afterwards in the follo-o'ing terms :
" Laws or rules/' he observes, " are of two sorts ; one which
belongs to the natural law, and the other to positive law, other-
wise called human or conventional law, because men have
enacted them. Human laws are of two sorts ; the first, such as
from their first institution were written and promulgated by
competent authority ; as, for instance, the ordinances of the
kings of France ; and the other, those whose origin and first
establishment cannot be traced, but which are found sanctioned
by the universal approbation and immemorial usage of the
people : these latter rules, or laws, are called customs. Cus-
toms derive their obligatory force from the people who have
received them, where, as in republics, the authority is vested in
the people. But, in monarchical states, customs are not estab-
lished, and cannot acquire the force of law, except with the
assent of the sovereign. Thus, in France, the kings have fixed
and drawn up in writing, and confirmed as laws, all the customs,
preserving for each province the laws which they already had, either
from the ancient consent of the people that instituted them, or of
the princes who governed them." ^ A little farther on, the same
author concludes from these principles, that "if the difficulties
which arise in the interpretation of a law or custom, are found
explained by an ancient usage, which fixes its sense, and which
is confirmed by an uninterrupted succession of uniform decisions,
we must adhere to the sense as decided by custom, which is the
best interpreter of laws." ^
244. Power of the Pape and of Councils over Sovereigns dunng the Middle Ages
founded on the Constitutional Law of the Time.
Keeping these preliminary explanations in view, it can be
easily proved, that the power of the pope and of councils over
sovereigns in the middle ages, was the necessary consequence of
a point of constitutional law, purely human and conventional,
then forming part of the constitution or fundamental law of all
the Catholic states of Europe, as we have already stated in our
exposition of Fenelon's opinion on this subject.^ We mean the
• Domat, Lois Civiles, livre pr^m. tit. i. sect. i. n. 2, 3, 4, 10, 11.
« Ibid. sect. ii. u. 19. * Supra, n. 10, &c.
264< POWER OF THE POPE [PART TI.
condition then stipulated in tlie election of sovereigns, by the
very constitution of their states ; a condition by vrhich a sove-
reign becoming notoriously a heretic or rebel against the Church
incurred deposition. This provision of constitutional law is
clearly proved, both by the constitution then common to all the
Catholic states of Europe, and by the national constitution of
certain states.'
§ 1. Proofs founded on the Constitution common to all the Catholic
States of Etirope during the Middle Ages.
245. Two important Facts to he remembered on this Subject.
To ascertain what was the constitutional law common to all
the Catholic states of Europe on this matter, we need but
combine these two facts which we have already proved in the
preceding chapters.
1st, That in all the monarchies of the middle ages, at least
during the earlier ages of that period, the authority of the
sovereign was limited by the general assembly of the nation ;
which, according to the nature of elective governments, could
prescribe certain conditions in the election of the sovereign, make
him responsible for his acts, and even depose him, in certain
cases, for the violation of the conditions stipulated at his
election.^
' We have already seen that Count de Maistre believed that the existence
of this constitutional law was suflBciently proved by the sole fact of the uni-
versal custom and belief of the middle ages (supra, n. 14). We at first inclined
to the skme opinion (see first edition of this work, p. 64, n. 33) ; but on mature
reflection we have been led to believe, that that fact considered in itself — that
is, independently of the circumstances which accompanied it, — does not prove
conclusively the constitutional law in question. It is true that, generally
speaking, the sole fact {i. e. the universal belief and custom) is enough to prove
a point of constitutional law in favour of sovereigns, because from that fact
alone arises a sort of prescription, which supplies, if necessary, the flaw in the
original possession. (Grotius, De Jure Belli, lib. ii. cap. iv. Puffeudorf, De
Jure Nat. et Gent. lib. iv. cap. xii. § 8 ; lib. vii. cap. vii. § 4 ; cap. viii. § 9.)
But when there is question of pro\-ing a point of constitutional law in favour
of the Church, or of the Holy See, it is not enough, in the opinion of the
enemies of the Church, to appeal to this argument of prescription, which would
still leave it doubtful, or possible that such prescription arose originally from
an error, or usurpation ; we must prove, moreover, that firom the beginning
the Church had possessed it legitimately. Now it is manifest that this latter
point cannot be proved decisively by the sole fact of a long and peaceable
possession, independently of the circvmistances of said possession.
' Supra, cli. i. n. 25.
CHAP. III.] OVEE SOVEKEIGNS. 265
2nd, That, from the tenth century at least, it was generally
admitted, that sovereigns were invested with supreme authority
tinder the express condition of submission to the Church and to
the Catholic faith ; so that, by heresy or excommunication, they
incurred the penalty of deposition.^ This condition in the
election of sovereigns was a public fact, manifested by the
universal custom and belief, founded evidently on the actually
existing constitutional law. Of the fact itself, that such a
universal custom and belief existed, there cannot be a shadow of
doubt after the proofs given in the preceding chapter. And
with re(»;ard to the grounds or orio-in of that custom and belief,
none can be assigned with any appearance of probability except
an existing constitutional law. Such a provision of constitu-
tional law cannot, in fact, be questioned, unless by supposing
that the universal belief and custom in question were founded
in an error, if not criminal, as has been sometimes supposed by
the enemies of the Church, at least, material and inculpable,
as has been asserted or insinuated by more moderate writers.
Now, the falseness of this supposition is proved by a mere state-
ment of the facts cited in the preceding chapter. For, first,
supposing even that the conduct of popes and councils to sove-
reigns during the middle ages was founded in error, we have
proved that never was error so excusable and so inculpable."
Secondly, the authors who suppose that the conduct of popes
and councils to sovereigns was founded on an error, material, at
least, and inculpable, assert that this error came either from
the general belief of the middle ages in the authenticity of the
pretended donation of Constantine, or from the theological
theory which attributes to the Church, by divine right, a
jurisdiction, at least indirect, over temporals ; two suppositions
which we have shown to be equally inadmissible.^
246. Obvious Inferences from these Facts, as hearing on the present Question.
This point of constitutional law once established, it is obvious,
that the natural consequence of this condition stipulated in the
election of sovereigns, should be to invest the pope and council
' Ch. ii. art. i.
2 See the conclusion of the preceding chapter, supra, n. 165, &c.
3 Supra, n. 173, 176, &c.
206 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
with a great authority over them, so as, in certain cases, even to
depose them. For the pope and councils heing, in truth, the
natural judges of all questions relating to faith, to morals, and
to ecclesiastical discipline, it was their duty to declare and to de-
nounce to the people, the sovereigns who had fallen into heresy
and excommunication ; and such a declaration they could not
make without pronouncing these princes deprived of their rights,
by the very custom and the constitution of their states. To
pronounce such deposition, the pope needed no more than the
directive power, in the sense explained by us in the commence-
ment of tliis chapter ; * a power generally admitted even in our
own days, and much more in those ancient times when the pope
and councils were universally regarded as the supreme tribunal,
before which sliould be judged the case of sovereigns incurring
the penalty of deposition. We shall only remark, that in the
commencement, the custom and constitution of states did not
reserve this judgment to the pope, or to the Church, but left it
to the general assembly of the nation." But it is certain that,
at least from the tenth century,' universal custom reserved that
judgment to the pope or a general council, for the good of the
sovereigns themselves, and of society at large. It was, in truth,
of the most vital interest to society, that the decision of a cause
so momentous should not be abandoned to the people, ever
liable to be led astray, nor to particular barons, often intriguing
and ambitious. Sovereigns themselves should naturally wish to
have the decision reserved to the pope, or to a general council,
as being more disinterested, more enlightened, and more free,
than that of the people or the barons. It was, therefore,
gradually established, that the judgment of sovereigns who
incurred the penalty of deposition, for rebellion against the
' Supra, n. 170.
' In the following paragraph we shall see that from the seventh century the
constitutional law of the kingdom of the Goths excluded heretical princes from
the throne. But it does not appear that then, nor for a long time later, the
judgment of an heretical prince was reserved to the pope or a general council.
* It must be remarked, that the bishops of the Council of Troyes, held in
867, in their letter to Pope Nicholas I., reproach the children of Louis le D^-
bonnaire w ith haAnng deprived their father of the empire without the iidvice or
consent of Pope Gregory (Labbe, Concilia, torn. viii. p. S71), words which
clearly imply that the deposition of a sovereign was then considered in France
a cav^sa major, the decision of which was reserved to the Holy See.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 267
Church, should be reserved to the Holy See, or to a general
council. By means of this restriction, wicked princes were pro-
tected against the revolts of which their disorders might be
made a pretext ; while there is yet a sufficiently urgent motive
for their amendment in the dread of that terrible sentence which
the pope and council had power to pronounce against them.
§ 2. Proofs founded on the Constitution of particular States.
247. Conditions in the Election of the Kings of Spain in the Seventh Century.
Besides the arguments drawn from the constitution common to
all the Catholic states of Europe, during the middle ages, there
are others founded on the constitutions of particular states, which
prove the existence of the law in question. In the development
of this proof we shall have occasion to remark, that this constitu-
tional law was not established simultaneously in all the Catholic
states of Europe, but that it was adopted gradually in all from
the fifth to the tenth century.
I. Constitution of Spain. — From the seventh century we find
important limitations prescribed to the authority of the king of
Spain, in a general assembly of the nation." The bishops and
lords to whom the constitution intrusted the right of electinof
the king, decided unanimously in the sixth Council of Toledo
(held in 638), " that in future no king should ascend the thi-one
until he had promised on oath, among other conditions, that he
would not tolerate heretics in his states." ^ From the text
itself of this decree, and from the circumstances in which it
and several others were passed in councils held at Toledo, about
the same time, it is manifest, that the chief object of these
enactments was to insure the tranquillity of the state, by main-
taining unity of religious belief. But whatever was the object
of these decrees, it is manifest from that just cited, that by the
constitution of the kingdom of the Visigoths, no sovereign could
be elected except on the express condition of his maintaining
' Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. viii. book xxxviii. n. 14. Mariana, Hist. d'Espag.
book i. n. 32. I'erreras, Hist. d'Espag. vol. ii. p. 312. Perez Valiente, Ap-
paratus Juris Publici Hispanici, torn, ii, cap. vi. n. 38-40 ; cap. vii. n. 17.
^ We have already cited this text of the Council of Toledo in our Introduc-
tion, vol. i. p. 81, n. 2.
268 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
within his dominions the unity of the Catholic faith ; so that
a prince who notoriously embraced or favoured heresy incurred
the forfeiture of his rights, as the violator of an express
stipulation in his election, and, consequently, could be de-
posed by a general assembly of the nation ; that is, by the
councils or mixed assemblies, in which the great aifairs of the
nation were discussed, and in which the bishops had the prin-
cipal authority.
248. Lawfulness of these Conditions.
There is nothing astonishing in this stipulation, and in some
others imposed on the Gothic kings by the councils of this
period, if we reflect for a moment on the character already
given of the Gothic monarchy in Spain, which was elective,
and on the authority of the States-General in such govern-
ments.' " It is not surprising," observes a judicious author,
" that the councils imposed new laws and conditions on the
Gothic kings. All the grandees of the kingdom assisted at these
councils ; they were a sort of States-General. The bishops, it
is true, had the exclusive management of ecclesiastical affairs ;
but on questions of civil affairs the barons had their voice and
votes, as well as the prelates." ^
249. Continuance of this Ancient Law in Spain dwring the Middle Ages.
It must be remarked, moreover, that most of the conditions
imposed on the sovereign, in those councils just mentioned, and
especially the obligation of professing the Catholic religion, and
of maintaining unity of religious belief among his subjects,
remained constantly in force in the Spanish monarchy during
the whole course of the middle ages.^ In the ceremony of
their coronation, all the kings swore to observe these condi-
tions. It was not until after the fourteenth century that this
oath was gradually discontinued, probably, as a famous Spanish
legal writer has observed, because it was no longer necessary to
' Supra, ch. i. art. i. n. 25.
' Note by P. Charenton, a Jesuit, on Mariaua's History of Spain, book i.
n. 32.
^ Perez Valiente, Apparatus Juris Publici Hispanici, vol. ii. cap. vii. n. 18.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 26,9
insure the attachment of the princes and subjects to the Catholic
faith. 1
'250. A King rebelling against God and the Church deprived of his Titles by a
Law of St. Edward.
11. English Constitution. — After the tenth century the history
of England furnishes a remarkable proof of the progress of
that ancient constitutional law, by which a prince rebelling
against God or the Church incurred the forfeiture of his rights.
The fourteenth article of the Laws of St. Edward, published
by William the Conqueror and his successors, decides expressly,
that a king refusing the respect and protection due to the
Church forfeits his title. The following is the text of this
article : " The king," as he holds here below the place of the
supreme King, is appointed to govern his earthly kingdom and
the people of the Lord, and especially to honour the holy
Church, to defend her against her enemies, to tear from her
bosom, to destroy and ruin utterly the evil-doers. If he acts
' Perez Valiente, ibid.
* " Eex autem, qui vicarius summi Regis est, ad hoc est constitutus, ut reg-
nuni terrenum, et populum Domini, et super omnia sanctam veueretur Eccle-
siam ejus, et regat, et ab injuriosis defendat, et maleficos ab ea evellat et
destruat, et penittis disperdat. Quod nisi fecerit, nee nomen regis in eo constahit ;
verum, teatante papa Joanne, nomen regis pcrdit." — Leges Eduardi Regis, art. 17
(alias 15) ; apud Wilkins, Leges Anglo-Saxonicse ; Londini, 1721, fol. This
edition, which is far more complete than any other, has been faithfully re-
printed in Canciani's collection, Barbarorum Leges Antiqufe, Venetiis, 1781-
1792, 5 vols. fol. (tom. iv. p. 337).
It is strange that the last phrase of the text just cited is not found in the
edition of the Laws of St. Edward given in Houard's collection, Traites sur
les Coutumes Anglo-Normandes, Paris, 1776, 4 vols. 4to. (See vol. i. p. 167,
of that collection.) Tlie suppression is the more surprising, as the editor
assigns no reason for it ; as he follows in all other points Wilkins's text faith-
fully, according to the promise in his preface (p. 7) ; and, finally, because the
passage in question is found in all the editions which we have met with of the
Laws of St. Edward. (See, in particular, Spelman, Concilia, Decreta, Leges,
Constitutiones orbis Britannici, Londini, 1639, fol. p. 622 ; Wilkins, Concilia
Magnse Britannise, Londini, 1727, tom. i. p. 312 ; Hardouin, Coucil. tom. vi.
p. 988 ; Labbe, Concil. tom. ix. p. 1023.) The omission of so important a
passage in Houard's collection can hardly have been a mere editorial oversight.
Possibly it might have been expunged by the censors of that day ; or perhaps
the editor was puzzled to reconcile that article of the Laws of St. Edward with
the true principles of the mutual independence of the two powers. His em-
barrassment on that point must have been the greater, as he evinces throughout
his work a strong attachment to the principles then so common among the
legal writers, who in general are prone to extend the authority of the prince at
the expense of the authority of the Church. (See, especially, vol. i. pp. 49,
58, &c.) But whatever may have been the cause of the suppression, one thing
is certain, that it is very difficult to excuse it.
270 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
not thus, he does not realize his title of king ; but, as Pope
John has declared, he forfeits his royal title." ^ In the course
of the same article, after a detailed enumeration of the principal
duties of a king to his subjects and to the Church, it is ordained,
" that the king, in his own person, placing his hand on the holy
Gospels, and on the sacred relics, in presence of his kingdom,
priests, and clergy, shall, before he is crowned by the archbishops
and bishops, swear to observe all these things." - From this
article of the Laws of St. Edward, it follows manifestly, that
according to the constitution or fundamental law of the kinwdora
of England, which the king swore to observe before he received
the crown, a prince rebelling against God and the Church could
be deposed.
251. Authenticity of this Law, and its real Meaning.
To comprehend the force of this testimony, it may not be
useless to discuss briefly the objections that might be raised
against this testimony itself, or against our interpretation of it.
With regard to the first point, the common opinion of critics is,
that the laws attributed to St. Edward, in the different collec-
tions of the ancient laws of England, are not, properly speaking,
his, but that they were published under his name by William
the Conqueror and his successors, not long after the Norman
' None of tlie editors of the difiFerent collections cited in the last note men-
tion who was the Pope John whose authority is appealed to in this article of
the Laws of England. The text of this article supposes that he was the pope
whom Pepin and the French barons consulted on the deposition of Childeric ;
but that is a gi'oss anachronism ; for there was no Pope John contemporary of
Pepin ; and the consultation on the deposition of Childeric, it is well known,
was addressed to Pope Zachary. There is every reason to believe that the
Pope John mentioned here is John YIII., to whom the Decretum of Gratian
attributes a decree similar to the one in question. (Decretum Gratiani, part. ii.
causa 23, quaest. 5, cap. xxvi. Administratores.) There is, however, a great
difference between this article in the Decretum of Gratian and that in the
English Laws. The former only excommunicated princes who, after having
been thrice admonished by the bishop, refused to fulfil their duty to the Church
and to the poor, and to punish malefactors. The English laws go further, and
deprive in such cases the king of his title. This very remarkable difference
was probably a consequence of the usage introduced after Pope John's (VIII.)
time, and admitted by sovereigns themselves, after the tenth century, on the
temporal effects of excommunication, as we have already seen (ch. ii. art. i. ;
oh. iii. art. ii. § 1).
^ " Ista vero debet omnia rex in propria persona, inspectis et tactis sacro-
sanctis Evangeliis, et super sacras et sanctas reliquias, coram regno et eacer-
dotio et clero, jurare, antequam ab archiepiscopis et episcopis regni coronetur."
— Leges Eduardi Eegis, ubi supra.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 271
conquest of England. Tlie la-ws of St. Edward may, therefore,
be regarded as monuments of the legislation in force under the
first Anglo-Norman kings. In this sense, the authenticity of
these laws is generally admitted by the best critics, and is sup-
ported by the uniform e\adence of manuscripts.^
Some readers may perhaps incline to believe, that the article
cited from these laws ought to be interpreted in a sense very
different from that which we have given to it, and that it does
not necessarily mean that the king, in the case supposed, forfeits
his rights to the throne ; but only, that he deserves to forfeit
them, and that he is unworthy of the royal title. This expla-
nation, nevertheless, appears irreconcilable with the natural
sense of the text ; for it not only says that the king is unworthy
of his title, and that he does not realize it, but that, in fact, he
loses it ; expressions which convey, as clearly as possible, the
loss of the royal dignity, and of the rights attached to it.
Moreover, if there were any ambiguity in the text, it should
naturally be interpreted by the usage and constitutional law of
Catholic Europe at this period.^
252. Many Sovereigns declare themselves Vassals of the Holy See after the
Tenth Centui-y.
III. Particular Constitutions of many States considered as
fiefs of the Holy See. — The power attributed to the pope and to
councils over sovereigns in the middle ages, by the maxims of
constitutional law then common in all the CathoHc states of
Europe, was much more extensive over many sovereigns who had
voluntarily conferred on the Holy See a right of sovereignty over
their states. ^ Nothing is better authenticated in history than
those solemn covenants, by which sovereigns otherwise inde-
pendent of the Holy See in temporals, voluntarily declared
themselves its vassals, and did homao;e for their dominions.
We are not discussing now the motives of these acts of submis-
sion, which to the present age appear so extraordinary ; we have
already seen that, in the existing state of society, they were
' Wilkins, Concilia Magnse BritanniEe, torn. i. p. 310. Canciani, Barbaronim
Leges, torn. iv. p. 224.
* See, in confirmation of these views, Keceveur. Hist, de I'Egliae, vol. v.
p. 127.
^ See note, n. 49, ch. i.
272 powEU OF THE pope [part II.
founded, not only on religious motives, but also on evident con-
siderations of public interest. 1 But, whatever may have been
the influence of these motives, it is enough for us to prove the
fact of this dependence on the Holy See which most of the
princes of the Catholic states of Europe voluntarily imposed on
themselves, after the tenth century.
253. Oath of Fealty taken to the Pope by Robert Guiscard.
The first example occurring in history is that of Robert
Guiscard, founder of the kingdom of Naples, in 1059.- The
following is the form of oath taken by him to the pope, on
receiving the investiture of his states ; it is given by Baronius
in his Annals, from the original, which was preserved in his
day in the Archives of the Vatican. "I, Kobert,^ by the grace
of God and of St. Peter, duke of Apulia and of Calabria,
and by the same protection, duke elect of Sicily, will be
faithful from this day forward to the holy Roman Church, and
to thee, my liege lord. Pope Nicholas. I will take no part in
any act or counsel against thy life, thy limb, or liberty ; nor
will I knowingly disclose, to thine injury, the plans which thou
' Supra, n. 50.
* Leo Ostiensis, Chronic. Cassin. lib. iii. cap. xii. &c. Baronii Annales,
torn. xi. ann. 1039, n. 6", &c. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ix. n. 39.
Voigt, Hist, de Gr^goire VII. books i. xii. p. 19, &c. 549, &c.
' " Ego Robertus, Dei gratld et saticti Petri, dti-x Apulia, et Calabria, et
utrjique subveniente, futurus Sicilias ; ab hac bora et deinceps ero fidelis sanctae
Eomanse Ecclesiae, et tibi domino meo Nicolaopapae. In consilio vel in facto,
unde vitam aut membrum perdas, aut captus sis mala captione, non ero. Con-
silium quod mihi credideris, et contradices no illud manifestem, non nianifes-
tabo ad tuum damnum, me sciente. Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae ubique adjutor
ero, ad tenendum et ad acquirendum regalia sancti Petri, ejusque pos.sessiones,
pro meo posse, contra omnes homines ; et adjuvabo te, ut securfe et honorific^
teneas papatum Romanum, terramque sancti Petri, et principatum : nee inva-
dere, nee acquirere quEeram, nee etiam depraedari prsesumam, absque tuS tuo-
rumque successorum, qui ad honorem sancti Petri intraverint, certd licentiA,
prater illam, quam tu mihi concedes, vel tui concessnri sunt successores. Pen-
sionem de terrd sancti Petri, quam ego teneo aut tcncbo, sicut statutum est,
recta fide studebo ut illam annualiter Romana habeat Ecclesia. Omnes quoque
ecclesias, quae in meS. persistunt dominatione, cum earum po.ssessionibus,
dimittam in tuS. potestate ; et defensor ero illarum ad fidelitatem sanctae Ro-
manae Ecclesiae. Et si tu, vel tui successores, ante me ex hjlc vita migraveritis,
secundum quod monitus fuero h. melioribus cardinalibus, clericis Romanis et
laicis, adjuvabo ut papa eligatur, et ordinetur ad honorem sancti Petri. Haec
omnia suprascripta observabo sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae et tibi, cum rectA fide,
et banc fidelitatem observabo tuis succes-soribus. ad honorem sancti Petri ordi-
natis, qui milii firmaverint inrestituram a te mihi conccssam. Sic me Deus
adjuvet, et haec sancta Evangelia." —Baronii Annales, ubi .supra, n. 70.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 273
may entrust to me, and which you forbid me to reveal. In all
places, and with all my might, I will assist the holy Roman
Church against all men, to hold and to preserve the property and
the domain of St. Peter ; I will assist you to preserve in security
and honour the Roman popedom, the territory, and the princi-
pality of St. Peter ; I will not seek to invade, to acquire, or to
seize, without your permission, or that of your successors in the
dignity of St. Peter, any other possessions but those which may
be granted to me by you or your successor. I shall endeavour
in good earnest to pay annually to the Roman Church the
tribute which has been fixed on the lands of St. Peter which I
now hold, or which I may hereafter acquire. I shall surrender
into your hands all the churches of my dominions, with their
dependencies ; and I shall maintain them in fidelity to the holy
Roman Church. Should you or any of your successors die
before me, I will give my aid to the election of a pope and
successor worthy of St. Peter, according to the advice that shall
be given to me by the best Cardinals, and the Roman clergy and
laity. I will observe all these things faithfully to the Roman
Church and to you ; and I will observe the same fidelity to your
successor in the dignity of St. Peter, who will confirm to me the
investiture now gi'anted by you."
254. Rights of Smereigntij of the Holy See both hefore and after the time of
Gregory VII.
Many letters of Gregory VII. suppose, that before his time
the Holy See had acquired similar rights of sovereignty over
other states ; for in maintaining his rights over Spain, Hungary,
and some other kingdoms, he grounds his claim principally on
ancient custom, admitted by the sovereigns themselves.^ The
origin of this custom, and the titles of the various grants
' '" Xon latere vos credimus, rcgnuni Hispardce, ab antiquo, proprri juris
sancti Petn fuisse, et adhuc (licet diu a paganis sit occupatum) lege tamen
justitise non evaciiata, nulli mortalium, sed soli apostolicae sedi, ex aequo per-
tinere." — Gregorii VII. Epist. lib. i. epist. 7.
" Nam, sicut a majoribus piatrice tuce cognoscere potes, regnum Hungarice
sanct(B Eomance Ecdegice proprium est, k- rege Stephano olim beato Petro, cum
omni jure et potestate sua, oblatum et devotfe traditum." — Idem, lib. ii. epist.
13, &c. See some other letters of the same pope, cited by Bossuet, Defens.
Declar. lib. i. sect. i. cap. xii. xiii. xiv. ; Fleuiy, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ixxiii.
n. 11 ; D. Ceillier, Hist, des Aut. Eccles. vol. xx. p. 662 ; Voigt, Hist, de
Gregoire VII. book v. p. 184 ; book x. p. 442.
VOL. II. T
274 POWER OF THE POPE [PART U.
appealed to by Gregory VII. are no longer extant ; but tbey
could be either extant, or at all events well known, in his own
time ; nor can the manner in which he speaks of them leave any
doubt of the fact ; for it is utterly incredible that he would
have appealed to them so confidently, had they not been admitted
at this time as unquestionable.^
After the pontificate of Gregory VII. many other sovereigns
did homage for their dominions to the Holy See. AVe may
mention particularly Godfrey de Bouillon, king of Jerusalem, in
lOOD;*^ Roger, founder of the kingdom of Sicily, in 1130;
and Charles I., king of Sicily, in 1276 ; '' Peter of Arragon,
in 120-i ;* finally, the kings of England, Henry II., in 1172,
John Lackland, in 1213, and Henry III., in 1210.^ All these
states, and several others which we omit here, were, at the time,
universally regarded as fiefs of the Roman Church ; sovereigns
themselves publicly acknowledged the fiict, by their conduct,
as we have already shown in the preceding chapter.^
255. Jxcmarkable Consequences of these Rights.
One of the chief effects of the feudal dependence was, to give
to the pope over his vassal sovereigns special rights, much more
extensive than those which he had over other sovereigns ; it was
not a merely directive power, but a real power of temporal
jurisdiction, and even a real sovereignty, founded on the very
constitution of the state, and on legitimate treaty. According
to the principles of feudal government, the revolt of the vassal
against his sovereim entailed on the former the forfeiture of his
rights, which then reverted to the sovereign lord. In virtue of
these maxims, the pope was manifestly entitled to pronounce the
deposition of a prince who was a vassal of the Holy See, when,
' Oppose these observations to a great number of modem authors who cen-
sure severely Gregory VII. and his successors for their pretensions over Spain,
Hungary, and many other states. See, in confirmation of our views, notes by
M. Abbe Jager, on the History of Gregory VII. ubi supra.
* Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ixiv. n. 67 ; book Ixv. n. 2. Michaud,
Hist, des Croisades, vol. ii. p. 10.
^ Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vols. xiii. xviii. book Iviii. n. 3, 57 ; book Ixxxv. n. 35 ;
book Ixxxvii. n. 2. Daniel, Hist, de France, vol. iL ann. 1264.
* Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xvi. book Ixxvi. n. 10.
* Lingard, History of England, ann. 1176, note,
« Supra, n. 136.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 275
by obstinately persisting in beresy, or in excommunication, be
became notoriously guilty of felony to bis sovereign lord.
256. The King of France and some Others exempt from all Feudal Subjection.
It must not be forgotten, bowever, tbat wbile most of tbe
sovereigns of Europe acknowledged tbemselves vassals of tbe
Holy See, tbe Frencb king and bis barons prided tbemselves on
maintaining tbe crown of France exempt from all feudal subjec-
tion ; and tliis independence was clearly acknowledged by tbe
Holy See.^ Tbe sentiments of tbe Frencb on tbis subject were
manifested signally at tbe election of Hugb Capet to tbe tbrone
of France. Tbe great motive wbicb be ui'ged to attacb tbe
barons of tbe kingdom to bis party, was tbe baseness of bis
competitor, tbe duke of Lorraine, in acknowledging bimself a
vassal of tbe emperor.- Many events in subsequent times
evinced bow deeply tbis feeling was rooted in tbe bearts of
Frencbmen. It was manifested particularly in tbe reign of
Pbilip Augustus, on occasion of tbe deposition of Jobn Lack-
land, king of England, in 12L3;^ and in tbe reign of Pbilip
tbe Fair, during bis contests witb Boniface VIII., in 1302.^
' Pope Innocent III., in particular, expressly acknowledged the feudal
independence of the king of France, in the Decretal, Per Venerabilem, ad-
dressed about the year 1201 to William, count of Montpellier, and afterwards
inserted in the Corpus Juris Canonici. In that letter the pope proves clearly this
essential difference between the king of France and the couat of Montpellier,
that the former acknowledged no superior in temporal matters, whilst the"
second, as vassal of the pope, is subject to him both in temporals and spirituals.
" Ctun rex ipse (Philippus Francorum rex) in spiritualibus nobis subjaceat, tu
nobis et in spiritualibus et in temporalibus es subjectus, ctim partem terrse ab
Ecclesia Magalonensi possideas, quam ipsa per sedem apostolicam temporaliter
recognoscit. . . . Insuper chm rex ipse superiorem in temporalibus minimb
recognoscat, sine juris alterius Isesione in eo se jurisdictioni nostrse subjicere
potuit et subjecit, in quo forsitan Aaderetur aliquibus, quod per se ipsum, non
tamquam pater cum filiis, sed tamquam princeps cum subditis, potuerit dispen-
sare." — Baluze, Epistol. Innocentii III. torn. i. p. 675, col. 2. Corpus Juris
Canon. Decretal, lib. iv. tit. xvii. cap. xiii. On the cause and subject of this
Decretal, see Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xvi. book Ixxv. u. 42 ; D. Ceillier, Hist,
des Auteurs Ecclfe. vol. xxiii. p. 441 ; De Marca, De Concordia, lib. ii. cap iii.
This letter of Innocent III. is the more worthy of attention, as the pope him-
self acknowledges clearly therein (as Fleury has remarked) the distinction
between the two powers. (See supra, n. 205.)
^ Daniel, Hist, de France, vol. iii. ann. 987, p. 265. VeUy, Hist, de France,
vol. ii. p. 262. Hist, de I'Eglise Gall. vol. vii. p. 2.
^ Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xvi. book Ixxvii. n. 60. Daniel, Hist, de France,
vol. iv. ann. 1216, p. 236.
* Daniel, Hist, de France, vol. v. ann. 1303. Velly, Hist, de France, vol.
T 2
276 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
This feeling was not peculiar to France : we have already seen
that it prevailed in the empire of Germany ; ^ it did not, how-
ever, exclude the profession in those kingdoms, no more than in
others, of other principles which, in certain cases, subjected the
temporal to the spiritual power,-
257. The Rights of the Holy See over the Empire of the West established by these
Facts.
IV. The rights of the Holy See over the new empire of the
West, though not, properly speaking, rights of sovereignty, were,
nevertheless, very considerable, arising naturally from the pri-
mitive constitution of the empire, and from the circumstances
of its first establishment. To prove this position, we need but
call to mind the great share which the pope had in the election
of Cliarlemagne, and which he naturally continued to exercise in
the election of his successors during the middle ages. We may
restate here, in a few words, some facts which throw light on
this point of liistory, so intimately connected with the object of
our Inquiry.
258. First Fact: Charlemagne acquired the Title of Empei-or from the Pope.
First fact. It is certain that Charlemagne owed his title of
emperor to the voice of the pope, considered as chief and repre-
sentative of the Roman people, and chosen guardian of their
interests.
It does not appear, in truth, that Charlemagne could acquire
his title of emperor in any other way than by the pope's choice,
or by a right of conquest of the capital of Italy, and of the
provinces which then acknowledged the sovereignty of the Holy
See. It is not possible, nor has it, we believe, been ever
attempted to explain the origin of the title in any other way.
Now the supposition of conquest is evidently contrary to history.
For, first, Charlemagne could have no right of conquest except
over the provinces which he had taken from the Lombards ;
vii. p. 207, &c. Hist, de I'Eglise Gall. vol. xii. ann. 1302, pp. 325, 334, &c.
Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. iii. cap. xxiv. ; lib. iv. cap. ix. versus finem.
' Supra, ch. ii. art. iv. n. 142, 161.
" Ibid. art. i. ii. iv.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 277
now they, certainly, never had possession of Rome, in which
Charlemagne was acknowledged and proclaimed emperor.^
Secondly, it is equally certain that Pepin and Charlemagne,
when giving up to the Holy See the cities and territories of
the duchy of Rome and of the Exarchate, which they had
wrested from the Lombards, never pretended to retain any
claim over them by right of conquest ; their expressed intention
was, to make over these provinces for ever to the Holy See,
and to acknowledge the pope as their sole legitimate sovereign.
This assertion, we are aware, has been contested by many
modern authors ; but we believe it to be sufficiently established
by the testimony of contemporary authors, especially Eginhard,
and Anastasius the Librarian ; who invariably represent the
cession made to the Holy See of the said provinces, not as a
pure donation, but as a restitution of the provinces of which
the Lombards had unjustly deprived it.^
Thirdly, all the monuments of history point out Charlemagne's
coronation, in 800, as the real date of his election to the empire.
No historian gives him the title of emperor before that time ;
he himself never assumed it before that time ; and it is from it
that he invariably dates the years of his imperial reign, in all
his succeeding decrees.^ What gTounds can there be, then, for
asserting that Charlemagne owed his title of emperor to the
conquest of Rome and of Italy ? He did not go to Rome in
the year 800 to conquer it ; he went there solely at the request
of the pope, to judge in his capacity as patrician of the Romans,
or as defender of the Holy See, the seditious who had dared to
attempt the life of Pope Leo III.*
259. Second Fact : The Pope did not renounce at that Time his Eight in future
Elections.
Second fact. It is certain that the pope, when giving the
title of emperor to Charlemagne, did not intend thereby to
resign his rig-ht in future elections.
' See, in the first part of this Inquiry, note 3, n. 65.
' See, in support of these assertions?, the first part of this Inquiry, n. 40, 46,
63. See especially the passages from Anastasius and Eginhard, cited in the
notes to these paragraphs.
^ See, in the first part of our Inquiry, last note, n. 47.
* See Fleury, Daniel, Lebeau, and all historians, ancient and modern, on
Charlemagne's coronation, in the year 800.
278 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
Such renunciation is not only unsupported by positive his-
torical testimony ; there are, moreover, solid proofs of the
contrary ; principally the will made by Charlemagne, in the diet
of Thionville, in 806, for the partition of his dominions between
his children. This act, which we have already cited to prove
that even after his election to the empire Charlemagne had no
sovereignty over Rome, proves also, that he did not believe he
had a right to dispose of his title of emperor, or to transmit it
to his children.^ It is an unquestionable fact, that, in tliis act,
which was designed to remove all occasion of discord between his
three sons, by partitioning his whole empire between them, Charle-
magne totally omits the duchy of Rome and the Exarchate ; he
does not bequeath to any of his sons his imperial title ; he contents
himself with advising them all to take on themselves conjointly
the care and the defence of the Roman Church, as had been
done by Charles Martel, his grandfather ; by Pepin, his father,
of happy memory, and by himself.' Can there be a more clear
intimation that the duchy of Rome, and the Exarchate, did not
constitute part of the hodif of his dominions, and that he had
not a right to dispose of his imperial title ? If he could dispose
of those provinces, and of that title, would he have omitted
them in so important an act, drawn up precisely for the purpose
of removing all subject of discord among his children ? By such
an omission, far from attaining his object, namely, the prevention
of all discord among his sons, would not he have left among them
the most powerful incentive to discord, by neglecting to dispose
of the most august of his titles, and of that part of his domi-
nions to which this title seemed to be specially annexed ?
The force of this argument appears more manifestly when we
see how it embarrasses those authors who deny to the pope the
right of election in question ; and how vain are their attempts
to solve the difficulty founded on this solemn deed, which we
have just cited. Fleury, and after him P^re Daniel, pretend
that the emperor " omits, in that deed, all mention of the
empire and of the duchy of Rome, connected with it, because he
' See the fii-st part of this Inquiry, ch. ii. n. 70.
* See supra, note 2, n. 70.
^ Ibid, note 4.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 279
reserved the disposal of it for himself ;" ^ a supposition mani-
festly contrary to the object proposed by Charlemagne in the
deed, as we have already remarked. De la Bru^re, in his
Histoire de Charlemagne, acknowledges " that it is difficult to
assign any reason for Charlemagne's silence on that occasion;" •
and he advances some most improbable conjectures to account
for it ; namely, " that Charlemagne's children, in order to
destroy all possible seeds of disunion, agreed among themselves
to renounce the title of emperor, or that all three assumed it."
The author himself acknowledges that those conjectures are
improbable, and that, in proposing them, he intended rather to
show than to solve a difficulty, to which historians seemed not to
have paid sufficient attention.^
260. Third Fact : He retained this Eight long after the Reign of Cfiarlemagne.
Third fact. Long after the election of Charlemagne to the
imperial throne, the pope still retained the right of electing the
emperor of the West.
History, in fact, shows the popes invariably exercising this
right, without any protest, not only in the Carlovingian, but
even in the earlier German dynasty.
1. Under the Carlomngian emperors, that is, from the im-
perial reign of Charlemagne to the transferring of the empire
to the Germans, in 962, the pope personally exercised this
right, which, from that period, devolved on the electors of the
empire.'* During the whole of this first period, we see him
electing an emperor, sometimes from Charlemagne's family,
sometimes from other families, as he deemed expedient for the
good of the Church. Occasionally, we see him even leaving the
imperial throne vacant, either from the difficulty of making a
suitable selection, or from the opposition given to his selection
by the barons of Eome, who, by an abuse of their power,
' rieury, ubi supra. Daniel, Hist, de France, vol. ii. ann. 806, p. 145.
' De la Brufere, Hist, de Charlemagne, vol. ii. p. 170.
3 Ibid. p. 171.
'' Cenni, Monumenta Domin. Pontif. torn. ii. Dissert, i. n. 31, 35, 36 ;
Dissert, vi. n. 2. For a full exposition of the facts indicted by this author,
see, in the Art de Verifier des Dates, the Chronologic Historique des Empe-
reurs d'Occident, fol. edit. 1770, p. 432 ; Eeceveur, Hist, de I'EgHse, vol. iv.
pp. 429, 430 ; Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. ii. cap. xl.
280 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
impeded the free exercise of the sovereign authority of the
popes. ^
261. Exercise of this Right wnder the Carlovinr/ian Emperors.
The history of the Carlovingian emperors supplies a great
number of facts in support of those assertions ; we shall cite
here a few only of the most remarkable. Three years only after
the death of Charles the Fat, sixth emperor of the family of
Charlemagne, Pope Stephen V. appointed as his successor in the
imperial dignity, not his nephew Amulph, who had succeeded
him as king of Germany, but Guy, duke of Spoletto, descended
from Charlemagne by the female line only.- The motive of this
choice was the greater aid expected by the Holy See from Guy ;
and from a similar motive, Pope Formosus, some years later,
permitted Guy to take as colleague in the empire, his son
Lambert, who afterwards succeeded, as sole emperor, in 894.'
But Guy's family not realising the hopes held out by them.
Pope Formosus conferred the imperial crown on Amulph, even
during the lifetime of Lambert, and thus restored it, for a time,
to the ftimily of Charlemagne.*
This election of Amulph is the more remarkable, as it appears
to be the first instance in which the pope substituted one em-
peror for another still living. On this occasion, it is certain,
that the Romans took an oath of fidelity to Arnulph, by wliich
' We have already seen, that in the ages immediately after the establishment
of the temporal sovereignty of the Holy See, the Roman senate and people had
no share in the government ; the senate itself was no more than a municif>al
body, such as existed in many other Italian cities ; its jurisdiction being con-
fined to purely city concerns, and limiting in no respect the rights of the
sovereign in the government of the state (supra, part i. ch. ii. n. 68). Never-
theless, at different times the Roman lords attributed to themselves more
extensive rights, and impeded by their pretensions the exercise of the pope's
sovereign authority. This was the source of those disorders which convulsed
Italy during the first half of the tenth century, and which were also revived
in the middle of the twelfth, under the pontificate of Innocent II. But these
transitory crises, from which the most legitimate and the best consolidated
governments are not always exempt, in no respect impaired the rights of the
Holy l^ee, which soon recovered its authority, either by its own strength, or
with the assistance of the emperor, or of some other foreign prince. See Cenni,
ubi supra, torn. ii. Dissert, i. n. 36-39 ; Floury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiv. book Ixix.
n. 1, 6 ; Baronius, Annales, ann. 1144, 1152.
* Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xi. book liv. n. 18.
^ Fleury, ibid. Pagi, Critica in Baronii Annales. ann. 892, n. 2 ; ann. 894,
n. 3.
* Pagi, ibid. ann. 895, n. 4 ; ann. 896, n. 3.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOYEREIGNS. 281
they renounced their allegiance to Lambert, who had some years
before been crowned emperor by the pope.^ In fine, after the
death of Berenger, the last of the Carlovingian emperors, the
factions which convulsed the city of Rome prevented the pope
from providing for the empire, which remained vacant from the
year 924 until the year 962, the date of its translation to the
Germans. -
262. Tliis Right generally acknowledged at the Time hy Sovereigns.
Before this event the pope's rights in the election of an
emperor, far from being disputed, were, on the contrary, generally
recognised, even by sovereigns. This fact is decisively proved
by the history of Charles the Bald.^ Pope Adrian II. had
promised this prince to acknowledge him as emperor, in case he
survived Louis II., who was then enjoying the imperial title.
"We promise, and we protest to you," he writes, "but as a
secret not to be divulged except to the most trusty adherents,
saving, moreover, the allegiance that we owe to our emperor,
that if you and we survive him, we shall never ask nor recognise
any other emperor but you, though they should offer us heaps of
gold."'* Louis II. dying a few years after, the pretensions of
Charles the Bald were disputed by Louis, his eldest brother,
king of Germany. Charles had no more effectual means of
supporting his claim than by proceeding speedily to Home, to
obtain the confirmation of Pope John VIII., who then filled the
Holy See. The king of Germany employed every means to
prevent the execution of that design ; but all his efforts were
useless : Charles was crowned emperor by the pope on Christmas
' In another place we have given the text of this oath, part i. ch. ii. n. 77.
It ia given entire in Cenni, Monumenta, &c. (vol. ii. Dissert, i. n. 25), and in
Pagi's Critica (ann. 896, n. 3). See also our observations on Lambert's depo-
sition, part ii. ch. ii. n. 84, note 1.
* Fleury, ubi supra, n. 25.
3 Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xi. book lii. n. 23, 30. Hist, de I'Eglise Gall,
vol. vi. book xvii. pp. 274, 292. Receveur, Hist, de I'Eglise, ubi supra.
■* " IntegrS, fide, et sincerS. mente, devotaque voluntate, ut senno sit secre-
tior, et litterae clandestinae, nuUique nisi fidelissimis publicand», vobis con-
fitemur devovendo, et notescimus afiirmando, salvS, fidelitate imperatoris nostri,
q'lia si superstes ei fuerit vestra nobilitas, vita nobis comite, si dederit nobis
quislibet multorum modiorum auri cumulum, numquam acquiesceruus, expos-
cemus, aut sponte suscipiemus alium in regnum et imperium Eomanum, nisi
teipsum." — Adriani II. Epist. 34, ad Carolum Calvum. (Labbe, Concil. torn,
viii. p. 938.)
282 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
day, in the year 875, and was acknowledged the following year
in a general assembly of the lords of Lombardy ; whose decision
was confirmed the same year by the national council of Pontyon.*
It must be observed, that these two assemblies, in the solemn
act which they drew up in confirmation of the election of
Charles, assign as their reason, the choice already made by the
pope in raising that prince to the imperial dignity. The fol-
lowing are the very words of the decree of the lords of Lom-
bardy : " The divine goodness, through the intervention of
the holy Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, and by their vicar
John, sovereign pontiiF, universal pope, and our spiritual father,
having already raised you to the empire, according to the light
of the Holy Ghost, for the good of holy Church and of us all,
we unanimously choose you, as the protector, lord, and defender
of us all."* In the following year, 877, Pope John VIII.
confirmed this election in a council held at Rome for the purpose.
After a great panegyric on Charles the Bald, the pope states
that the election was the result of a divine inspiration ; but
declares also, that it was done with the concurrence of the
clergy, of the senate and the people of Rome. " Aware," he says,
" that our predecessor, Nicholas I., had been already enlightened
on the subject by a divine inspiration, we have, for that reason,
selected prince Charles ; we have approved his election, in
concert with our brethren and fellowbishops, with the other
ministers of the holy Roman Church, the venerable senate, all
the Roman people and their magistrates ; and we have solemnly
raised him to the imperial dignity, according to the ancient
custom." ' It must be observed, that while attributing to
' Labbe, Concil. torn. ix. p. 283, &c.
' "Quia divina pietas vos, beatorum principum apostolorum Petri et Pauli
interventione, per vicarium ipsorum, dominum videlicet Joannem, summum
pontificem et universalem papam, spiritualemque patrem vesti-um, ad profectum
sanctse Dei Ecclesiae nostraque omnium^ in\ntavit, et ad imperiale culrnen,
Sancti SpiritHs judicio, provexit ; nos unanimiter vos protectorem, dominum,
ac defensorem omnium nostrtim eligimus." — Ibid.
^ " Et quia pridem apostolicae memoriEe decessori nostro, papae Nicolao,
idipsum jam inspiratione coelesti revelatum fuisse comperimus ; elegimus hunc
meritb, et approbavimus, unk cum annisu et veto omnium fratrum et coepia-
coporum nostrorum, atque alioinim sanctae Romanne Ecclesiae ministrorum,
amplique senat(is, totiusque Romani populi, gentisque togatas ; et secundum
priscam consuetudinem solemniter ad imperii Romani sceptra proveximus, et
Augustali nomine decoravimus." — Labbe, Concil. ibid. p. 296.
These praises lavished on Charles the Bald by the pope do not agree well
CHAP. III.J OVER SOVEKETGNS. 283
himself the right of electing the emperor, the pope did not
pretend to do so in virtue solely of his authority as head of the
Church, but in concert with the Roman lords and people, whose
head and representative he had been long since admitted to be
in the electing of emperors, as well as in all other affairs relating
to the government of Eome and of the Exarchate.
263. How to reconcile thh Right with the Fact of several Emperors having assumed
their Sons as Colleagues in the Throne.
Some other modern authors object to us here the example of
Charlemagne, of Louis le Debonnaire, and of Lothaire I., who
appear not to have asked the pope's consent when making their
sons colleagues in the empire ; a proceeding which implies that
they did not acknowledge in the pope the right which we attri-
bute to him.i Historians do not mention, it is true, that the
pope's consent was given to the selection made by these princes ;
but the silence of historians is no argument against the positive
proofs of the necessity of this consent. From the facts already
cited, it is evident, that Charlemagne owed the imperial title to
the pope alone ; that when conferring that title the pope never
intended to surrender the right of election in future ; that
Charlemagne did not believe that he, even in concert with the
lords of the empire, could dispose of the title of emperor ; and,
finally, that long after the death of Charlemagne, his successors
still recognised in the pope the right of electing the emperor.
What more can be required to prove that this right still con-
tinued during the Carlovingian dynasty ? The permanence of
this right once demonstrated by proofs so decisive, does it not
naturally follow, that the conduct of Charlemagne, of Louis le
■with what Fleury and many others state, from the Annals of Fulda, that this
prince insured his election by corrupting the senate with bribes. It must be
remembered, however, that the Annals of Fulda are a very suspicious autho-
rity on this point, for they were written under the power of the king of Ger-
many, the declared enemy of Charles, as we have seen.
' This objection was proposed by Bossuet, Velly, and some other modern
writers, who appear not to have sufficiently attended to the series of facts
which prove our opinion. (Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. Li. cap. xxxix. Velly,
Hist, de France, vol. ii. p. 113.) Velly in particular appears to have been
utterly ignorant of them ; had he known them, he certainly would not have
stated so confidently that the elevation of Charles the Bald to the imperial
dignity is the real date of the authority which the popes afterwards attributed
to themselves in the election of the emperors, and that this pretension had been
unprecedented hitherto.
284 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
Debonnaire, and of Lothaire I., in assuming their sons as col-
leagues, cannot be explained except by the express or tacit consent
of the popes. Such consent may the more easily be presumed,
because at the period of these imperial nominations, the princes
in question were in perfect harmony with the popes. This good
understanding, we know, was never interrupted during the reign
of Charlemagne ; and with regard to Louis le Debonnaire and
Lothaire L, it is certain, that far from pretending to associate
their sons in the empire without the pope's concurrence, they
sent these young princes to Rome, after their nomination, to
receive there the crown and imperial unction from the pope's
hands, whose concurrence was regarded by themselves as indis-
pensably necessary for their promotion.^
264. TJie Empire transferred from, the French to the Oermans by the Authority
of the Pope.
2. The translation of the empire to the Germans, in 962, by
the authority of Pope Jolm XII., proves that at this period the
pope's right in the election of an emperor still subsisted, though
he had been impeded in its exercise by the lords of Rome, who
had usurped his sovereign authority in this city.* Already
Pope Agapetus II., predecessor of John XII., to crush this evil,
had called in the assistance of Otho I., king of Germany, who,
though partly successful in Italy, liad failed in advancing to
Rome ; but this prince, being invited a second time into Italy,
by John XII., delivered it at last from the tyranny of Be-
renger II., and advanced to Rome, where the pope gave him the
imperial crown, Feb. 2nd, 962.^ Thus, the empire of the West
passed from the French to the Germans, with whom it has ever
since remained. The history of this translation proves that the
election of Otho I. to the imperial dignity, like that of Charle-
magne, was affected by the authority of the pope, acting as
sovereign of Rome and of the Exarchate. It is certain, that
Otho I. king of Germany, far from regarding himself as sove-
' See, in confirmation of these fects, the details given in the preceding
chapter, art. iv. n. 150.
* See note 2, n. 260, ch. iii. supra.
' Cenni, Monumenta, vol. ii. Dissert, i. n 38 41 ; Dissert, vi. n. 3. Fleary,
Hist. Eccl. vol. xii. book Ivi. n. 1. Receveur, Hist, de I'Eglise, vol. v. p. 7.
Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. ii. cap. xl. xli.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS, 285
reign of Rome, by virtue of his conquests in Italy, was not
admitted into Rome by Pope John XII., until he had promised
on oath to acknowledge, and to maintain there Avith all his
power the sovereignty of the pope.'
265. Influence of the Pope in the Election of the Emperor from that Period.
After Otho's election to the imperial throne, we no longer see
the pope personally electing the emperor. History shows, on
the contrary, that this election devolved, after the tenth century,
on the Germanic diet ; and sometime later (about the middle of
the thirteenth century) on the prince-electors, who retained that
right until our own days.^ It is certain, however, that though
the pope did not directly elect the emperor, he continued to have
a very great influence on that election. Radulph Glaber, a
monk of Cluny, who wrote about the middle of the eleventh
century, speaks of this fact as being universally admitted.
"It appears most reasonable," he says, " and admirably decreed
for the preservation of peace, that no prince shall take the title
of emperor, until he has been chosen by the pope for his merit,
and has obtained from him the imperial titles." ^
Not only did the pope retain a great share in the election of
the emperor, but there is every reason to believe that the new
mode of election, established after the tenth century, was intro-
' See supra, ch. ii. n. 158.
* We are not going to discuss here that obscure question, the origin of the
electors of the empire. Such a discussion would be both too long, and not at
all necessary for the main object of our inquiry. We shall only remark, that
the few details given in this chapter, on the origin of the new empire of the
West, may contribute not a little to the elucidation of that question, and to
correct many modern authors who have meddled with it. See especially,
Cenni, Monumenta, torn. ii. Dissert, vi. n. 1, 3-15. See also Dissert, i. n. 44,
&c. Leibnitz, Dissert, i. De Actorum Public. Usu, n. 18, 19 ; Dissert, ii.
n. 25, 26. These Dissertations, which serve as prefaces to vols. i. and ii. of
the Cod. Diplom. of the same author, were republished in vol. iv. of his works,
part iii. p. 287, &c. Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. ii. cap. xl. xli. Baronius,
Annal. Eccles. tom. x. ann. 996, n. 38-71. Pagi, Critica in Annales Baronii,
torn. iv. ann. 996, n. 10, 17 ; ann. 1024, n. 5, 6.
^ " lUud nimirum condecens ac perhonestum videtur, atque ad pacis tutelam
optimum decretum, scilicet : ut ne quisquam audacter imperii Romani scep-
trum, preepostei-us gestare princeps appetat, seu imperator dici aut esse valeat,
nisi quem papa sedis Komanse, moram probitate delegerit aptum reipublicae,
eique commiserit insigne imperiale." — Bad. Glaber, Hist. lib. i. vei-sus finem.
(Becueil des Hist, de France, by Duchesne, vol. iv.) Baronius, Annales,
vol. xi. ann. 1013, n. 5. -Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xii. book Iviii, n. 38. D.
Ceillier, Hist, des Auteurs Eccles. vol. xx. p. 240.
286 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
duced by the sanction of the Holy See. This was the general
belief of the middle ages, as we have already seen ; ^ and Pope
Innocent III., in a letter addressed to the German princes, in
the commencement of the thirteenth century, assumes that
original institution of the electors, as a fact unquestioned even
by the electors themselves.^ This supposition is, moreover,
confirmed by the custom invariably observed during the whole
course of the middle ages, that the king of Germany, elected by
the German princes, assumed, by virtue of that election, the
title of king of the Romans, but not emperor, until he had been
acknowledged and crowned in Home by the pope.'
266. Coiusequence of this Mode of Election.
The natural inference from all these facts is, that the pope
when conferring the title of emperor on Charlemagne, never
intended to resign the right of electing the emperor in future ;
that he long continued to enjoy that right ; and that, even when
he had ceased to exercise it personally, he always continued to
have a great share in that election. Now, it is obvious, that
this influence of the pope in the election of the emperor natu-
rally gave him a right of prescribing certain conditions to the
emperor elect, and, consequently, of deposing him in case of
their violation.* We do not mean, however, to infer thence that
the empire was originally a fief of the Holy See, in the strict
sense of that term. For, it is certain, that Leo III., Mhen
conferring the imperial title on Charlemagne, gave him no new
territory ; he only conferred on him a honourable title, to reward
and to excite still more his zeal in the protection and defence of
the Holy See. Such was invanably the sole view of the
successors of Leo III. in conferring the imperial crown on
' See supra., ch. ii. art. iv. p. 484, &c. See also Maimbourg, Hist, de la
Decadence de I'Enipire, p. 110.
" Innocent III. Epist. ad Bertholdum Zaringise Ducem, initio Sseculi xiii.
(Baluze, Epist. Innoc. HI. vol. i. p. 715.) We have cited the text of this
letter in the preceding chapter, n. 154.
^ Supra, ch. ii. art. iv. n. 150. It was in consequence of this ancient usage
that in those latter times, and even in our own days, since the emperors of
Germany ceased to be crowned at Rome, the pope gave them t)ie title only
of emperor elect, but never emperor absolutely. This may be seen especially in
two briefs of Pius VI. to the emperors Leopold II. and Francis II. (Collect,
des Brefs de Pie VI. Paris, 1798, p. 557, 661.)
* Supra, ch. i, art. i. n. 25.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 287
Charlemagne's successors. The oath of fidelity required from
them on receiving the imperial title, by no means implies that
the emperors held their dominions from the Holy See ; it implied
only an obligation of defending it against its enemies ; and the
popes, when claiming the right of electing the emperor, and
even of deposing him, in certain cases, did not regard themselves
properly as sovereign lords of his dominions, but only as judges
of his conduct and of his rights, according to the custom and
constitution of the empire.
267. Fourth Fact : The Po2)e's Rights over the Empire established ly the Ancient
Laws of Germany,
The most ancient monuments of German law establish, or
clearly suppose, the special dependence of the emperor on the
pope, and the pope's rights in the emperor's election, and even
deposition, in certain cases.
To be convinced of this, we need but inspect the Saxon Law,
and the Suabian Law, compiled in the thirteenth century, from
the ancient customs of the empire,* and retained in force long
after that period in Germany. The most eminent German
jurisconsults of the last century, and even of our own time, admit
the high authority of these two codes in Germany, in judicial
matters, from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century, as con-
taining evidences of the laws and customs of the time." They
tell us, that they are not so much two different codes, as two
compilations of the same code ; one made by a Saxon, the other
by a Suabian. We shall produce here the principal provisions
of the Suabian code only, because it is more ample in its details
than the Saxon code on the question before us.
268. Supremacy of the Spiritual over the Temporal Power according to tliis Code.
In the preamble of this code, it is expressly stated, that the
emperor, as well as all other secular princes and magistrates, is
bound to use his authority to enforce the obedience due to the
pope. The following are the words of this preamble : ^ " The
' See preamble to the Suabian Code, cited above, ch. i, art. iii. n. 78, note 1.
2 Senckenberg, in his preface to the Suabian Code (§ 20), states that no one
now questions this point. It is also Eichom's opinion, in his History of the
German Empire and Laws, 3rd edit. vol. ii. p. 276.
* " Eusia ecclesiasticus Papse ipsi est concessus, ut debito tempore judicet.
28S POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
Church sword is given to the pope, that he may pronounce
judgment at the proper times, seated on a Avhite horse (as a sign
of his pre-eminence). The emperor must hold the stirrup, lest
the saddle should stir from its place.^ This signifies, that if
any person resist the pope, and cannot be reduced to obedience
sedens super equum candidum ; et imperator debet Papae ptapiam tenere, ne
ephippium loco moveatur. Hoc ipso indicatur quod omneni eum quicumque
PapiE resistit, quemque ipae judicio ecclesiastico cogere non valet ad obedien-
dum, debeat imperator, et alii sseculares principes et judices, cogere per pro-
Bcriptionem." — Juris Alamannici seu Suevici Praefamen, n. 21-24. (Sencken-
berg, ubi supra, p. 6, &c.)
In tliis place there is an important difference between the text of the Suabian
and that of the Saxon law. In the former we find, "God, the king of peace,
left, after his ascent to heaven, two swords on the earth, for the defence of
Christianity. Both he intrusted to St. Peter : one for the secular, the other
for the ecclesiastical judgment. . . . The pope gives the sword of secular judg-
ment to the emperor ; the sword of ecclesiastical judgment is given to the
pope, &c." Tlie Saxon law is expressed in very different terms: "God has
left two swords on earth for the protection of Christianity : to the pope the
spiritual, — to the emperor the secular sword. The pope is also permitted at
certain times to mount a white hi>rse, and the' emperor is bound to hold his
stirrup, that the saddle m.ay not stir, &c. : this signifies that, &c." (Specul.
Saxon, lib. i. art. i.) This latter text clearly supposes the two powers distinct,
and immediately instituted by God. The Suabian law, on the contrary, seems
to confound them, by supposing that Jesus Christ gave both directly to St.
Peter, with an injunction to intrust the secular power to princes. We have
already remarked, that this opinion did not begin to be broached until after
the twelfth century (supra, n. 189, text and notes). But the very difference
between the texts just cited, proves, 1st, that this opinion was not univers.ally
admitted in the thirteenth century ; 2nd, that even those who rejected it still
admitted the supremacy of the spiritual over the temporal power ; as also the
pope's power of deposing the emperor in certain cases. On these two points
there is not, in truth, any difference between the Saxon law and the Suabian
law.
' Tlie custom which required that the emperors should act as the pope's
esquires (^cuyer), especially at the time of the coronation, was much more
ancient than the date of the compilation of the Saxon and Suabian codes.
About a ceutury earlier (in 1155), the emperor Frederick Barbarossa, having
made some objection against complying with this usage, on the ground that it
was not sufficiently established, yielded at once when it was proved to him
that the cu.stom was founded on ancient authorities, and on the testimony of
many lords who had assisted, in 1133, at the inter\-iew of the emperor Lo-
thaire II. and Pope Innocent II. (Muratori, Antiquit. Italicae Medii JEvi,
tom. i. Dissert. 4. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xv. book Ixx. n. 5.) This custom
appears to be even more ancient still ; for it is expressh' mentioned in many
copies of the Sacramentary of St. Gregory, which were in use in France and
Rome in the ninth century. (Sacram. Greg. De Coronatione Imper. in Liturg.
Rom. vet. edited by Muratori, Yenetiis, 1748, 2 vols. fol. vol. ii. p. 464.) We
have in another place assigned the principal proofs of the antiquity of these
copies of the Sacramentary of St. Gregory (ch. ii. n. 156, note 1). But however
that point of criticism be settled, it is certain that the emperors who showed
this mark of respect to the pope, did no more than follow the example set by
Pepin the Little, who considered it an honour to perform the function of
esquiie to Pope Stephen II. in 754. (Anastas. Bibliothec. Vita Stephani II.
Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. ix. book xliii. n. 11.)
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGIJS. 289
by the judgment of the Church, the emperor, as well as the
other secular princes and judges, are bound to compel him by
proscription (civil).
269. Provisions of the same Code on the Election of the Emperw.
Many articles of this code give remarkable details on this
matter. The following are the principal provisions relating to
the election of the emperor. '' The election of the king (of the
Romans) belongs by right to the Germans ; he receives the
power and the title of king, when he is consecrated (crowned)
and placed on the throne at Aix-la-Chapelle, with the consent of
those who have chosen hini ; but ichen the pope has consecrated
(crowned) hlm^ then he receives the plenitude of the imperial
power, and the title of emperor.^ The princes (electors) must
not raise to the kingly dignity a person deformed, or leprous, or
excommunicated, or proscribed, or a heretic. Should they
choose a king with any of these defects, the other princes (of
the empire) have a right to reject him, in the place where the
imperial court assembles, provided, however, it be proved, as
it must be, that the king elect is tainted with any of these
defects." ^
270, Three Cases determined hy this Law in which an Emperor may ie excom-
municated by the Pope.
The twenty-ninth chapter specifies the case in which the
emperor can be excommunicated. " None but the pope can
put the emperor under ban (that is, excommunicate) ; nor can
the pope do so except in three cases ; first, if the emperor doubts
the Catholic faith ; second, if he abandons his lawful wife ;
third, if he destroyed churches (or other holy places). The
pope has this right over the emperor after the emperor's corona-
tion. If before that ceremony the emperor conduct himself in
' " Germani eligunt regem {Romanorum). . . . Quando ipse consecratur (et
coronatur), et eollocatur in solio Aquisgranensi, ex eorum voluntate qui ipsum
elegere, ttmic accipit potestatem et nom£n Regis. Quando aiitem Papa eum con-
secratit (coronavitqiie), tunc plenariam habet imperii potestatem, et nomen Impe-
ratoris." — Juris Alamannici cap. xviii. n. 1, 2, 3.
^ " Membris capti, item leprosi, et qui sunt vel excommunicati, vel ptrosanpti
et hcei'ctici, non debent eligi ^in regem Romanorum) k principibus (electoribus).
Quod si autem eligunt talem aliquem, reliqui principes eum jure rejiciunt in
iUo loco, quo curia imperialis est convocata, si electus de unico horum defec-
tuum est convictus, uti juris est." — Juris Alamannici cap. xxii. n. 8, 9.
VOL. II. U
290 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
a reprehensible manner to a bishop, or to any other person, the
complaint must be lodged, first, with the count Palatine of the
Rhine, ^ who shall present it in person to his archbishop ; then
the latter can put the king under ban (excommunicate him)." *
271. Consequences of this Excommunication according to the Ancient Laws of
the Empire.
To comprehend fully the sense of this article in all its conse-
quences, we must observe, in the first place, that the law of
Suabia distinguishes, in several passages, two sorts of bans ;
namely, the Church ban, or excommunication, and the secular
ban, or proscription, involving the loss of civil rights.' The
ban, mentioned in chapter 29, being pronounced by a bishop,
or by the pope himself, is properly the Church ban, or excom-
munication. But it must be remarked, in the second place,
that, according to the civil law then common to all the Catholic
states of Europe, and especially in Germany, excommunication
ordinarily entailed, within a certain time, civil proscription ; as
the latter ordinarily entailed, within a certain time, excommimi-
cation. We have already given the principal provisions of the
Suabian law on that point.* On that occasion, we observed,
that the interval of time required to give to excommunication
its temporal effects, was not the same for princes as for private
individuals. According to the law of Suabia, the interval of time
for the latter was six weeks ; but, by the ancient customs of the
empire, this time was extended to an entire year for the emperor.
This had been the law or custom long before the compilation of
the Law of Suabia, as appears from the testimony of authors
contemporary with Gregory VII. ^ The language of those
' According to ch. xxi. of the Laws of Suabia, the count Palatine of the
Rhine was the ordinary judge of the emperor.
* " Imperatorem in bannum declarare nemo potest, nisi Papa. Hoc tamen
non facere debet, nisi ob tres causas. Una est si imperator de fidei orthodoxia
dubitaret. Altera est si ab uxore diverteret. Tertia est si Ecclesias (aut alia
loca pia) destrueret. Hoc juris obtinet circa imperatorem, quando coronatus
est. At si antea (qukm coronatus est) contra episcopum aliquem aut alium,
aliquid {qiiereld dignian) agit, turn primo loco querela ilia ad comitem Palatinum
debet deferri, qui inde archiepiscopo suo rem defert ; qui (archiepiscopus) potest
ipsum in bannum declarare." — Juris Alamannici seu Suevici cap. xxix.
3 Ibid
cap. 1. n. cxxvu.
'• Juris Alam. cap. i. iii. See especially ch. i. art. iii. n. 78, p. 418, &c.
* See the authors cited above, ch. ii. n. 96, 97.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 291
authors, confirmed as it is by the admissions of the emperors
themselves, justifies us in asserting, Avith a celebrated critic of
the seventeenth century, that the penalty of deposition against
an emperor who remained during a whole year under excommu-
nication, " was founded on an ancient law of the empire, though
it may be impossible to fix its precise date." ^
272. The Penalty of Deposition pronounced by the same Laws against heretical
Princes.
The 351st chapter of the Laws of Suabia, which treat of
heretics, contains the following clauses. "All lay princes not
punishing heretics, but defending and protecting them, ought to
be excommunicated by the ecclesiastical judge ; and if they do
not amend within a year, the bishop who had excommunicated
them must denounce them to the pope ; stating, at the same
time, how long the criminal has been under the sentence of
excommunication inflicted on him in punishment of his crime.
After that, the pope ought to deprive the prince of his princely
rank, and of all his honours. Thus must the great ones as well
as the poor be judged. We read also that Pope Innocent III.
deprived the emperor Otho IV. of the empire for other crimes.
And justly have the popes acted so ; for God said to Jeremias,
* I have appointed thee judge over everv man and every king-
dom.'"^
273. Inferences from these Provisions.
From these various provisions of the ancient German law, it
clearly follows, that the sentence of the pope which deposed the
' " Ista lege (depositione scilicet imperatoris excommunicati), licet proprium
ejus fontein nequeam producere, vivcbat olim Romanum [id est, Romanc-
Germanuni] inipenum : ideoque Romani pontifices, antequam ad augusti prin-
cipis procederent exauctorationem, excommunicationem prsemittebant." —
Christ. Lupus, Decreta et Canones, torn. iv. Scholia in Gregorii VII. Dictatus,
can. xii. p. 457.
^ " Quicumque principum laicorum hjereticos non punit, sed ipsos defendit
et fovet, hunc judicium ecclesiasticum debet excommuuicare ; et si intra inte-
grum annum non resipiscit, episcopus qui ipsum excommunicaverat, Papae
denuntiare debet ipsius crimen, et simul exponere per quantum temporis ille,
ob crimen suum, sit in statu excommunicatorum. Hoc facto. Papa debet ilium
privare munere pjrincipis, et omnibus honoribus suis. Ita judicandum est, tam
de magnatibus qukm de pauperibus. Nos etiam legimus quod papa Inno-
centius deposuerit imperatoreni Othonem ab imperio, ob alia crimina. Id
pontifices jure faciunt : Deus enim dixit Jeremiae : Ec/o tejudicem constitui omni
homini et omni regno," — Juris Alamannici seu Suevici cap. cccli.
u 2
292 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
emperor, deprived him, not only of the imperial title, but of all
his rank, and all his honours ; and, consequently, of the title
and the rights of king of Germany ; so that, by that sentence,
the electors were authorized to elect another king, who should
then apply to the pope, to obtain from him the imperial title
and crown. These provisions of the German law, in the middle
ages, will, no doubt, astonish many readers ; and it is much to
be regretted that the majority of modern writers who have
treated of the history of that period, were ignorant of this
ancient jurisprudence, which throws such a flood of light on the
history of those painful contests which so long divided the
priesthood and the empire.
§ 3. Discussion of the Principal Objections that may he raised
against our opinion.
274. First Objection: The Divine Power of binding and of loosing appealed to
by the Popes in support of their Sentences of Deposition.
The mere statement of our proofs presents, we believe, a
solution of the objections that may be proposed against our
opinion, and which have really been proposed in some periodicals
which reviewed the first edition of this work.'
The chief objection, and that which at first sight appears
most plausible, is founded on the language usually employed by
the popes, who, in the sentences of deposition pronounced against
princes, proceed on the divine power of binding and loosing,
without mentioning this constitutional law of which we speak ;
a course which appears to imply that they regarded the divine
right as the sole foundation of that power which they claimed of
deposing princes.
The observations which we have already made on the sen-
tences of Gregory VII. against the emperor Henry IV., and of
Innocent IV. against Frederick II., fully solve this difficulty.'^
From these observations it follows, in fact, first, that Gre-
gory VII., the first that ever pronounced a sentence of depo-
sition against a sovereign, did not pretend to ground his pro-
■ Journal des D^bats, 29 September, 1839. Revue Eccl^siastique, Januaiy,
1840. Le Semeur, 8 Sept. 1841.
» Supra, n. 191, 213.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 293
ceeding solely on the divine right, but on laws both human and
divine.^ Secondly, that in the opinion of Gregory VII. and of
his successors, as well as of all their contemporaries, the deposition
of an excommunicated prince was not a necessary consequence of
excommunication, and did not follow from the divine power of
binding and loosing alone, but from a special provision of a
human law, and principally from the laws of the empire, which
declared deposed of his throne any prince remaining obstinately
under excommunication during a whole year.
These important facts once proved, there is no difficulty in
understanding how the popes could most naturally cite, in sup-
port of their sentences of excommunication and deposition
against princes, the divine power of binding and loosing, though
not considering it as the sole title of that deposing power which
they claimed. It is, in fact, evident, that at a time when
constitutional law attached the penalty of deposition to excom-
munication or heresy, the pope's sentence against such excommu-
nicated or heretical prince was grounded both on the divine
right and on human law. It was founded on the divine right,
not merely in so far as it declared the prince heretical or
excommunicated, but still more in so far as it enlightened the
conscience of his subjects on the extent and limits of the
obligation arising from the oath of allegiance which they had
taken to him. It was founded on human law also, in so far as
it declared the prince deprived of his rights, in punishment of
his remaining obstinately in heresy or excommunication. It is
obvious also why the pope's sentence mentioned only the divine
power of binding and loosing ; for it was on that divine power
that the sentence was really grounded, considered in its principal,
direct and immediate object ; for the deposition was effected by
excommunication, — its natural result, according to the constitu-
tional law then in force.
275. Second Objection : Pretended Incompatibility of the Spint of the Gospel with
the Temporal Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages.
Another objection, which has been very confidently proposed
in the periodicals already cited, is founded on the pretended
• See the letter of Gregory VII. to the German lords, which we have already
cited, n. 191.
294 POWER OF THE POPE [PART 11.
incompatibility of the spirit of the Gospel with the prodigious
power which the maxims of the middle ages attributed to the
Church in temporal matters. A custom or maxims contrary to
the spirit and the maxims of the Gospel never can have the
force of law, nor, consequently, establish a constitutional law.
Now, the custom and maxims of the middle ages, which attri-
buted to the pope and council so great a power over sovereigns,
were contrary, it is contended, to the spirit and maxims of the
Gospel. " If ever there was an extraordinary contrast," it is
said, "is it not that of this Church, which, while it presented a
Gospel of purity and simplicity, exhibited, nevertheless, all the
pomp of wealth and power?"* It has, moreover, been con-
tended, " that the custom and maxims in question were incom-
patible with the religious duties and obligations imposed on the
bishops ; and especially with the character and duties of the
pope ; finally, that the alliance of coercive authority with
spiritual authority was repugnant to the essence of Christianity,
and contrary to its spirit." ^
276. Temporal Power not necessarily Incompatible with. Spiritual Power.
Answer. We are at some loss to understand how this objec-
tion can be proposed sincerely against our opinion, at least by
Catholic writers ; ^ and we are convinced that those who propose
it so confidently never adverted to the manifestly untenable
consequences which would follow from the principle of their
objection.
This pretended incompatibility of the temporal with the
spiritual power, in the person of ministers of religion, should,
in fact, arise either from the nature of that ministry itself, or
from the free and positive institution of God ; now, a moment's
reflection proves clearly the falseness of both suppositions.*
' Journal des D^ats, ubi supra, p. 4, col. 2.
- Eevue Eccl^s. ubi supra, pp. 228-230.
' This objection, we have already stated, waa proposed by Calvin, and some
other heretics before him, against the temporal power of the clergy in general,
and against the temporal sovereignty of the Holy See in particular. See first
part of this work, ch. ii. art. ii. n. 87, note. See also second part, n. 5, ch. i.
* Bellarmin, De Rom. Pontif. lib. v. cap. ix. x. Recueil de Pieces d'Hist.
et de Litt. (by the Abb^ Granet and P. Desmolets), vol. i. Dissert, sur la
Grandeur Temp, de I'Eglise. Carrifere, Prael. De Just, et Jure, vol. i. n. 94,
p. 132, &c.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 295
To pretend, in the first place, that the sacred ministry is, hy its
nature, incompatible with temporal power, is a palpable con-
tradiction to the Scriptures, which show us the temporal powei
united with the spiritual in the most holy personages in the old
law : Melchisedec, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and many
other personages, were both kings and pontiffs, priests and
prophets. As priest, Moses offers to God incense and victims,
consecrates the altar and the tabernacle, and confers the sacerdotal
dignity on his brother Aaron ; ^ as prince and temporal governor,
he gives laws to the people of God, administers justice, exercises
the right of life and death, and all other rights attached to
temporal sovereignty.- The high priest Heli held, during forty
years, the office of priest and that of judge in Israel.^ Judas
MachabjEus, Jonathan, Simon, and their successors, down to
Herod's time, were all priests, and, at the same time, political
heads of the Jewish people.'* Further still, the union of the
spiritual and temporal in the person of the high priest of the
Jews was ordinary and normal, by the institution of God
himself ; for it is certain that the high priest had a very
extensive authority in the administration of justice, and that
most causes were subject to his court of final appeal.^ These
examples prove evidently, that temporal power is not essentially,
or by its nature, incompatible with the character and perfection
of the ministers of God.
277. This Incompatibility not introduced into the New Law hy Jesus Christ.
Will it be said that this incompatibility, though not founded
in the nature of things, was established in the New Law by the
free will of its divine Author ? This second supposition is not
more tenable than the first. For, first, in what text of the
Gospel has Jesus Christ prohibited his Church and her ministers
to possess riches, and to hold temporal power ? He did not, it is
true, confer on them either wealth or power ; He declared to his
Apostles that his kingdom was not of this world ; and He left
to his Church no other jurisdiction, but that whose object is
' Exod. xl. ; Levit. viii. * Exod. xviii. xxxi. ' 1 Kings i. iv.
* 1 and 2 Machab. Joseph. Hist, of the Jews, book xii. &c.
* Deut. xvii.
296 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
to govern men in the order of eternal salvation. But where is it
said that He prohibits his ministers to acquire or to possess
wealth or temporal power, by titles legitimate in themselves, and
acknowledged as such by society at large ? Where do we find
that he has rendered them incapable of accepting wealth and
power when offered to them ; and which might be conferred on
them by the liberality of princes or of people ? Such supposi-
tions are so manifestly groundless, that no intelligent man can
seriously support them.
278. Constant Belief and Practice of the Church on this Point.
If there were any doubt on this point, it should naturally be
explained by the constant practice and belief of the Church
from her first institution. Now, the least knowledge of history
shows, that the Church has, at all times, believed her ministers
capable of acquiring and of possessing wealth and temporal
power. Every one knows that, from the time of Constantine's
conversion, the wealth and temporal jurisdiction of the Church
daily increased by the favour and liberality of that great prince,
of his most illustrious successors, and of almost all Christian
princes. Every one knows that most holy bishops, since Con-
stantine's time, including St Leo, St. Gregory the Great,
St. John the Almoner, and many others, possessed, as bishops,
or as heads of the Ch)irch, very extensive temporal jurisdiction;
frequently considerable principalities, and real temporal sove-
reignties, many of which exist to this day. Every one knows, in
fine, that the Church, far from condemning this wealth, this
jurisdiction, these temporal principalities and sovereignties, has
often defended them, by her decrees, against the invasions of
the temporal power, so as even to condemn, in many councils,
the doctrine of heretics, who had presumed to attack, on that
ground, the right of the ministers of religion ; and also to
excommunicate laymen, even of the highest station, who deprived
the Church unjustly of her property, her jurisdiction, or her
temporal rights.^ What more can a true Clmstian, and
especially a Catholic require, to prove that wealth and temporal
• Concil. Constant, ann. 1415, sess. 8 (Labbe, Concil. vol. xii. p. 46). Concil.
Trid. sess. 22, cap. xi. De Reform. See also the authors cited above, n. 276,
note 2.
CHAP. Ill,] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 297
jurisdiction, and even sovereignty, are compatible with the office
of ministers of religion ?
279. This Practice and Belief justified by Reason.
Reason alone justifies the belief and practice of the Church
in this matter. Our present adversaries admit, in fact, the
vast benefits which society derived from that temporal power
which custom, and the principles of the middle ages, attributed
to the Church and to the pope. They even admit that, politi-
cally speaking, this power has produced more good than evil.'
" Were there question," observes one of our adversaries, " of
judging the Church as a political institution, and the popes as
sovereigns, or even as heads of a religion excellent indeed, but
still not divine, I would cordially admit, that the great power
of the Church and of the popes was, politically speaking, rather a
good than an evil. I confess, I can hardly believe that the
sting of pride and ambition did not inflame somewhat the zeal
of these proud popes ; I admit, however, that many of the
princes whom they deposed deserved it by their crimes.- I know
that as the clergy had knowledge, it was natural they should
have power. I admire that ascendancy of faith, which sub-
jected kings and nations to a feeble priest. The monarchy of
the pope is tlie miracle of moral power." After such admis-
sions, it is difficult to conceive how he can represent the temporal
power of the clergy, during the middle ages, as opposed to the
spirit of the Gospel. What can be more conformable to that
spirit than the exercise of a power so useful to society in its
actual circumstances ? This power, no doubt, like all human
institutions, may have had many inconveniences ; ^ but since it
is admitted that it produced more good than evil, it must, there-
fore, have been a useful power ; the Church and the pope con-
ferred a real benefit on the Church by exercising it ; and far
from being liable to censure for having accepted it, the zeal
' Revue Eccl^s. ubi supra, p. 228. Journal dea D^bats, ubi supra, p. 4,
col. 2. Le Semeur, ubi supra, p. 284, col. 1.
* This author seems to think there were many kings deposed : a mistake, as
we shall soon see (infra, eh. iv. art. i. § 2).
' In the following chapter it will be seen, that the evils occasioned by this
power have been palpably exaggerated by a crowd of modern authors.
298 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
which they were bound to have for the good of society, required
them to accept it.
280. Inadmissible Consequences of the contrary Opinion.
Though these reflections are amply sufficient to solve the
objection proposed to us, we must add, that the principles on
which the objection is founded, lead necessarily to consequences
which no true Catholic can admit. From these principles, it
would, in fact, necessarily follow, not only that the Huly See
could not lawfully exercise the extraordinary power which the
principles of the middle ages attributed to its own Catholic
sovereigns, but also, that it could not lawfully acquire that tem-
poral sovereignty of which we see it possessed since the eighth
century ; and farther still, that the wealth and temporal power
which the clergy has enjoyed in all the Catholic states of
Europe, since Constantino's conversion, are contrary to the
spirit and maxims of the Gospel. We do not see how those
consequences can be admitted, without reviving the doctrine of
Wickliffe, which wsis solemnly condemned by the Council of
Constance, in 14]o.^
§ 4. Confirmation of our Opinion hy Eminent Authorities, and
hi/ the Constitution of many Modern States.
281. Remarlcable Admissions of Bossuet.
Having established our opinion by the testimony of history,
it may not be useless to confirm it by some eminent authorities,
and by the constitution even of many modern states.
I. Among the authors favourable to our system, the great
bishop of Meaux may, we believe, be confidently cited. In fact,
' Among the errors of Wicklifie, condemned in the eighth session of the
Council of Constance, we find the following propositions : —
10. "Contra Scripturam sacram est, qu6d viri ecclesiastici habeant pos-
sessiones.
32. " Ditare clerum, est contra regulam Christi.
33. " Silvester papa, et Constantinus imperator erriirunt, Ecclesiam dotando.
36. " Papa, cum omnibus clericis suis possessionem habentibus, sunt hare-
tici, eb qu6d possessiones habent ; et consentientes eis, omnes videlicet domini
saeculares, et caeteri laici.
39. " Imperator et domini saeculares sunt seducti k diabolo, ut Ecclesiam
dotarent bonis temporalibus." — Labbe, Concil. torn. xii. p. \&, &c. Fleury,
Hist. Eccl. vol. xxi. book ciii. n. 28.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 299
it is certain that, though not embracing our opinion in all its
extent, Bossuet manifestly favours it in several passages in his
Defence of the Declaration of 1682 ; that is, the very work in
which he protests most energetically against the conduct of
Gregory VII., and of other popes, who attributed to themselves
the power of deposing sovereigns. We have had already occa-
sion to show how favourable he is to the directive power of the
Church and of the pope in this matter.^ But he goes much
farther in many passages of the same work, in whilsh he freely
admits the consent formerly given by princes to the decrees of
councils which declare heretics deprived of their dignities, and
of all their temporal rights.- He also acknowledges the rights
of sovereignty which the Holy See formerly enjoyed over many
European states ; and he almost admits that the pope had over
the empire of Germany an equal, if not a superior right. " We
know full well," he writes,^ " that the popes and the whole
ecclesiastical order held, from the concession of princes, and by
long possession, properties, rights, and sovereignties, as legiti-
mately acquired as the most inviolable properties among men.
Still more, should it be contended that the popes have acquired
over the Eoman-Germanic empire by usage, by custom, or by
legitimate prescription, a right equal, or superior, or similar in
any manner to what they had acquired over the two Sicilies,
Sardinia, and over, perhaps, other kingdoms, we leave the
discussion and settlement of that question to the Germans, and
to all those whom it concerns, and to the interpreters of the
civil law. As for us, it is no concern of ours ; the clergy of
France have no interest whatsoever in it ; for we merely declare
' Supra, n. 172. « Supra, ch. ii. n. 118.
^ " Nos enim satis scimus, Romanis pontificihus et sacerdotali ordini, regum
concessione, ac legitimd possessions, bona qucesita, jura, imperia ita haberi ac
possideri, uti qua inter homines optimo jure habentur ac possidentur. . . . Ac si
contendant Romanis pontificihus, quale in utrdque Sicilid aut in Sardinid,
aUisque forte regnis, tale sibi, aut majus etiam, aut aliquatenus simile, usu, con-
suetudine, possessione legitimd, in Imperio Romano-Germanico ordinando, quce-
situm esse jus ; illud Germani et quorum interest omnes, et juris civilis inter-
pretes quaerant, et decidant utcumque libuerit : nihil hsec ad nos pertinent,
neque ullam, ea de re, qusestionem movet elerus Gallicanus ; id enim tanttira
declarat, reges et principes in temporalibus nidli ecclesiasticce potestati, Dei ordi-
natione, subjici, neque auctoritate clavium Ecclesice directe vel indirecte deponi,
aut illorum subditos d fide atque obedientid, ac prcestito fidelitatis Sacramento
solvi posse." — Defens. Declar. lib. i. sect. i. cap. xvi. pp. 272, 273.
SOO POWER OF THE POPE [PART 11.
that kings and princes are not subject, in the temporal order,
to any ecclesiastical power by the order of God ; that they can-
not be deposed, either directly or indirectly, by virtue of the
keys of the Church; finally, that by virtue of that power, their
subjects cannot be absolved from the fidelity, obedience, and oath
of allegiance which bind them to their prince."
In the course of the same work, Bussuet applies these princi-
ples to explain the rights which the Holy See attributed to itself
over the empire of Germany, over England, and over many
other states. When treating of the contests between Philip the
Fair and Boniface VIII., he expresses himself on this subject
to the following effect.* " Whilst Germany, England, and other
countries had submitted to the pope in temporals, the French
believed that the dignity and liberty of the kingdom of France
had been maintained by our kings more effectually than those
of other kingdoms. At once Christian and powerful, the kings
of France were more submissive than many others to the pope
in spirituals ; but they were not, in any way, subject to his
authority in temporals."
282. That AdmUsioM should correct many Parti of the Defence of the Declaration.
From these different passages we must conclude, that, in
reality, Bossuet is not so opposed as might be imagined to the
opinion which assigns the constitutional law of the middle ages
to explain the conduct of popes and councils that formerly
deposed secular princes. We are not called upon here to explain
how Bossuet could reconcile with opinions so moderate, the
severity with which he condemns the conduct of those popes, in
the course of the same work.- It is enough for us to have
shown that, notwithstanding his well-known opposition to Ultra-
montane principles, he is yet so favourable to explanations
' " Hue accedit quod, ciim Germani, Angli aliique, in tejnporalilms coUa
subd{dis:<ent, Franci existimabant super alia regna hujusce regni dignitatem
ac libertatem, k regibus ac majoribus suis, fuisse defensam : quippe qui, Cbris-
tianissimi pariterque fortissimi, in spiritualibus quidem Romano pontifici
maximfe omnium paruerant, in temporalibus verb minimfe omnium huic potes-
tati se obnoxios fecerant." — Defend. Declar. part. i. lib. iii. cap. xxiv. p. 682.
See, in the same work, ch. ix. book iv. We have already seen the grounds
for Bossuet's assertion, that France had maintained her independence, n. 256,
Bupra.
* Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. i. sect. i. cap. vii. ; lib. iii. cap. ii. ix. x. et
alibi passim.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. SOI
which, in reality, vindicate most triumphantly the conduct of
these popes. We shall only remark, that the bitterness with
which he expresses himself on this subject, in many passages of
his work, arose, very probably, from the painful circumstances
in which it was composed, and which should naturally impart to
his pen, at least in the first draught, a certain tincture of harsh-
ness and asperity. Of this Bossuet himself appears to have
been sensible ; it is well known, that during the closing years of
his life he applied himself ardently, and at different times, to
revise that work, with the view of softening down its manner,
and of expunging whatever might appear inconsistent with the
respect and deference due to the Holy See. It is equally certain,
that, notwithstanding all the corrections and modifications
which he thought it his duty to make in the first draught of
his work, he never thought it expedient to publish it ; it was
even his own wish that it never should be published, lest its
publication might revive painful controversies, and draw down on
his own head the anathema of the Holy See.^
283. Opinion of the Old Faculty of Louvain.
But whatever countenance the bishop of Meaux may have
shown to the opinion which explains and vindicates the conduct
of popes and councils to sovereigns, during the middle ages, by
the constitutional laws of that period, it is certain that this
opinion was advocated much more plainly during the last
century, and in our own times also, by learned authors. In
support of this explanation, we have cited already the authority
of Fenelon and of Count de Maistre.^ To these eminent
authorities we may also add that of the old Faculty of Theology
of Louvain, whose opinion on the present question was made
known to us by the testimony of M. Van- Gils, one of its most
distinguished members, in his " Letters on the Opinions of the
old Faculty of Theology of Louvain regarding the Galilean
Declaration of 1682.^ M. Van-Gils attests, that Fenelon's
' Hist, de Bossuet, vol. ii. book vi. Confirmatory Evidence, n. 1, pp. 393,
394, 418, 419, &c. Nouveaux Opuscules de Fleury, 2nd edit. p. 295, &c.
editor's note.
* Supra, n. 8, &c.
' This letter, which was addressed in 1826 by M. Van-Gils, then president
of the seminary of Bois-le-Duc, to a Paris ecflesiastic, was printed at Louvain,
302 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
opinion on the constitutional law of the middle ages relating to
the deposition of sovereigns, was the opinion generally held by
the Louvain Faculty of Theology at the time of its suppression,
in 1788. "I declare," he writes, "that in my time (and I
passed a long period of my life in Louvain), I never heard the
subject of the first proposition of the Declaration of 1682
discussed, either in the public defences, or in the lectures, or in
theological theses. It was not regarded as a theological question ;
but rather as a part of constitutional law ; and whenever it was
the subject of private conversation, the opinion commonly
adopted was Fenelon's, though not known to be his until the
publication of the complete edition of his works.^ This opinion
maintained that, after the conversion of all Europe to the one
Catholic faith, tlie constitutions, or constitutional laws, of all
these nations, which were so deeply attached to the Catholic
religion, were, so to speak, rooted in the Catholic faith, and in
its laws, as the sole foundation of the fidelity of the sovereign,
and of the subjects ; that constitutionally the sovereign, or the
legislative power, and the laws themselves, should be Catholic ;
so that the legislator, by ceasing to be a Catholic, and an
acknowledged member of the Catholic Church, ceased to be
legitimate sovereign, and laws contrary to Catholic laws ceased
to be laws. And who had the right of pronouncing on the
Catholicity of these sovereigns and laws, if not the supreme
head of the Church ? It even appeared to follow, that any
citizen or subject, by ceasing to be Catholic, ceased to be a
citizen, and became a felon or rebel to the fundamental law,
and subjected himself to the penalties of felony.^ Possibly these
laws are not found written in national codes (things unknown in
in 1835 (14 pp. 8vo.), from a copy given to the editor by M. Van-Gils himself,
who had died the preceding year in the seminary of Bois-le-Duc. A short
notice of this respectable ecclesiastic is given in the Ami de la Religion,
vol. Ixxx. p. 489.
' The author alludes here to the Dissertation sur I'Autorite du Souverain
Pontife, published for the first time in 1S20, in vol. ii. of CEuvres de
F^nelon.
- This conjecture of the writer is substantiated by facts. It is certain that,
by the jurisprudence of all the Catholic states of the middle ages, notorious
heretics were deprived of civil rights. We have already seen that this legis-
lation was then common to all the Catholic states of Europe, and that it had
its origin in the Roman law. (^pra, Introduction, n. 67.)
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 303
many countries),^ but they were not the less engraved, like many
others, in the hearts of all ; — of sovereigns themselves, as well
as of their subjects." ^
284. Genei-al Disposition in the Present Day to admit this Explanation.
Many Catholic authors have openly adopted or favoured this
opinion latterly ; it can, we think, be confidently asserted, more-
over, that there is at present a general disposition among
intelligent men to adopt this explanation, and thus to do justice
to the memory of the popes and councils of the middle ages, so
long the butt of odious declamations upon this subject. This
assertion of ours is, perhaps, sufficiently proved by referring to
the account already given in our Preface, of the favourable
reception which our first edition met with in France. But, to
confirm our assertion more fully, we shall collect here some
testimonies, selected from a great number of others, which the
' We have seen that these laws were written in the national codes of Spain,
England, and the German empire (supra, § 2, n. 247).
^ Lettre de M. Van-Gils, pp. 6, 7. The opinion here attributed by the
author to the doctors of the Louvain, seems at first sight very different from
that given in an answer of the theological faculty of that city to the questions
addressed to them by Mr. Pitt, in 1788, on the independence of the English
crown of the Holy See. (This answer is found in Butler's Memoirs of English
Catholics, London, 1816, fol. It was republished among the Pieces Justifi-
catives of the following works : — Lettre de Monseigneur I'Eveque de Chartres
a un de ses Diocesains, Paris, 1826, 8vo. ; Antidote centre les Aphorismes de
M. de Lamennais, par M. Boyer, Paris, 1826, 8vo. ; AflFre, Essai Hist, sur la
Supr^m. Temp, du Pape, Annens, 1829, Svo.) But it should be remarked, in
the first place, that this w-as not an answer of the old and true Faculty of
Louvain ; it came from some professors in the seminaire gene'ral, which was
then established in that city by Joseph II., and which, without the faintest
shadow of right, assumed to itself the titles and prerogatives of the old faculty.
This answer was, in fact, dated in 1788, November 18. Xow it is certain that
at this time the true Faculty of Louvain could not answer the questions of
Mr. Pitt, the majority of its members having been dispersed or banished the
preceding year, in punishment of their attachment to the Catholic doctrine, and
their opposition to the innovations of .Joseph II. (See the Letter of M. Van-
Gils, p. 5. ; Memoires pour servir k I'Hist. Eccles. du xviii. Siecle, vol. iii.
pp. 125, 161, &c. ; Synopsis Mommient. Ecclesise Mechlin, tom. iii. p. 1099.)
Moreover, the answer addressed to Mr. Pitt is signed " De Mazi^re, doyen."
Now this ecclesiastic certainly was not dean of the old Faculty of Louvain,
but a member of the new Faculty established by Joseph II., the doctrine of
which was denounced as dangerous and incorrect by the Cardinal de Franken-
berg, archbishop of Malines. In fine, if the answer in question be attentively
examined, it will be seen that it does not consider the question of the inde-
pendence of the crown of England, according to the constitutional law of the
middle ages, but according to the divine law, and the constitutional law of
the eighteenth centuiy.
804 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
limits of our work prevent us from citing, and which we can
only refer to in our notes.
One of the most eminent, unquestionably, is the learned
Moehler, professor at Munich, so well known by his controversial
writings. " It is true," he writes, " that the pope's authority
extends to spiritual things only. If he passed those limits
during the middle ages, the state of the times accounts for it.
Besides their essential rights, the popes acquired, by the force of
circumstances, accessory rights, liable to various modifications ;
so that this branch of their power seems to change with the
times." ^ On this principle also, the conduct of the popes and
councils of the middle ages to sovereigns is accounted for, in the
new History of the Church, published by M. I'abbe Receveur,
professor of Theology in the Sorbonne, and in a great number of
other works, more or less known, according to the different talent
and reputation of their authors.'^
285. Proofs of this Disposition, eien among Protectants. — Testimony of I^eibnitz
and Eichom.
But it is especially worthy of remark, that many Protestant
writers, notwithstanding their fatal prejudices against the Church
and tlie Holy See, readily admit tliis same ])rinciple to account
for the extraordinary power which popes and councils of the
middle ages claimed over sovereigns. This is the opinion par-
ticularly of Leibnitz, in different passages already cited from
his works.^ A recent writer, not less attached to the Protestant
' Mcehler's Symbolick, vol. ii. book i. ch. v. § 43.
= Receveur, Hist, de I'Eglise, vol. v. pp. 127, 141, 161, 198, 203, 409, 591,
&c. We have already remarked (supra, n. 16, note), that in his new edition of
Berault-Bercastel'-'i History of the Church, M. Henrion substantially adopts
this opinion, without, however, absolutely excluding the opinion of the divine
right, which he favours plainly enough in many passages of that work. The
explanation adopted by M. Receveur had been admitted long before by Feller,
Diction. Historiqne, art. Gregoire VII. and IX., Martin IV., Frederick I.
and II. &c. ; Catechisme Philos. n. 510, second last note ; Milner, Excellence
of the Christian Religion, vol. ii. p. 580 ; Moehler, Manual of the History of
the Middle Ages, ch. \-iii. § 2, p. 418. See review of that work in the Ami de
la Religion, vol. xcvii. p. 289, and especially p. 292, in which the editor points
out several corrections to be made in the pass,age which we have cited. De
Montalembert, Hist, de Sainte Elisabeth, Introduction, p. 21, 26, &c. ; De
Falloux, Hist, de S. Pie V. Preface, p. 8 ; De Chatejiubriand, Etudes His-
toriquea. Preface, p. 117 ; Artaud de Montor, Consid. Histor. pp. 75, 227, &c. ;
Journal des Savans, ann. 1841, p. 469, &c.
' Supra, ch. ii. n. 124, &c.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 305
religion, than justly famous for liis researches on the history of
the German empire and laws, expresses himself on this subject
in a manner more decisive and more favourable to the Holy See.
Frederick Eichorn, son of the famous commentator on the bible,
and professor of history in the University of Gottingen, pub-
lished, in 1821, the third edition of his History of the German
Empire and Laws, in which he sums up in the following terms
the system of the constitutional law of Europe during the middle
ages. " According to the divine destiny of the Church, Chris-
tianity embraces all the nations of the earth, forms a whole ;
whose interests are confided to the charge of a power, which
God himself has vested in certain persons. Power is of two
sorts, spiritual and temporal. Both are intrusted to the pope,
in his capacity as vicar of Jesus Christ, and supreme head of
the Christian religion.' From him, consequently, and depen-
dently on him, and under his surveillance, the emperors, as
visible heads of Christendom in the temporal order, and all
princes in general, held their temporal power.^ The two powers
are bound mutually to support each other. ^ All power, therefore,
comes from God, since the state itself is of divine institution ;
but the spiritual power belongs exclusively to the pope, who
communicates a share of it to the bishops, as his assistants
(adjutores), to exercise it under him. The Church and State
form but the one Christian society, though externally they
appear to be two distinct societies, and can, in that capacity,
regulate by contracts their mutual relations with each other.
Power, whether spiritual or temporal, to be exercised, must be
in part enfeoffed to others, Avhose submission to him from whom
* In support of tliis assertion, Eichorn cites in a note the extracts from the
laws of Suabia, and the laws of Saxony, which we have already given (n. '267).
He adds, that the constitutional law of the time was understood in this sense,
not only by the papal court, but also by the general belief; and that the
opinions of the papal court on this point are developed by Gervase of Tilbury
(a lord of Otho's court), in the Prolegomena to his work entitled, Otia Impe-
rialia. In another place we have cited the opinion of this last author (ch. ii.
n. 145).
* Eichorn says, in a note to this passage, " that the power of princes is an
emanation from that of the emperor." This opinion is held by many German
jurisconsults, but is far from being unquestionable.
' In support of this assertion, Eichorn cites in a note the provisions of the
law of Suabia on the temporal effects of excommunication, which we have
stated in another place (ch. i. n. 78).
VOL. II. X
306 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
they hold it is engaged by an express promise of special fidelity."'
In support of this exposition, the author cites many passages
from tlie ancient German law, to which we have just referred in
a note, and which we have cited at greater length in another
place.^
We venture not to assert that the system of constitutional
law, such as is explained by this learned author in the passage
just cited, was so generally admitted as he supposes, either in
the time of Gregory VII. or at any later period. It is certain,
that under Gregory VII. the king of England had not yet
acknowledged, as Henry II. and his successors after^Yards did,
the pope as their sovereign lord.^ Equally certain is it, that
even when his sovereignty was admitted by a great number of
the sovereigns of Europe, it was not aduiittcd by the king of
France ; and also, that the dependence of the emperor on the
pope was not, properly speaking, that of the vassal on his
sovereign.'*
286. Importance of thae Admissions.
But, whatever may be thought of this constitutional law, in
the sense just explained, the language of these Protestants is
' Eichom, Hist, de I'Empire et du Droit Genuaniqne, 3rd edit. vol. ii.
p. 376. Tliis remarkable passage was cited in full by Cardinal Wiseman, in the
second number of Annal. des Scien. Relig. (supra, eh. i. n. 19, note). A sum-
mary of it is also given in Mcehler's Manual of the Middle Ages, p. 418.
^ Since the first edition of this work, we have learned that M. Eichom had
published, in ISS.^J, a fourth edition of his History, in which he modifies con-
siderably the passage which we have quoted from him, and does not pronounce
nearly so decisively for the existence of this constitutional law. The tone of
hesitation, and even embarrassment, with which he expresses himself in the
fourth edition, made us doubt at first whether we should retain the quotation
from the third edition : however, on examining the matter more closely, we
came to the conclusion that we should not expunge the passage, because it not
only records the opinion which M. Eichom had held during a long time, but
also the opinion of many learned men, Protestants among the number, who
received the third edition of his History with the highest admiration. More-
over, we are convinced that intelligent readers examining closely the texts of
the Suabian and Saxon laws, cited by M, Eichom in support of the passage in
his third edition, will be of opinion that the said passage is but a true and faithful
interpretation of the ancient German law.
* Baronii Annales, ann. 1079, n. 25. Lingard, History of England, vol. i.
p. 510, 5th edit.
* See supra, ch. ii. n. 142; ch. iii. n. 256. Perhaps the author, though
laying down the principle as general, knew that there were some exceptions.
So Cardinal Wiseman supposes (supra) ; for he remarks that, in the time of
Gregory VII. the king of England did not acknowledge the sovereignty of the
Holy See.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 807
certainly a keen reproof to a great number of Catholic writers,
wlio can never touch on any of the delicate questions now under
consideration without introducing reflections most injurious to
the Holy See and to the Catholic Church. This complaint has
already been made by the judicious editor of the Pensees de
Leibniz, in a note on the passages which we have already cited
from that author. " The grounds," he observes, "which Leib-
nitz has assigned for the power which popes claimed over the
temporalities of kings is more imposing, and more specious than
that proposed by the Ultramontanes. The respect with which
this great man, though a Protestant, has always spoken of the
bishops of Rome, and his anxiety to exculpate them, are a lesson
to some Catholics, who, pursuing a directly opposite course,
labour to exaggerate all that is objectionable in the conduct or
measures of the popes ; and who violate, in this matter, all
the rules of decency and moderation, from which we should
never depart, in the defence even of the most important
truths." ^
287. Tliis Constitutional law retained in the Constitutions of even many Modem
States.
IL It will, no doubt, come with surprise on many readers
when we add, that our opinion on the constitutional law of the
middle ages, relating to the deposition of sovereigns, is con-
firmed by the constitutions even of many modern states. And
yet it is certain, that after the fifteenth century, the period at
which the middle ages close,^ we find in the constitutions, or
fundamental laws of the principal states, even many Protestant
states, manifest remains of that ancient constitutional law which
we say existed in the middle ages. The details which we are
now about to present on this matter will serve at once to
confirm our opinion, and to mark the duration of the ancient
law and the date of its disappearance.
288. Proofs of this Point with regard to Germany.
To commence with the Catholic states of Europe ; it is
certain, that in the sixteenth century the emperor of Germany
' Pensees de Leibniz sur la Eeligion et la Morale (collected by M. Emery,
superior general of St. Sulpice), Paris, 1803, 2 vols. Svo. vol. ii. p. 400.
' See, on this subject, our Preface, p. i. note 1.
x2
308 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
was elected under the express condition of his defending the
Christian commonwealth and the pope, and of being his
protector ; that is the first article of the Imperial Capitulation,
signed by Charles V. at his election in loll) ; * its object and
occasion are thus explained by the abbe Lenglet-Dufresnoy.
" The just apprehensions," he observes,- "entertained by the
electors, that they and the other princes and electors of the
empire, after ha^dng once surrendered the reins of empire to a
powerful master, should be reduced to slavery, suggested to
them the necessity of prescribing limits to the authority of him
whom they might select as their chief They accordingly revived
the old custom of the capitulations, which is traced back to the
famous convention of Coblentz, in the year 860, whereby Louis
the German promised to decide nothing in iri^ortant mattere,
relating to his ecclesiastical or secular states, without their
counsel and consent. With this view they drew up the conven-
tion afterwards so well known under the name of the Imperial
Capitulation. This forms, as it has been well observed by the
ingenious and profound author of the Lettrcs Suisses,^ a treaty
composed of many articles, a sort of contract made by the
electors with him whom they wished to place on the imperial
throne. He binds himself by oath to observe all the articles
of that contract ; by violating them he absolves all his subjects
from their oaths to him ; he forfeits all his rights over the
empire ; for the empire intrusted them to him on the condition
that he would observe these articles.* It was at the
election of Charles V. that these articles were revived, under the
form of a written contract. That prince was already very
formidable as king of Spain. And it was for that reason that
' The text of this Capitulation is given in the Corps Diplom. XJnivereel of
Jean Dumont, vol. iv. part i. p. 298, &c.
' M^thode pour Etudier I'Histoire, by Lenglet-Dufresnoy, part iv. ch. v.
art. i. (vol. ii. of the 12mo. edit. p. 333). See also Moreri's Dictionary, art.
Capitulation ; Annales EaynaKli, ann. 1519, n. 27.
^ He alludes to the anonymous letters, published in 1703 and 1704, by John
de la Chapelle, under the title Lettres, M^moires, et Actes concemant la
Guerre prt^sente (the war of the Spanish succession), Bale, 1 703, 1 704, 8 vols.
12mo. The passage cited by Lenglet-Dufresnoy, which we have marked in
the inverted commas, is taken from the sixteenth letter, vol. iii. p. 146, &c.
See also the thirteenth letter, ibid. p. 34.
* The continuation of this passage of the Lettres Suisses has been already
cited, ch. i. art. i. n. 25.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 309
Frederick, elector of Saxony, after refusing the empire himself,
proposed Charles V., but only on condition that they should
restrict his power by a capitulation, which would preserve the
liberty of the nation ; and that laudable custom has been
happily retained in the election of every emperor since that
time. The following are nearly the conditions of the contract :
first, to defend the Christian republic and the pope, and to be
his protector ; secondly, to do justice, and to secure peace, &;c/'
289. Kingdom of England.
In the midst of the terrible agitation caused in England by
the schisms of Henry VIII., in the sixteenth century, the
English Catholics confidently cited against Elizabeth's claims
the ancient laws of the Catholic states of Europe, and especially
of England, \#iich excluded heretical princes from the throne.
This argument is urged with great energy in many works pub-
lished at that time by English Catholics, and which produced a
e;reat sensation in England and on the continent.' These
authors, it is true, contested Elizabeth's claims by arguments
founded on the theoloo;ical theorv, then so common, which attri-
buted to the Church and to the pope a jurisdiction, at least
indirect, over temporals, by divine right. But on reading their
works attentively, it is manifest that they never grounded their
arguments on that opinion alone ; but that they urged against
Elizabeth laws human and divine, especially the ancient laws of
England, which excluded heretics from the throne : and the
express stipulation of professing the Catholic religion, made in
the election of all the Catholic sovereigns of Europe since the
sixth century. All the Catholics of England, it must be con-
fessed, did not admit the force of these arguments ; but it was
denied by bad Cafcholics only, attached to the queen's party by
fear or personal interest. The majority of those who remained
faithful to the relioion of their fathers, reo;arded Elizabeth as
deprived of all right to the crown of England,- by a fundamental
' See the works of Allen and Doleman, mentioned in No. 9 of Confirmatory
Evidence, at the end of this volume.
* [If they did, their conduct was directly contrary to their belief. See Lin-
gard, History of England, vol. vi. pp. 212, 214, 225 ; see also p. 692, 5th edit.
They may (as should naturally be expected) have been not loyal in heart, but
they were not true to the standard of their faith in the field. — Tkans.J
SIO POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
law of the kingdom ; and they were confirmed in that impres-
sion by the pope, and by many other sovereigns in Europe. It
is well known, that the bull of Pius V., which declared Eliza-
beth's right to the English throne null, was published at the
request, not only of a great number of English Catholics, but at
the instigation also of the king of Spain ; nor does it appear
that other sovereigns regarded it as a violation of the royal
dignity in the person of Elizabeth.^ But what is most remark-
able in this matter is, that Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary
Stuart, the two claimants of the crown of England, both
attached the same importance to the pope's decision, in seeking
to support their rights.- Elizabeth, though she affected to
ridicule the pope's sentence, which declared the nullity of her
pretension, really feared it, and left no means untried to obtain
its revocation ; and procured even the intei-ference of the
emperor Maximilian for that purpose. "The pope," Dr. Lingard
writes, "answered the solicitations of that prince by asking whether
Elizabeth deemed the sentence valid or invalid ? If valid, why
did she not seek a reconciliation with the Holy See ? if invalid,
why did slie wish it to be revoked ? " ' With regard to Mary Stuart,
it is certain that, immediately before her death, she wrote to
Pope Sixtus v., on the 23rd November, 158(5, a letter, in
which, after professing her attachment to the Catholic faith, she
confides all her rights to the care of the pope and the king of
Spain. In that remarkable document, as the same historian
observes, she recommends to the pope's care the conversion of
her son to the Catholic religion ; and conjured him to act for
the attainment of that object in co-operation with the king of
Spain (Philip II.), the only prince who had done her real
service during her captivity. If James could not be converted,
she makes over all her rights to the crown of England to the
pope and that monarch. But if James is converted, her most
cherished earthly wish is that he should be married to the
infanta of Spain.*
' Spondanus, Annales, ann. 1569, n. 8, 9. Bzovius, ann. 1569, n. 30 ; ann.
1570, n. 13, &c. Bianchi, Delia PotestJi e della Politia della Chiesa, torn. ii.
lib. vi. § 10, n. 4. Lingard, History of England, vol. vi. p. 222, 5th edit.
'^ Lingard, ibid. « Ibid. p. 225. * Ibid. p. 449. •
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 311
290. Spain mid Sicily.
About tlie same time the liistory of Spain supplies a remark-
able illustration of the ancient laws of the kingdom, which
excluded heretic princes from the throne. Philip II., when
ceding Belgium, in 1598, to his daughter Isabella and her
future husband, Albert of Austria, inserts the following among
other stipulations : " Item ; on condition, and not otherwise
(this being the principal, and the greatest obligation), that
all the children and descendants of the said spouses, imitating
the piety and religion so eminent in them, shall live and die in
our holy Catholic faith, as it is held and taught in the holy
Roman Church ; and before taking possession of the said Low
Countries, they shall make oath to that effect, in the form
appended to this article. And in case (which God avert) any
of the said descendants should stray from our holy faith, and
fall into any heresy, they, after having been declared such by
our holy father the pope, shall be deprived of the administration,
possession, and property of the said provinces, and their subjects
and vassals shall not obey them more ; but they shall admit and
receive the nearest akin, being Catholic, who should succeed in
the event of the death of the said apostate from the faith ; and said
heretic shall be reputed as if he had really died a natural death." ^
This remarkable provision was conformable to the ancient con-
stitution of Spain, which is in force to this day in that kingdom,
and which the constitution of 1808 secures, in these terms :
" The religion of the Catholic, Apostolic, and Eoman Church is,
in Spain, and in all the Spanish possessions, the religion of the
king and the nation ; no other is tolerated." ^
The Sicilian constitution, which has been maintained to the
present time, is still more express on this point. The third title
of that constitution is expressed in the following terms : " The
king must profess the Catholic religion ; if he profess any other
worship, he forfeits, by the very fact, the throne of Sicily." ^
' This act is given in the Corps Universal Diplomatique of John Dumont,
under the date of May 6, 1598 (vol. v. part i. p. 574). See, on this subject,
Spondani Annales, ann. 1598, n. 15 ; Synopsis Monument. Ecclesi» Mechlin,
tom. iii. p. 1041.
* Dufau and Gaudet, Collection des Constitutions, vol. v. pp. 65, S6.
3 Ibid. vol. iv. p. 464.
312 POWER OP THE POPE [PART II.
291. Poland.
This was also the ancient constitution of the kingdom of Poland,
and it continued in force in the last century. Frederick Au-
gustus I., who ascended the Polish throne in 1697, could not be
elected until he had renounced Lutheranism. " Notwithstanding
his conversion,'' observes a recent historian, " he found it diflBcult
to defeat his competitor, the prince of Conti, who, by his high
character, and the secret influence of the abbe de Polignac,
French ambassador at Warsaw, had secured a strong party.
Augustus had recourse to extraordinary largesses, and even to
arms, to obtain an ascendancy in the diet. He was supported
by the pope's nuncio, who certified tlie fact of his conversion." ^
The ancient constitutional law of Poland on this point was
expressly revived in 1768, by the Polish diet, in the following
terms : " No prince, not being a Catholic, can aspire to the
throne ; nor can any princess be crowned queen, if she does not
profess the Catholic religion : those who change their religion
shall be punished by exile." - This article, it must be observed,
is part of a treaty adopted by the Polish diet under the influ-
ence of the empress Catherine II., and which granted to Pro-
testants some rights, invariably denied to heretics by the ancient
laws of the kingdom of Poland.^
o
292. Kingdom of France. — Motives and Object of the League under Henry III.
The world knows the troubles occasioned in France, at the
close of the sixteenth century, by the danger to which the
kingdom was then exposed of having an heretical prince on the
throne. It does not come within our plan to sketch the rise and
progress of the League which was formed at this period to
exclude from the succession the king of Navarre (Henry IV.),
who professed the Protestant religion. It is sufficient to state,
that the main object of this association, that which was con-
stantly proclaimed above all others by the partisans of the
League, was the ancient usage and fundamental law of the
' Memoires pour servir k I'Hist. Ecclt-s. du xviii. Si^cle, vol. i. Introduction,
p. clx. Lenglet-Dufresnoy, M^thode pour ^tudier I'Histoire, vol. viii. p. 346.
* Dufau, Collection' des Constitutions, vol. iv. pp. 34, 35.
^ Mt^moires pour servir k I'Hist. Eccl^s. du xviii. Siecle, vol. ii. ann. 1767,
13tli October.
CHAP. HI.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 313
kingdom, which obliged the sovereign to profess the Catholic
religion, and the manifest danger to which that religion would
be exposed under an heretical prince.
293. Manifesto of the League.
In confirmation of this fact might be cited an immense
number of memoirs, published at the time, by the most famous
among the Leaguers.^ But it is sufficient to mention the
manifesto published in 1585, by the Cardinal Bourbon, in
concert with many princes of the blood, cardinals, prelates, and
other eminent personages, in all orders of the state. '^ As the
first grounds of their association, the authors of this manifesto
assign the danger of having an heretical prince succeed to the
throne, and the obligation of professing the Catholic religion
imposed by the oath of allegiance which the French take to
their king ; an obligation so rigorous, that they take their oath,
only on condition of that which the king himself takes to pre-
serve the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman faith. " It is clear,"
the manifesto states, " that no greater evil could happen than
the succession of an heretical prince to the throne, considering
that the people are not obliged to acknowledge, or to tolerate,
the authority of a sovereign who has abandoned the Christian
and Catholic faith ; for the first oath taken by the kings is, to
maintain the Roman, Catholic, and apostolic religion ; and it is
in consideration of that oath of the king, that his subjects
take to him the oath of allegiance.'" It it well known that
this manifesto, which was first published in the name of a
respectable number of the princes and most distinguished lords
' See especially the works of William Rose, Lishop of Senlis ; of John Bou-
cher, cur^ of St. Benolt ; and of Louis d'Orleans, advocate of the Parliament
of Paris, which we refer to in No. 9 of Confirmatory Evidence, at the close of
this volume. In support of this fact may be consulted also a great number of
other writings in the Memoirs of the League, published at the time, by Simon
Goulart, under the name of Samuel du Lys (Geneva, 1602, 6 vols. 8vo.), and
reprinted with historical and critical notes, by the abb^ Goujet (Paris, 1758,
6 vols. 4to.) Amsterdam.
- This manifesto appeared in the month of March, 1585, with the title :
Declaration des Causes qui ont mii le Cardinal de Bourbon, et les Pairs,
Seigneurs, Villes et Communaut^s Catholiques de ce Royaume, de s'opposer k
ceux qui veulent subvertir la Religion de I'Etat ; Reims, 1585, 8vo. This
declaration is printed in the following works : vol. i. of M^moires de la Ligue,
already cited in the preceding note ; Hist, des Guerres Civiles de France, by
Davila, Paris, 1557, vol. ii. p. 139.
314 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
of the kingdom, was subsequently sanctioned by almost all the
princes of Europe, with the pope at their head ; and by degrees
received the adhesion of almost all France.^
294. Results of this Act.
One of the chief results of this act, supported by all the
influence of the League, was the Edict of Union, published by
Henry III., in the month of July, 1588, and declared for ever
a fundamental law of the kingdom, in the States- General of
Blois, in the following October. The first articles of this edict
are, first, that the king shall make oath to spare no means, not
even his own life, to exterminate heresy in his kingdom, and
shall never make peace or truce with the heretics, nor any edict
in their favour ; secondly, that all his subjects, without distinc-
tion, shall take the same oath ; thirdly, that the king shall
neither favour nor advance any heretic, and that aU his subjects
shall swear not to admit to the throne, after his death, any
heretical prince, or abettor of heresy ; fourthly, that all ofiices,
whether in the army, in the finance, or in the judicature, shall
be given to none but Catholics.^
295. Conversion of Ueni-y IV. — Edict of Nantes and its Revocation.
In consequence of these pro\'ision3, the king of Navarre
(Henry IV.) was not recognised king of France, after the
death of Henry III. (in 1589), until he had promised, on oath,
to maintain the Catholic religion in the kingdom, and to carry
into effect the proposal which he had often made before, of
abiding in the matter of religion by the decision of a general or
national council, to be assembled, if possible, before six months.^
His conversion, which occurred some time after (in 1593),
' See the Annals of Spondanus, ann. loS.5, et seq. ; Davila, Hist, des Guerre8
Civiles, vol. ii. ann. 15S5, &c. ; Anquetil, Esprit de la Ligue, ann. 15S5, &c. ;
Daniel, Hist, de France, vol. xi. p. 1S4, &c. ; De Pt^refixe, Hist, de Henri IV.
vol. i. pp. 72, 142 ; Ferrand, Esprit de I'Histoire, vol. iii. letters 68, 69 ; De
Saint-Victor, Tableau Historique et Pittoresque de Paris, vol. iii. part i.
p. 323 ; Clausel de Coussergues, Du Sacre des Rois de France, ch. xxvi.
p. 350, &c.
2 Collection des Proc^s-Verbaux des Assemblees G^n(ir. du Clerg^ de France,
vol. i. p. 472, &c. Davila, ubi supra, pp. 357, 371. Daniel, ubi supra, pp.
318, 338. Anquetil, Esprit de la Ligue, vol. iii. pp. 32, 39.
' Besides the authors already cited, see De Thou, Hist. Univ. book xcvii. ;
Clausel de Coussergues, ubi supra, ch. xxvii.
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 815
terminated those protracted contests, and the disorders of which
they had been the occasion or the pretext ; still, it did not
prevent him from making important concessions to the Protes-
tants, which, in truth, in the actual circumstances, it would
have been very difficult to withhold. This was the subject of
the famous edict of Nantes, April, 1598, which granted to the
Protestants the free exercise of their religion in certain places
determined by the edict ; the right of eligibility to all offices ;
courts half Protestant and half Catholic, in some parliaments ;
and many other privileges, on condition, nevertheless, that they
should effectually renounce all practices, leagues, and concert
with the enemies of the state.' All these concessions, extorted
from the monarch by a party which it was his interest to keep
in hand, manifestly tended to perpetuate in the kingdom those
religious dissensions of which the fatal effects had been too
severely felt during the last two reigns ; hence they were
successively restricted, under Louis XIII. and Louis XIV.,
according as circumstances allowed ; finally, they were altogether
annulled in 1685, by the edict of Revocation, which placed
matters in the position in which they had been before the edict
of Nantes.^ By that revocation the Catholic religion became,
as before;, " the religion of the state ; and the exercise of any
other worship was interdicted in the kingdom.'' ^ This was also
the constitution of France during the last century, until
Louis XVI., to relieve the Protestants, revived in their favour, in
1787 and 1789, most of the provisions of the edict of Nantes.'*
296. Remahis of the Ancient Constitutional Law of the Middle Ages in many
Protestant States, especially in England.
The history even of the principal Protestant states of
* The text of this edict is puhlished at the close of vol. i. of the Histoire de
I'Edit de Nantes (by Elias Benoit, Protestant minister at Delft), Delft, 1693-
1696, 5 vols. 4to. For more ample details on that edict, see Daniel, Hist, de
France, vol. xii. ann. 1598 ; Essai Historiqiie sur I'lnfluence de la Religion
pendant le xvii. Sifecle, vol. i. pp. 44, 101.
^ The text of the edict of revocation is given in vol. v. of Benoit's work,
already cited. See, on this subject, D'Avrigny, Memoires Chronologiques,
vol. iii. July, 1685 ; Hist, de Bossuet, by Cardinal de Bausset, vol. iv. book xi.
n. 15 ; Essai Historique sur I'lnfluence de la Religion pendant le xvii. Siecle,
vol. ii. pp. 235, 270.
^ Dufau and Guadet, Collection des Constitutions, vol. i. p. 79.
■* Memoires pour servir k I'Hist. Eccli^s. pendant le xviii. Sifecle, vol. iii.
Nov. 24, 1787. Les demiferes Annies de Louis XVI. by M. Hue, pp. 504-506.
316 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
Europe, since the Reformation, presents on this subject many
remarkable facts. For it is certain, that the maintenance of the
dominant religion — the motive which induced all Catholic states
of Europe formerly to exclude heretics from the throne— made
Catholics themselves be excluded from the throne in many
Protestant states. A bill passed in the English Parliament,
under William III., in 1688, fixes the crown for ever in the family
of that prince ; and failing that, in the family of the princess of
Denmark (Anne), to the exclusion of James II. and of his
family. The same act excludes for ever from the throne Catholics,
and the husbands of Catholics.^ Another law, passed in 1701,
confirms these provisions, and admits to the throne the princess
Sophia of Hanover, grand- daughter of James I., failing the
princess of Denmark." And in accordance with these statutes,
Anne, princess of Denmark, was proclaimed queen in 1702,
and George of Hanover was acknowledged in 1714;, to the
exclusion of James III. These ancient statutes were revived in
our days (in 180.5), by a parliament which expressly enacted,
that if a king of England embraced the Cathohc religion, he
should, by the very fact, forfeit the crown.^
297. Sweden and Norway.
The same principle has been adopted in Sweden since Pro-
testantism became the dominant religion. It was on that
principle that Charles IX. dethroned his nephew Sigismund III.,
and placed the crown on his own head, in 1604.* This principle
was solemnly re-enacted in 1720, by the States of the kingdom,
on occasion of the coronation of the queen Ulric Eleonara and
' Dufau, CoUectiou des Constitutions, vol. i. p. 3S7, &c.
* Ibid., p. 396, &c. See also M^moires pour servir k I'Hist. Eccl^s. du
xviii. Sifecle, vol. i. Introduction, p. clxxxiv. pp. 5, &c., 135, &c. ; Diction, de
Moreri, art. Angleterre, p. 59, col. i. ; Lenglet-Dufresnoy, ubi supra, p. 158.
3 Parliamentary Debates, vol. iv. London, 1805, Svo. p. 677. Cited by
Count de Maistre, Du Pape, vol. ii. Conclusion, p. 251.
* Diction, de Moreri, arts. Subde and Sigismond III. Lenglet-Dufresnoy,
ubi supra, p. 260.
[Sweden retained also the old Catholic discipline on the temporal effects of
excommunication ; any person remaining long under that sentence being con-
demned to imprisonment or exile. For the civil effects of excommunication
under English modern law, see Blackstone's Commentaries, book iii. ch. vii.
p. 1 ; and for the frightful use of that power by Protestants against the Irish
Catholics, in the reign of James I., see O'Sullivan, Historiae Catholicise Com-
pendium, p. 312, Dublin, 1850.— Trans.]
CHAP. III.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 317
her husband Frederick of Hesse-Cassel ; the latter was not
admitted to the throne except on the express condition that he
should bind himself to embrace the Lutheran relio-ion, the domi-
nant creed of the kingdom, to uphold it, and to enforce all laws
relating to it ; ^ such is, to this day, the constitutional law of
Sweden, according to the constitution drawn up in 1809, by the
States of the kingdom, and published the same year by King
Charles XI 1 1. It is there expressly stated, that " the king
and all the public functionaries must profess the evangelical
(Lutheran) creed :"2 guch is the constitutional law of Norway
also, by the constitution of 181 4.^
298. Difference between the Modern Law of those States mid that of the
Middle Ages.
But the great difference between the constitutional law of
Protestant states and that of the Catholic states of the middle
ages is, that the latter was grounded on the sincere attachment
' Diction, de Mor^ri, arts. Ulrique El^onore, and Frederic de Hesse-Cassel.
Lenglet-Dufresnoy, ubi supra, pp. 220, 237.
^ Dufau, Collection des Constitutions, vol. iii. p. 306. In conformity with
this article of the Swedish constitution, General Bemadotte, marshal of the
French empire, and prince of Ponte Corvo, having been elected by the States
of Sweden in 1810, and adopted by King Charles XIII. as presumptive heir to
the Swedish throne, could not obtain that honour without abjuring the Catholic
religion, and professing Lutheranisra. (See, on this revolution, the Biographie
Universelle, arts. Charles XIII. and Gustaviis IV., kings of Sweden, vols. Ix.
Ixvi. ; Maltebrun, Prdcis de la Geog. Univers. vol. iv. p. 383, edit, of 1832.)
This apostasy, which did him no credit, even in the opinion of men who cared
little for religion, was condemned severely, by Napoleon especially. It was
on this occasion that the emperor had, with Madame Montesquieu, then
governess of the king of Rome, a curious conversation, which she often related
afterwards to several persons, and especially to the abbe Dassance, who records
it in the following terms, in the Ami de la Religion (vol. cxxi. p. 515) :— " So
Bemadotte is a king," said Napoleon ; "what an honour for him!" "Yes,
sire ; but there is a dark side to the picture : for a crown he has renounced the
faith of his fathers." " Yes, that is base, indeed. Even I, who am supposed
to be so ambitious, I would never abandon my religion for all the crowns in the
world." Such language seems, no doubt, not a little surprising in the month
of Napoleon, who appeared a few years before disposed to embrace Mahomet-
anism to establish his power in Egypt. There is, however, every reason to
believe, that the ambition which then was ruling him made him dissemble the
faith which he still retained in his heart. Many circumstances of his past public
and private life, and especially the details of his Christian death, seem to prove
that he never completely forgot the principles of the Catholic religion, in which
he had been educated. (See, on this subject, I'Ami de la Religion, ibid. ; Sup-
plem. de la Biographie Universelle, art. Napoleon. This article, which was
written by M. Michaud, jun., was published separately, with the title Vie
Publique et Priv^e de Napoleon, Paris, 1844, 8vo.)
^ Dufau, ubi supra, p. 322.
318 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
of the people to the religion of their fathers, and the desire of
maintaining it against all the innovations of schism and heresy ;
whilst the constitutional law of Protestant states is principally
founded on hatred of the Catholic Church, and on a purely poli-
tical attachment to the established religion. This disposition has
been manifested especially in Sweden and England, on many
remarkable occasions. Before the reign of Charles IX., king of
Sweden, the public exercise of no other religion except the
Lutheran was tolerated in that kingdom. That prince pub-
lished, in 1 687, a declaration, prohibiting " any of his subjects,
under the severest penalties, the public or private exercise of the
Catholic religion or of Calvinism ; insisting, moreover, that
their children should all be educated in the creed and confession
of Augsburg." Some time after he revoked that order, so far
as it affected the Calvinists ; but confirmed it against the
Catholics, whose creed he resolved, from motives of jealousy and
interest, to banish totally from his dominions.'
In the session of the English Parliament, March 23rd, 1701,
the princess Sophia, grand-daughter of James I., was declared
next in the succession to the crown of England, after the death
of William, of the i)rincess of Denmark, Anne, and of their
children. Now this Princess Sophia did not belong to the
Anglican communion ; both she and her son, George of Bruns-
wick-Hanover, professed Lutheranism. It was assumed that
neither would have any objection to conform to the established
Church, in the event of their being called to the English
throne. -
This mode of treating religion as a question of politics may,
perhaps, find favour in the eyes of false philosophers, Avho
regard all religions with equal indifference ; but it cannot be
approved by any sincere Christian ; and it is very astonishino"
that authors who so readily pardon modem governments this
profane policy, should indulge so frequently in the most offensive
declamations against the eminently religious policy of the middle
ages ; as if the maintenance of the true religion were of less
importance to the welfare of society than that of a new religion,
' Lenglet-Dufresnoy, ibid. p. 237.
" Mor^ri, art. Angleterre, pp. 59, 60. Memoires pour servir k I'Histoire
Eccl^s. du xviii. Sifecle, vol. i. p. 5.
CHAP. IV.] OVEE SOVEREIGNS. 319
founded solely on a spirit of revolt and of insubordination, the
distinctive character of all sects outside the true Church.
CHAPTER IV.
PRACTICAL RESULTS OP THE POWER EXERCISED BY POPES AND COUNCILS OVER
SOVEREIGNS DURING THE MIDDLE AGES.
299. Plan and Desirjn of this Chapter.
In these latter times much has been said of the evil conse-
quences of that prodigious authority which the maxims of the
middle ages attributed to the Church and the pope in the
temporal order. These maxims, it has been urged, ■were a
fruitful source of disorder ; they favoured the ambition and
exorbitant pretensions of the popes ; weakened among the
people the respect due to sovereigns, and occasioned between the
two powers that violent and obstinate contest whose conse-
quences have been fatal alike to the interests of religion and
to the peace of kingdoms.^
We are far from pretending that these maxims in question
occasioned no evil results. On this earth it is the inevitable
lot of even the best institutions to be the occasion or the pretext
for many abuses. It can, nevertheless, we feel, be confidently
asserted, first, that the abuses in this case have been manifestly
exaggerated by a great number of modem writers ; secondly,
that they have been amply compensated for by the advantages
which religion and society derived from the extraordinary power
with which popes and councils were so long invested. The
development of these two propositions will illustrate their truth
in the clearest light.-
' Fleury's Ecclesiastical History has contributed very much to propagate
these prejudices, especially among the French magistrates, who often appeal
to his authority. See Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. 3rd Discourse, n. 9, 10,
18 ; vol. xvii. .5th Discourse, n. 12 ; vol. xix. 7th Discourse, n. 5, et alibi
passim ; De H^ricourt, Lois Eccl^s. de France, part iv. edit, of 1771, p. 185 ;
Ferrand, Esprit de 1' Histoire, letters 35, 41, 42 ; Annales du Moyen Age,
vol. iv. p. 225 ; vol. v, pp. 402, 464, et alibi passim.
^ For the development of these two points, see especially the work of De
Maistre, Du Pape, parts ii. and iii.
320 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II,
ARTICLE I.
Supposed Evil Results of this Power.
300. Three Principal Evils attributed to it.
The ambition and exorbitant pretensions of the popes ; the
degrading of the sovereign power in the estimation of the
people ; and the wars produced by the contest between the two
powers, these are the evil results commonly attributed by modem
writers to the maxims of the middle ages, on the supremacy of
the spiritual over the temporal power. Now it can be easily
proved that these evil results have been vastly exaggerated by a
great number of modern writers.
§ 1. 0/ the Ambition and eo'orhitant Pretensions of icliicli the
Popes of the Middle Ages are accused.
301. Injustice of this Reproach.
To refute the charges made against the popes on this subject,
we need but state one very remarkable fact, which has never
received a degree of consideration commensurate with its im-
portance ; namely, that from the establishment of their temporal
sovereignty down to our time, that is, a period of more than a
thousand years, this great power with whicli they were invested,
as temporal sovereigns, and as arbiters of princes, and as suze-
rains of many states in Europe, was never employed by them for
the extension of their own dominions.^
302. Moderation of the Popes, considered as Sovereigns.
Considered first simply as sovereigns, the popes present an
example of moderation, singular and perhaps unique, in the
exercise of sovereign power.^ During the thousand years since
they acquired it, they have never betrayed that natural ten-
dency to extend itself, which seems in a manner to be the
distinctive character of all sovereign powers. Read their history
attentively ; in no d}Tiasty is there found more respect for the
' De Maistre, Du Pape, book ii. ch. vi. pp. 211, 244. Michaud, Hist, des
Croisades, vol. vi. p. 231.
' De Maistre, ubi supra, ch. vi. p. 243, &c.
CHAP. IV. J OVEE SOVEKEIGNS. 321
territory of others, or less ambition to extend their own. The
popes never attempted to seize favourable opportunities for
extending their sway. They never possessed, nor do they pos-
sess at this day, more than what was originally granted to them
by the voluntary piety of princes and people.^ Julius II. was,
perhaps, the only pope that acquired a territory by the ordinary
course of international law; " that is, by virtue of a treaty termi-
nating a war.3 It was in that manner that he acquired from
' In Ferrand's Esprit de I'Histoire (vol. ii. letter xl. p. 406), we read that
" the popes sometimes profited of their temporal power to augment their pro-
perties." This, as M. de Maistre observes, is a false assertion, without the
least shadow of proof. "I have yet to learn," he says, "when and how the
popes employed their spiritual power, or their political influence, to extend
their territory at the expense of the lawful owner." — De Maistre, ubi supra,
p. 242.
* [The words in the original are " droit public," which in this passage alone
are translated " international law ;" but in all other passages, and in the
title-page of the work they are translated " constitutional law." The word
"international" is adopted here, because it is obviously the only one which
the context admits, a treaty between two independent powers being included
under that denomination of laws. The word *' constitutional" was adopted in
all other passages, because, though not perhaps representing with rigid pro-
priety the meaning of the French term, as now understood, it does represent
with sufficient fidelity Domat's definition of " droit public " (supra, p. 262). It
is also the only English term that could be used consistently with M. Van-Gils's
exposition, which is approved by our author (supra, n. 283) ; and, finally, it
conveys at once to the English ear a distinct idea of the kind of law by which
the pope formerly deposed princes, namely, a law limiting the supreme power,
making the profession of the Catholic faith by the sovereign a part of the con-
stitution, as the profession of the Protestant faith by the sovereign is now a
part of the British constitution.
In many notices of this work by English writers, and also in English trans-
lations of other works treating partly of the same subject, " droit public " is
translated "common law," in the sense of "general," i. e. not confined to any
particvdar state. That certainly is not the meaning of the French terms ; and
moreover, the term " common law " misleads by suggesting to the English reader
a weU-kno wn class or division of English law, which certainly was not the general
law of Europe. Others have adopted the English form " public law," meaning
"international law," the law of nations; but I know not on what authority.
Public law in that sense is not as yet a current phrase in the English language.
Finally, the term " international " implies an error, both on the origin of the law
in question, and on the title by which it was enforced by the pope. The origin of
the law was not a treaty with the pope, or any foreign power ; it arose, both in
Spain and France, &c. &c. witliout the direct interference of the pope, and was
for a time enforced by the councils of those countries without reference to the
pope. Its origin, therefore, was not international. Subsequently, when the
enfoi-cement of this law was reserved to the pope, by the common consent of
European states, he did not exercise it as a foreig-n power, as sovereign of the
Roman states, but as the acknowledged head of the Christian commonwealth.
The relations between him, in that capacity, and the different states of Europe,
were no more "international" than the relations between the president of the
United States and the different states of the Union. — Teans.]
^ Rajmaldi Annales, ann. 1509. Hist, de la Ligue de Cambrai, by Dubos.
VOL. II. Y
322 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
the republic of Venice the duchy of Parma, which had been
usurped, he believed, by that republic from the Holy See. This
acquisition, however, though justifiable enough, appeared not
becoming the character of the popes ; it soon passed away from
their possession. " To them alone," observes Count de Maistre,
" belongs the honour of not possessing at this day more than
they possessed ten centuries ago. Here you meet neither trea-
ties, nor battles, nor intrigues, nor usurpations ; as you trace
back their history you always meet donations. Pepin, Charle-
magne, Louis, Lothaire, Henry, Otho, the Countess Matilda,
formed this temporal order of the Church, which is of so ines-
timable value to Christendom. But it owed its origin to the
necessity of circumstances ; and their concealed operation is one
of the most curious events in history." ^
303. Their Moderatimi as Arbiters of Princes, and as Suzerain Lords.
Considered as arbiters of princes, and as suzerain lords of
many European kingdoms, the popes present a still more
astonishing example of moderation. Had they been under the
influence, as has often been contended, of ambitious views,
■ they naturally would have turned to their own aggrandizement,
the extraordinary power attributed to them by the maxims of
the time. Nevertheless, they never did so ; they never endea-
voured to retain for themselves any portion of those states
of which they disposed as suzerain lords, and of which they
deprived princes in punishment of their felony or crimes.
They never disposed of fiefs of the Holy See except to foreign
princes, and in the manner which they believed to be most
conducive to the good of religion and the tranquillity of king-
doms. It was thus Gregory VII. and Innocent III. used those
rights of sovereignty which the Holy See claimed over Spain ;
they made over to the first occupiers whatever part of the
kingdom they could recover from the Saracens, the sworn
enemies of the Christian name.*^ It was thus that Clement IV.
Daniel, Hist, de France, ann. 1508. De Maistre, ubi supra, ch. vi. pp. 243,
244, 259-266.
' De Maistre, ibid. p. 245.
' Voigt, Hist, de Gregoire VII. book v. p. 184, &c. 273. Innocentii III.
Epistol. lib. XV. epist. 24 (Baluze, vol. ii. p. 609). Baronii Annales, vol. xii.
ann. 1179, n. 17. Hurter's Hist. d'Innoccnt III. vol. ii. ann. 1211, 1212.
CHAP. IV.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 823
and his successors, when disposing of the kingdom of the Two
Sicilies, which was regarded as a fief of the Holy See, imposed
on the princes to whom the grant was made, conditions admirably
suited to preserve the liberty, both of the Holy See and of
Italy.i The popes, it is true, when disposing of those states,
as suzerain lords, exacted, according to the custom of the times,
certain homage and obligations in acknowledgment of their
right, and of the favours conferred by them on their feudatories ;
still, it is true, that even in the moment of their greatest power,
they never used nor sought an opportunity of extending their
dominions, a thing which it would have been at once so easy
and so natural for them to do.
304. OJyect and Aim of their Policy.
All their ambition, or rather their policy, was devoted to one
object, the maintenance of the liberty of Rome and of Italy
against the emperors of Germany, who frequently revived the
most unjust pretensions- on that matter. "To me it a^jpears
evident," observes Voltaire himself, " that the real cause of the
quarrel (between the popes and the emperors) was, that the
popes and the Romans did not wish to have an emperor at
Rome;" 3 that is, adds Count de Maistre, "they did not wish
to have a master in their own house." * " It appears evident,"
Voltaire continues, "that the great design of Frederick 11. was
to establish in Italy the throne of the new Caesars ; it is per-
fectly certain that he wished to reign over Italy without control
and without partition. This is the secret spring of all his
quarrels with the popes ; he employed by turns force and fraud ;
and the Holy See fought him with his own weapons. The
Guelphs, those partisans of the popes, and still more of liberty,
were a counterpoise to the Ghibelins, the partisans of the empire.
Religion was never the cause of the divisions between Frederick
and the Holy See." ^
' See the authors cited above, n. 138, ch. xi.
2 De Maistre, Du Pape, book ii. ch. vii. art. iii.
3 Voltaire, Essai sur I'Hist. G^n. vol. i. ch. xlvi.
■* De Maistre, ubi supra, p. 298.
5 Voltaire, Essai sur I'Hist. Gdu. vol. ii. ch. Hi. p. 98.
y2
824) POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
305. It was perfectly justifiable.
From these most important admissions let us conclude, that,
while labouring with all their might to maintain the liberty of
Rome and of Italy, the popes not only deserved no censure,
but simply discharged their duty, both as temporal sovereigns
and as heads of the Church. Does not every one know that the
first duty of a temporal sovereign is to maintain his indepen-
dence against the unjust pretensions of foreign powers ? " The
greatest misfortune for a politician (and much more for the
chief of any state)," Count de Maistre observes, "is to be
subject to a foreign power ; no humiliation, no agony of heart is
comparable to that." ^ Let the conduct of the popes of the
middle ages be judged by those principles. ^^ Every pope,"
observes a severe censor of the Holy See, " ever if pope ought to
fear the aggrandizement of the emperors in Italy. Old claims
will hold good, the moment they are enforced with effect."
Every pope, therefore," resumes Count de Maistre, "was bound
to oppose them. "What map had ever given Italy to the
emperors of Germany ? Where have people learned that the pope
ought not to act as a temporal prince ? that he should be purely
passive, allow himself to be beaten and robbed, &c. ? Never can
they prove that." ^
306. And highly praitewor thy.
What more is necessary to justify the conduct of the popes
of the middle ages to the emperors, nay more, to entitle those
spirited pontiffs to rank among sovereigns most justly dear to
the country which they governed ? " All nations," observes
Count de Maistre, " with one voice assign the first place among
great men to those fortunate citizens who had the honour of
rescuing their country from the yoke of the stranger. Heroes if
they succeed, or martyrs if they fall, their names shall live for
ever. Modern stupidity would except the popes alone from this
universal apotheosis, and deprive them of the immortal glory
' De Maistre, ubi supra, p. 307.
* Ferrand, Esprit de I'Histoire, vol. iii. letter 62, p. 230.
' De Maistre, ubI supra, p. 395.
CHAP. IV.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 325
which is due to them as temporal princes, for ha\'ing laboured
incessantly for the freedom of their country." ^
If we consider the popes as heads of the Church, their zealous
solicitude in maintaining the liberty of Rome and of Italy can
be still more easily justified. Every one sees that the mainte-
nance of that liberty is important, and even essential to the
good of religion. Authors the most hostile to the maxims of
the middle ages on the temporal power of the pope and of the
Church, admit generally, that the temporal sovereignty of the
Holy See was useful, and even necessary, for the good govern-
ment of the Church.- Now, it is manifest, that the same
causes which made it necessary from the commencement, also
required that it should be upheld, especially during the disorders
and anarchy of the middle ages. It is equally evident, that the
maintenance of this sovereignty, so essential to the good of
religion, was incompatible with the subjugation of Rome and of
Italy, and that religion would have been reduced to a mere
name under the yoke of the emperors of Germany, or of any
other sovereign. We may judge of what would happen by the
disorders which afflicted the Church in the tenth century, and
which were evidently caused principally by the domination of
the emperors in Italy. " In these deplorable times," says
Voltaire, " the popedom was put tip to auction, and almost all
the bishoprics ; had this authority of the emperors lasted, the
popes would have dwindled into their chaplains, and Italy would
have been enslaved."^
307. Vain Declamations on this Subject.
What argument can be produced against those conclusive
reflections ? Nothing but mere assertion ; founded mainly on
a few facts which malignity or prejudice has misrepresented.
" The delirium of the temporal omnipotence of the popes,"
according to a famous magistrate of our days, " inundated
Europe with fanaticism and blood during three or four cen-
' De Maistre, ibid. p. 308.
^ See the testimonies of Bossuet and Fleury, cited on this subject (supra,
part i. n. 97). We may also add Ferrand, Esprit de I'Histoire, vol. ii. letter
28, p. 221, notie. •
3 Voltaire, Essai sur I'Hist. G^n. vol. i. ch. xxxviii. pp. 529-531.
326 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
turies/' ^ We shall soon see who were the real authors of the
wars and calamities occasioned during the middle ages by the
contest of the two powers ; and whether they ought not to be
imputed rather to the scandalous conduct of princes than to the
just severity of the popes. But, to confine ourselves to the
immediate subject of this paragraph, when did the popes ever
pretend to temporal omnipotence, or urge their temporal claims
to a degree of delirium ? The popes never pretended to any
other dominion or any other territory but that of their own
states ; they never pretended to increase their temporal dominions
to the prejudice of foreign princes, nor to impede the latter in
the lawful exercise of their authority ; in a word, they never
pretended to anything more than the right of judging sovereigns,
according to the principles of a universally received constitu-
tional law. A most extensive power this certainly was ; but
yet it was not temporal omnipotence urged even to delirium ;
it was no more than the power of judging according to existing
laws ; in truth, it was rather a spiritual than a temporal power,
for it consisted in excommunicating princes guilty of certain
notorious and scandalous crimes, and in enforcing the principles
of existing constitutional law on the temporal effects of excom-
munication. That the exercise of this power was, in some
circumstances, attended with painful consequences ; that its
application was sometimes difficult, and even dangerous, cannot
be denied ; but how few incontestable principles are exempt in
practice from the same inconveniences, especially in matters of
constitutional law, though no one, therefore, dreams of disputing
their legaUty !
§ 2. On the pretended degrading of the Authority of Sovereigns
in the eyes of the People.
308. Prejudices propagated on this Subject.
Most of the authors who regard the prodigious power of the
popes of the middle ages as the growth of ambition and
' Ferrand, Esprit de I'Histoire, represents these fatal contests of the priest-
hood and the empire to last "four or five centuries," in one place, and in
another "mar four centuries" (vol. ii. letter 28, pp. 221, 222, note ; letter 41,
p. 413, &c.). See the refutation of these assertions in ^ount de Maistre's
vrork, Du Pape, ibid. ch. viii. pp. 310, 315.
CHAP. IV.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 327
of extravagant pretensions, naturally regard it also as a degra-
dation of the authority of sovereigns in the opinion of their
subjects. Judging from the manner in which they speak, one
vrould think that the pope was, at that time, a universal
monarch, before whom all others disappeared, or, at least,
existed only by sufferance, and possessed only a precarious
authority, of which they might at any moment be deprived by
a sentence of the pope. Hence, these authors cannot refer
without a lively sense of compassion, and almost of indignation,
to the humiliation of shvereigyis anathematized by the Holy See,
and the baseness with which they submitted to the yoke that
was forced on them.^
To dissipate prejudices so injurious to the Holy See, we need
only examine the political theory of the middle ages on the
authority of princes, and the manner in which it was applied by
popes in their relations to sovereigns.^
309. Political Tlieory of the Middle Ages compared with Modem Theories.
According to the principles then generally admitted, the
authority of princes comes from Ood himself, who intrusts it to
them to be employed for the good of religion. They have no
other superior but God, who alone can call them to account for
their actions, through the ministry of the pope and of the
bishops, his ministers and vicars. The people, therefore, have
no right of judging, much less of deposing the sovereign ;
but he incurs the forfeiture of his rights by rebellion against
God and the Church ; and it belongs to the pope, as vicar of
Jesus Christ on earth, or to a general council representing the
whole Church, to pronounce against him sentence of deposition.^
If this theory be fairly compared with all those that have
ever been invented on this matter, it will perhaps be admitted,
that it would be difficult to find one so calculated both to
maintain the authority of princes, and to restrain it as much as
possible within its just limits. That, as every one knows, is
the great political problem, whose solution has taxed the inge-
' See the authors cited above, n. 299, note 1, ch. iv. especially Hallam,
Europe, &c. vol. ii. pp. 183, 193.
^ De Maistre, Du Pape, book ii. ch. ii. — vi. and ch. xi.
3 See above, n. 20, 120, 131, 244, 285, &c. ; De Maistre, ubi supra, ch. iii.
828 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
nuity of all legislators, ancient and modern, " how to guard
against the despotism of the sovereign, without, at the same
time, depriving him of the authority necessary for government ;"
or, in other words, " how to restrain the sovereign power within
just limits, without destroying it/' To solve this great problem
recourse has been had, especially in those latter times, to con-
stitutions or fundamental laws, defining the respective rights of
the sovereigns and of the principal orders of the state. But
the ineffi'cacy of these means for the end proposed can be easily
demonstrated. " It was soon said," as Count de Maistre
judiciously remarks, " tee must have fundamental laws, we must
have a constitution ; but who is to make these fundamental
laws, and who will enforce them ? The man or body of men
having strength to do so, would be sovereign, because he would
be stronger than the sovereign, and would, by the very act of
estabhshino; these laws, dethrone him. If the constitutional
law is a free concession of the sovereign, the whole question
returns again ; Who can prevent one of his successors from
violating- it ? The ridit of resistance must be vested in some
man or body of men ; otherwise it could not be exercised except
by revolt, a dreadful remedy, worse than any evil.' IMoreover,
it does not appear that the numerous attempts to restrain
' [Somewhere in his Eeflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke
exclaians, in his own characteristic style, " Let political metaphysics be tlie
amusement of the schools, hut let them not break prison to burst like a Levanter
to sweep the earth with their hurricane, &c., and to break up the fountains
of the great deep to overwhelm us." These observations, which were directed
against the wild and impracticable theories of French liberty, may with equal
justice be applied to political metaphysics, such as those in the text, against
constitutional government. Such a government exists in England ; and that
fact sufficiently refutes the metaphysics. The theory of the Enghsh constitu-
tion, and the checks which it opposes to the excesses of popular power, may
be learned more correctly from Burke, and such writers, than from those cited
by our author in the next page. At the same time it can hardly be denied
that there is much reason in the reflections of Count de Maistre, and of our
author, if they are understood to apply to the miserable abortions, called con-
stitutions, which arose and disappeared during the last half-century on the
continent, and which absorbed so great a portion of English sj-mpathy, that
had much better been expended in curing evils at home, especially in Ireland.
It must not be forgotten, also, that though our author appears in this place
to prefer absolute power to constitutional government, he has proved else-
where (p. 31), that the Catholic governments of the middle ages were not
absolute. To those ages we owe the boasted constitution of England.
England has retained the free constitution of the middle ages, and also the
civU effects of excommunication (in theory at least), and made the possession
of the crown dependent on the profession of a particular creed.]
CHAP. lY.] OVER SOVEREIGNS, 329
sovereign power have ever succeeded in such a manner as to
inspire a wish to repeat them."'
310. System of the Sovereignty of the People.
Convinced of the inefficacy of constitutions, or fundamental
laws, as preventives of the abuses of autocratical sovereignties,
some politicians invented the theory of the sovereignty of the
people. All power, they maintain, is derived essentially from
the people ; the prince' exercising his authority is, in reality, no
more than the delegate of the people ; the people can call the
sovereign to an account for his actions, openly resist him, and
even depose him in cases of manifest tyranny. This is the
doctrine of Jurieu and of many other Protestant writers, whose
principles on this point have been loudly proclaimed by modern
philosophy. " In whatever manner the prince may be invested
with authority," observes a famous partisan of this system, " he
always holds it from the people alone ; nor can the people be
ever dependent on any mortal man, but by their own consent.^
On the people depend the well-being, the security, and the
stability of all legitimate government. In the people the essence
of all power must necessarily reside ; and all those whom
their knowledge or capacity may have induced the people to
honour with a confidence, sometimes prudent, and sometimes
imprudent, are responsible to the people for the use which they
have made of the power that was intrusted to them foi- a
time." ^ On these principles, a partisan of the new theories
denounces the Catholic system of non-resistance, as a detestable "*
doctrine. He asserts, that whenever there is question of resisting
the sovereign power, man should be guided by the interior
impulse of a certain moral instinct of which he is conscious
in himself, and which it is wrong to confound with the heat
' De Maistre, ibid. p. 216.
"^ Noodt, Sur le Pouvoir des Souverains, in the Eecueil de Discours sur
Divers SujetSj translated or wi-itten by Barbeyrac, vol. i. p. 41.
3 Opinion of Sir William Jones, in the work entitled Memoirs of the Life of
Sir William Jones. London, 1806, 4to, pp. 200. This and the preceding
work are cited by the author fi:om the Count de Maistre, ubi supra, p. 239.
* [Whatever may be thought of this doctrine, it cannot be called a " Catholic
doctrine." See Balmez, ch. Ivi.]
330 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
of the blood, and the \dtal spirits.^ He reproaches liis famous
countryman, Dr. Barkeley, with having denied this interior
power, and with asserting " that man, as a rational being, ouglit
to be governed by the precepts of a wise and impartial reason." ^
311. Great Inconveniences of this System.
This system, under the pretence of guarding against the
abuses of sovereign power, manifestly destroys it, and opens the
gate to all the disorders of anarchy. "1 admire very much,"
observes Count de Maistre, " these fine maxims ; but they have
one defect ; they give no light to guide the mind in those
critical conjunctures in which theories are utterly useless.
Suppose it decided (I grant the supposition for a moment) that
the sovereign power can be rightfully resisted, and compelled not
to exceed its due limits, nothing has yet been done, for we have
still to learn ichen we can use that right, and what men can use it.
The most ardent advocates of the right of resistance admit (for
who could deny it ?) that it is not lawful except against tyranny ?
But what is tyranny ? Does a single act of atrocity deserve that
name ? If one be not enough, how many are required, and of
what kind ? what power in the state has the right of deciding
that the case for resistance has come ? If that tribunal existed
before, therefore it was part of the sovereign power ; and by
acting on the other destroys it ; if it did not exist before, by
what authority would this tribunal be established ? Moreover, can
any one exercise even a just and incontestable right without
calculating the evils that may result from it ? All history
unanimously proclaims that revolutions commenced, even by the
wisest men, are always finished by fools ; that their originators
are always their victims ; and that the efforts of the people to
create or increase their liberty, almost always end by riveting
their fetters. On every side abysses yawn for us. But you will
say. Will I then unmuzzle the tiger, and reduce you to passive
obedience ? I never said that absolute power does not involve
great inconveniences, under whatever form it exists in the world.
On the contrary, I expressly admit them, nor have I any inten-
' Beattie on Truth, part ii. ch. xii. p. 408, cited by the Count de Maistre,
ibid. p. 219. ■■' Ibid.
CHAP. IV.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 331
tion of extenuating tliem ; I merely say, that we are placed
between two abysses." ^
312. All the Modern Theories useless or dangerous,
From these observations we must conclude, that the theories
invented in those latter times to solve the great political problem,
are either useless for the end proposed, or most perilous in prac-
tice. Judge then, whether the theory of the middle ages is so
absurd as has been often asserted, or rather, whether it is pos-
sible to imagine one better adapted to solve the great problem
in question, and to repress, as much as possible, the abuses of
sovereign power, without diminishing the respect due to it. On
the one hand, this theory imprints, so to speak, on the foreheads
of kings a sacred character ; by proclaiming it as an incontes-
table principle, that they hold their authority from God, whose
representatives and vicars they are on this earth. On the other
hand, it makes sovereigns responsible for their conduct to the most
venerable and august tribunal that ever appeared on the earth —
the tribunal of the Church and of the popes, established by the
authority of God himself ; to whom princes, as well as other men,
' De Maistre, ibid. pp. 219, 221. Consult on this subject, for more ample
details, Bossuet, Cinquiferae Avertissement, n. 31, &c. 55, &c. ; Pey, De I'^u-
torite des Deux Puissances, vol. i. part ii. ch. iv. ; Duvoisin, Dc^fense de I'Ordre
Social, ch. iv. ; Eoyer, Defense de I'Ordre Social, vol. ii.
We are not speaking here of another theory of government, which concen-
trates all spiritual and temporal power in the hands of the prince, and makes
him head of the state both in spirituals and temporals. Tliis theory, which is
the basis of the constitution in Russia and England, and many other Protestant
states, is itself founded, according to its principal advocates, on the system of
the sovereignty of the people ; that is, on the system which derives from the
people all the authority exercised in society. (See, on this subject, Abb<^ Pey's
work, De I'Autorite des Deux Puissances, vol. ii. p. 2, &c.) This theoiy, it is
manifest, is liable to all the inconveniences which we have pointed out in the
others ; and especially it favours more than any other the despotism of the
prince, and the oppression of the people. M. Hurter appreciates it accurately
in a short note at the conclusion of his History of Innocent III., in which he
refutes the charges made against that pope by the anonymous author of a
pamphlet entitled, Origine, Progrks, et Limites de la Puissance des Papes,
Paris, 1821, 8vo.) "The pontificate of Innocent III.," said that pamphleteer
(p. 96), " ought to be studied by princes and statesmen, to learn how dangerous
it is to combine civil power with religious functions, and how the heads of
religion, beinr/ men, are tempted to extend those powers, and to pervert them,
in circumstances which to any degree favour their ambition." The answer of
M. Hurter to this observation is as crushing as it is curt. " We must ask the
writer of this pamphlet, whether it is not dangerous to combine ecclesiastical
functions tuith civil functions ; and whether lings are angels V (Hist, d'lnno-
cent III. vol. ii. p. 847, note 3.)
.382 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
must render an account of tlicir actions. As a necessary
conseqiience of these principles, it obliges the people to regard
the person of the sovereign as inviolable, and ever to pay to
princes, even the most odious and the most criminal, the obe-
dience and the respect due to their sacred character, until they
are judged and deposed by the supreme authority of the Church
and of the pope.
313. Theory of the Middle Ages muck more rational.
May it not be, tliat of all the theories devised to limit the
sovereign power, the theory of the middle ages is not only the
most rational, but also the least exposed to inconveniences ?
Leibnitz, we have already seen, was firmly of that opinion, and
regretted the abolition of the custom and practice of the middle
ages.^ Bossuet, though not adopting all the views of Leibnitz
on this point, confirms them, at least partially, in his Defence of
the History of the Variations, in which he unhesitatingly asserts,
that " were he compelled to choose between the two opinions,
that which subjects the temporalities of sovereigns to the pope,
and that which subjects them to the people, the latter alterna-
tive, in which madness, caprice, ignorance, and turbulence, ever
have the ascendant, would be most to be feared."''^
Count de Maistre fully adopts this opinion, and develops it
in a strain of great energy and power. " Let us renounce our
hesitations, and honestly take our side on the great question of
passive obedience, or of non-resistance. If the principle be
insisted on, that in no possible case is it lawful to resist
authority ; that we must thank God for good princes, and bear
patiently with bad ones, until time, the great avenger of wrongs,
does justice on them ; that there is always more danger in
resisting than in suffering with patience, &c. I admit it, and I
am willing to adopt it henceforward. But were there an absolute
necessity of prescribing limits to the sovereign power, I would
vote with all my heart that the interests of the human race
' Supra, cli. ii. n. 124.
^ Bossuet, Defense de I'Histoire des Variations, n. 55 (vol. xxi. CEuvres,
p. 608). These reflections are beautifully developed in a panegyiic of St. Louis,
by M. Frayssinous (Discours in^dits, p. 429) ; and in the work of the same
author, Les Vrais Principes de I'Eglise Gallicane, 2nd edit. p. 68.
CHAP. IV.] OVER. SOVEREIGNS. 333
should be intrusted to the pope. The papal power is essentially
the least subject to the caprices of politics. The person in
whom it is vested is always old, unmarried, and a priest, things
which exclude ninety-nine out of a hundred of those errors and
passions which throw states into disorder. In fine, as he is far
away, and as his power is of a different kind from that of tem-
poral sovereigns, and as he never asks anything for himself, it
may reasonably be hoped, that if all inconveniences be not
obviated (a thing absolutely impossible), they will at least be
as few as possibly can be expected, human nature considered ;
what better can any sensible man dream of? It would appear,
therefore, that to restrain the power of sovereigns within its
just limits, that is, to prevent them from violating the funda-
mental laws of the state, including religion, as the principal, the
intervention, more or less powerful, more or less active, of the
spiritual supremacy, would be a means as plausible as any other,
at least. We might go farther, and assert with equal confidence,
that this expedient would be the most agreeable, or rather, the
least disagreeable, to sovereigns. If the prince is free to accept
or to refuse limitations of his power,- most certainly he will
refuse them ; for neither power nor liberty has ever yet said,
' Enough.' But supposing that sovereign power was inevitably
forced to admit some limitation, and that the choice depended on
itself, I should not be surprised if it prefeiTed the pope to a
CO- legislative senate, or a national assembly, &c. ; for the popes
are not very exacting on princes, and would not call them to
account except for enormities.''^
314. It is not adapted to all Times nor to all States of Society/.
However just and well-founded these reflections appear to us,
we are very far from concluding that the political theory of the
middle ages is equally applicable to all times and to all states of
society. On the contrary, we are convinced that, however useful
in an age of simplicity and faith, when religion is generally
respected by princes and people, this theory would be useless
' De Maistre, Du Pape, book ii. ch. iv. Tlie fear of multiplying quotations
obliges us to refer the reader to the work itself, for other developnients of
these important reflections by the Count de Maistre himself. See especially
book ii. ch. y. xi. ; book iii. ch. iv. pp. 115-118, et alibi passim.
334 POWER OF THE TOPE [PART 11.
and impracticable in an age when religion has generally lost its
ascendancy over the greater part of society. Nevertheless, the
preceding observations have at least this force : they prove
that this theory, Avhich to the prejudices and altered state of
society at present appears so utterly extravagant, is not so
unreasonable as it has been sometimes supposed ; and that,
considering the state of society in the middle ages, it was less
subject to inconveniences than the most lauded modern theories.
315. Application of (his Tlieory hy the Popes.
After having examined the political theory of the middle
ages in itself, if we now consider how it was applied by the
popes, we shall see still more clearly how much its inconveniences
have been exaggerated by herds of modem authors. To listen
to these, one would imagine that the popes never did anything
but judge and depose kings, and often for the most frivolous
pretexts.^ History proves, on the contrary, that the popes had
very seldom recourse to severity against princes ; never except
for the manifest interest of religion and of society. " In our
reflections on this subject," observes Count de Maistre, "we are
exposed to a great illusion. Deceived by the screeching of
philosophers, we imagine that the popes spent all their time in
deposing kings ; and because facts of that kind stand close in
the page of the duodecimo pamphlet, we imagine that they
followed each other closely in the course of ages. But how
many hereditary sovereigns were effectively deposed by the
popes ? These affairs never went beyond threats and a com-
promise. With regard to elective princes, they were the creations
of man, whom he could unmake as he had made them ; and yet
their whole number was not more than two or three monster
princes, who, happily for the human race, found at least some
check (however feeble and inefficient) in the spiritual power of
the popes. With these exceptions, the political world took its
ordinary course. No king suffered any molestation in his own
affairs from the Church ; the popes never dreamed of meddling
with his government ; if he did not take it into his head to rob
the Church, or to turn away his wife, or to keep a couple of
' See the authors cited above, ch. iv. n. 299, note 1.
CHAP. IV.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 335
wives, he had nothing to fear." " Have people remarked," says
the same vrriter in another place, " that the collision of the two
powers, so improperly designated the war between the priesthood
and the empire, was never felt beyond the boundaries of Italy
and Germany, at least in its greater results, I mean, the sub-
version and the change of sovereignties ? Many princes were
excommunicated, no doubt, in former times ; but what were
generally the results of those great judgments ? The prince
listened to reason, or pretended to listen to it ; he desisted for
the moment from a criminal war ; he dismissed his ministers
for form's sake ; the wife, moreover, sometimes recovered her
rights. Friendly powers, men of eminence and moderation,
interposed their mediation ; and in his turn the pope, if he had
been too severe or too hasty, listened to the remonstrances of
wisdom. What kings of France, of Spain, of England, of
Sweden, of Denmark, were eifectually deposed by the pope ?
All ended in menaces and treaties ; and instances could be
easily cited in which the popes were the dupes of their own
condescension. The real battle was always fought in Italy and
Germany. Why ? because political objects were the main cause,
and relio-ion had but little to do with them." ^
o
316. Cliaracter of the deposed Princes.
We shall be more struck with the justice of these reflections,
if we examine more clearly the character and conduct of the
sovereigns against whom the Holy See used that extraordinary
power vested in it by the maxims of the middle ages. They
were princes guilty of excesses the most notorious, and most
baneful to the interests of religion and of nations ; they were
adulterous, simoniacal, perjured princes, abettors of schism, or
of heresy, oppressors of their subjects, and persisting obstinately
in their disorders, notwithstanding the reiterated advice and
remonstrances of the pope. This is the character unanimously
given by all historians of the emperor Henry IV., deposed by
Gregory VII. ; of the emperor Frederick II., deposed by Inno-
cent IV. ; and of most of the other sovereigns who were the
objects of similar sentences.
' De Maistre, Du Pape, book ii. ch. ii. v. xi. pp. 218, 238-240, 353.
336 POWER OF TUB POPE [PAKT II.
317. Character of tlie Emperor Henri/ IV.
Consider, in particular, the character of the emperor Henry IV.,
such as it has been drawn from the pages of contemporary
authors, by modem writers least liable to the suspicion of par-
tiality to the Holy See. Fleury states that " the king of
Germany was, even in his eighteenth year, one of the most
profligate characters. He had two or three concubines at the
same time ; and whenever he heard of any beautiful young
woman, unmarried or married, if he could not seduce her, he
had her carried off by violence. Sometimes he went in person
to find them by night ; and he exposed his life on those occa-
sions. These crimes involved him in many murders, to make
away with the husbands of the women whom he coveted. He
became cruel even to his most trusted associates. He became
suspicious of the accomplices of his crimes ; and one word or
gesture in disapproval of his schemes sealed their ruin. He
gave bishoprics to those who gave him most money, or who knew
best how to flatter his vices ; and after having thus sold a
bishopric, if another person ofiered him more money, or was
more lavish in flattering his crimes, he ordered the former bishop
to be deposed for simony, and appointed the second in his place ;
whence it happened that many cities had two bishops at the
same time, and both unworthy.''^ Is it a wonder that such
excesses enkindled the zeal of Gregory VII., and that he armed
himself with just severity against Henry, after having first
tried, without efiect, all gentle means to reclaim him from his
disorders ? And far from deserving the injurious reproaches
so often levelled against him on this subject, is it not manifest,
that in proceeding as he did against the emperor, he merely dis-
charged a conscientious duty ?
318. How Gregory VII. vindicated hinisdf in this Matter.
That was the plea on which he justified himself in many of
his letters, and especially in that which he wrote to the arch-
bishop of Mayence, who had represented to him the danger
which he incurred by too great severity. " You assign," he
' Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ixi. n. 31. See also authors cited above,
n. 35, last note, ch. i.
CHAP. IV.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 337
states, " many reasons, which may have not a little weight in
the judsment of men, and which would appear not nnworthy of
consideration to myself, if they could excuse me in the judgment
of God ; hut if we consider how different the judgments of men
are from those of God, we can find hardly anything that can
excuse us for neglecting the salvation of souls, on the pretence
of dangers which may threaten us. For in this does the hireling
differ from the shepherd ; that at the approach of the wolf, the
former fears more for himself than for his sheep ; and, giving
himself no concern for the scattering and slaughter of his flock,
abandons them and flies ; whilst the shepherd, who loves his
sheep, does not abandon them at the approach of danger, and
does not hesitate to expose his life for them. If we remain
silent while we see our brethren sinning, and if, seeing them
wander, we do not bring them back by our counsels into the
good way, do we not sin ourselves, and do we not imitate their
wanderings ? Are we not guilty of the faults which we neglect
to correct V ^
319. Tlie Successors of Gregory Til. defended as easily.
The details which we shall give in the following paragraph, on
the conduct of the successors of Gregory VII., who imitated his
firmness with regard to sovereigns, will demonstrate that the
censures passed on them in this matter are equally unjust. Here
we shall only remark, that in the opinion of an eminent Pro-
testant jurisconsult of the last century, all the popes can be
vindicated by the same arguments. " Good reason is there for
asserting," observes Senckenberg, "that there is not in history a
single example of a pope acting against sovereigns who were
content with their own rights, and did not think of exceeding
them." 2 Can the popes be justly censured for having rigorously
' Greg. VII. Epistol. lib. iii. epist. 4.
- " Jure affirmari potent, ne exemplum quideni esse, in omni renim memoril;,
ubi pontifex processerit adverstis eos qui, juribus suis intenti, ultra limites
vagari in animum non iuduxerunt suura." — .Senckenberg, Methodus Jurisprud.
Additione 4, de Libert. Ecclesiae German. § .3. See, in support of these
reflections, De Montalembert, Hist, de Sainte Elisabeth de Hongrie, Introd.
p. xxxvi. &c. See also the details which we have given on the conduct of
Philip I., king of France, of Frederick Barbarossa, emperor of Germany, and
of some other sovereigns ; supra, ch. i. n. 35 ; ch. ii. n. 108. We shall return
to this subject in the following paragraph.
VOL. II. Z
338 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
attacked such disorders, and for having used to that end the
power attributed to them by the maxims and constitutional law
of their time ? Should we not rather admire their courage, and
their immovable firmness in this contest, which they sustained
so long for the interests of religion and of society ?
§ 3. On the Wars said to have been caused by the Collision of
the Tico Powers.^
320. Palpable Exaggeration on this Subject.
All the most envenomed calumnies against the temporal power
of the popes during the middle ages, and against the use which
they made of it, have been compressed into a few lines, from the
pen of a French magistrate, under the unconscious influence of
the ruling prejudices of the magistracy during the last century :
" The delusion of the temporal omnipotence of the popes inun-
dated Europe during four or five centuries with fanaticism and
blood." =
Now, the popes, we have already shown, never claimed this tem-
poral omnipotence;^ and the power wliich they did claim was not
the effect of delusion, but the application of an existing constitu-
tional law, and the result of a political theory much more wise and
more useful to society than all our modern theories.* It remains
now for us to examine whether the temporal power of the popes did
really inundate Europe during four or five centuries with fana-
ticism and blood.
This power, we have no difficulty in admitting, however legi-
timate and useful in itself, may have given occasion to painful
collisions between the two powers. The most useful institutions,
the wisest laws, the best established rights, may, and in fact do,
occasion every day similar inconvenient results, as inevitable
consequences of the malice and passions of men. And so with
regard to the temporal power of the popes during the middle
ages, it should inevitably disturb at times the peace and the
harmony of the two powers. Amazing, it certainly would be, if
' De Maistre, Du Pape, book ii. ch. xii.
» Ferrand, Esprit de I'Histoire, vol. ii. letters 28, 41, pp. 221, 222, 413.
3 Supra, § 1. « Ibid. § 2.
CHAP. IV.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 339
sovereigns, excommunicated and deposed by the pope, had not
made a straggle to defend their rights and their pretensions.
The resistance of a criminal to the sentence that condemns him
is naturally accounted for by the motive of self-interest which
dictates it ; but it is no evidence either against the wisdom of
the laws, or against the prudence of the judge who enforces it.
But though the temporal power of the popes during the middle
ages may have occasioned painful contests between the two
powers, can it be said with truth, or even the least probability,
that " it inundated Eui'ope with fanaticism and blood during
four or five centuries ? " Nothing can be more palpably exag-
gerated than such an assertion ; an attentive perusal of history
clearly demonstrates that the wars supposed to have been occa-
sioned by the collision of the two powers neither arose from that
cause, nor were so protracted and universal as it has been
supposed. #
321. Real Causes of the Contest between the Two Powei-s.
It is assumed that the wars in question were caused by the
temporal power of the popes, and by the use which they made of
it against the emperors. On the contraiy, it is certain that most
of these wars arose from totally diiferent causes. Sometimes it
was the exorbitant pretensions of the emperors ; sometimes their
notorious disorders ; sometimes their obstinacy in sustaining an
antipope ; sometimes political dissensions between princes, and
especially between the electors of the empire. Our limits do not
permit us to go over in detail all the causes here assigned ; we
shall only notice some of the most remarkable, chiefly those re-
lating to the reigns of the emperors Henry IV. and Frederick II.,
which supply, it is supposed, the strongest gTOunds for the objec-
tion which we are at present discussing.'
322. Excesses of Henry IV. — Moderation of Gregory VII.
If we trace back to their source the troubles of the empire
under Henry IV., we shall find that the original cause of these
troubles was the unprecedented conduct and sacrilege of that
prince, who, notwithstanding the repeated admonitions of Gre-
' De Maistre, ubi supra, ch. xii. xiii. Maimbourg, Hist, de la Decadence
de I'Empire de Charlemagne.
z2
340 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
gory VII., persisted obstinately in the most scandalous disorders,
and shamelessly trampled on the rights of humanity, as well as
of the Church.^ Far from listening to the advice and exhorta-
tions of the pope, Henry every day multiplied his excesses, and
was guilty of fresh outrages on religion and morality ; he made
himself sovereig-n arbiter of ecclesiastical diornities within his
dominions, conferring them according to his interests and caprice
on the most unworthy subjects. Threatened with excommuni-
cation in punishment of his excesses, he contemned the censiires
of the Church ; and spurning all moderation, he addressed to
the pope the most insulting letters ; he even presumed to depose
him in a mock council held at Worms.*^ It was not till then tliat
Gregory VII., exercising that power which the constitutional
law of the time conferred on him over sovereigns rebelling
against the Church, and especially over the king of Germany,
published against this incorjigible prince a sentence of excom-
munication and deposition, and declared his subjects thereby
absolved from their oaths of allegiance to him. Still, he does
not at first pronounce this sentence against him as definitive ;
for in a letter written on the subject to the German lords, he
advises them to elect another emperor, only in case that Henry
should persist in his wicked career.'' The obstinacy of that
prince, and the grounds of dissatisfaction which he had been
long giving to the German lords, led them, in fact, to elect
Rodolph, duke of Suabia, whose election was the signal for war
between the two claimants.
323. Henry IV. the real Cause of tJiis War.
In this case, what was the real cause of the war ? It would
be as unjust to attribute it to Gregory VII. as to make a judge
responsible for the excesses of a criminal whom he had justly
condemned. The king manifestly provoked the severity of the
pope ; the pope employed nothing but spiritual arms against
him ; it was only as a last resource that he had recourse to
' rieun% Hist. Eccl. vol. xiii. book Ixii. n. 11, 25, 28. Voigt, Hist, de
Gregoire VII. books vii. viii. See also Jager's Introduction to that History,
p. xxiii. ; Maimbourg, ubi supra, ann. 10/5, &c.
* Voigt, ubi supra, p. 364, <S:c.
^ Fleurj', ibid. n. 33. Voigt, ibid, book ix. p. 406.
CHAP. IV.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. S^l
deposition ; even then he only threatened it, and showed a dis-
position to revoke the sentence in case Henry should amend.
Still more, he left the judgment on Henry's dispositions to the
electors, who, hy the constitution of the empire could, conjointly
with himself, judge the emperor. Speaking of this matter,
Count de Maistre observes, " there can be no doubt of the
truth of this proposition (that is, on the right which the electors
had of deposing the emperor). We must not confound the
modem electors, mere titulars without authority, going through
the form of nominating a prince who is in fact hereditary ; we
must not, I say, confound them with the ancient electors, real
electoi-s, in the strict sense of the term, who had an incontestable
rio-ht of calling their own creature to an account for his political
conduct. The pope, moreover, in all that we have seen him do,
never disturbed the constitutional law of the empire ; he
ordered the electors to deliberate and to elect ; he ordered them
to take suitable measures to extinguish dissensions. That was
no more than he was bound to do ; the terms, to make and un-
make emperors, were current ; but nothing could be more incorrect ;
for the excommunicated prince had it in his own power to be
reconciled." ^
32i, Crimes equally notorious of the Princes deposed after Henry I V.
The history of succeeding ages proves that the contests of
the popes with the emperors, and the wars resulting from them,
were occasioned, in the commencement, by the unjust, and often
schismatical pretensions of the emperor. The cause of these
wars, under Frederick Barbarossa, was the obstinacy of that
prince in protecting an antipope ; ^ under Otho IV., his usur-
pation of the pope's territories, and of those of the king of
Sicily, the ally and vassal of the Holy See ; ^ under Fre-
derick II., the perjury and impiety of that prince, who, after
having bound himself by oath, and under penalty of excommu-
nication, to lead an army to the Holy Land, instead of fulfilling
' De Maistre, Du Pape, book ii. ch. xii. p. 357. See also, in the same
work, note 2, p. 372, and note 1, p. 376.
2 Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xv. book Ixx. n. 39, &c. Pfeffel, Ahrig4 de
r Hist. d'Allemagne, ann. 1162. Maimbourg, ubi supra, ann. 1159.
■* Fleury, ibid. vol. xvi. book Ixxvi. n. 51 ; book Ixxvii. n. 4. Pfeffel, ibid.
ann. 1210. Maimbourg, ubi supra, ann. 1209, &c.
342 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
his engagement, thought only of increasing his treasury at the
expense of the Church, and for the oppression of Lombardy.'
" Gregory IX. has been accused," says Count de Maistre,- "of
having allowed himself to be carried away by anger, and of
exceeding precipitancy in his conduct towards Frederick. Mu-
ratori has given one account, Rome has given another ; this
discussion, which would require too much time and trouble,
may be dispensed with in a work which does not by any means
discuss the question whether a pope had never done wrong.
Let us suppose, if you wish, that Gregory IX. had been too
inflexible ; what shall we say of Innocent IV., who, before he
became pope, had been the friend of Frederick, and who tried
every means to restore peace ? He was not more fortunate than
Gregory, and ended by solemnly deposing the emperor in the
general Council of Lyons, in 124o, for the crimes of perjury,
sacrilege, heresy, and felony, juridically proved and admitted in
the said council." '
325. Purely Political Origin of the Guelph and Ghihdline Factions.
It was from the contests between Frederick II. and popes
Gregory IX. and Innocent IV. that arose in Italy the two
famous parties, the Guelphs and the GhibeUines, who caused so
much trouble and disorder in that country, during more than
two centuries ; one party (the GhibeUines) ardently sustaining
the cause of the emperors, the other (the Guelphs) that of the
popes."* Eeligion, however, had nothing to do with these con-
tests, which, in reality, arose solely from the sentiments of
hatred, jealousy, and ambition, which then divided nearly all
the cities of Italy. "It must not be supposed," observes
Maimbourg, " that these two factions, one of which sided with
the pope, and the other with the emperor, made war for reli-
gion's sake ; both professed to be Catholics ; it was hatred and
' Fleury, Hist. Eccl^s. toI. xvi. book Ixxviii. n. 41, 58, &c. ; book Ixxix.
n. 37, &c. Michaud, Hist, des Croisades, voL iv. p. 2, &c. Michelet, Hist,
de France, vol. ii. p. 555, &c.
* De Maistre, ibid. p. 366.
' See, for the development of these facts, the authors cited above, ch. ii.
n. 149.
* On the origin and history of the Guelphs and GhibeUines, see Maimbourg,
ubi supra, pp. 434, 494, 511, 546, &c. ; Pfeffel, Abri^g^ de I'Hist. d'Allemagne,
ann. 1139, 1310 j De Maistre, ibid. ch. vii. p. 304.
CHAP. IV.] OYER SOVEREIGNS. 343
ambition that armed them ag-ainst each other to their mutual
destruction, and to establish their power in those provinces from
■which they might expel their antagonists. There was this dif-
ference only between them, that the Ghibellines acknowledged
the emperor as their sovereign, and held their possessions under
the empire ; the Guelphs, on the contrary, detached from the
empire which they would never acknowledge, always sided with
the popes against the emperors." ^ Voltaire himself, as we
have already seen, was forced to admit the truth of these
reflections.^
326. It icas not, propei'ly speaking, a War between the Two Powers, but one
between Italy and Germany,
We shall proceed no farther in the discussion of the facts
objected to us ; we have said enough to prove for any judicious
reader the truth of the observations of Count de Maistre. " It
is false, that there was (in those unhappy times) a war, properly
speaking, between the empire and the priesthood. It is repeat-
edly asserted, with the view of making the priesthood responsible
for all the blood shed during that great struggle ; but, in reality,
it was a war between Italy and Germany, between usurpation
and liberty, between the master who brings chains and the slave
who spurns them ; a war in which the popes did their duty as
Italian princes, and as prudent politicians, by taking part with
Italy ; for they could neither favour the emperor without de-
grading themselves, nor attempt neutrality without being ruined.
It would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to assign in
the history of those unhappy times a single war caused directly
and solely by an excommunication. This evil was more fre-
quently the consequence of some other, as when in the heat of
a war already enkindled by political causes, the popes believed
it their duty, for various reasons, to use severity. Henr}' IV.
and Frederick II. are the two instances in which it could be
said with much truth, that excommunication was the cause of a
war ; and yet even in these, how many attenuating circum-
stances, arising either from the inevitable current of events, or
• Maimbourg, ubi supra, p. 546. Pfeffel, ibid. ann. 1310. De Maistre,
pp. 373-375.
2 See supra, n. 304.
344 POWER OF THE POPE [PART 11.
from the most intolerable provocations, or from the necessity of
defending the Church, or from the precautions taken by the
popes to diminish the evil/' ^
327. Exagga'ations on the Duration of the War. — Its pretended Universality.
To the palpable exaggerations which we have just exposed,
must be added others regarding the duration and the universality
of the pretended wars occasioned by the collision of the two
powers. These wars, as we have seen, so fiir from extending to
all Europe, most certainly were almost confined to Italy and
Germany. Equally certain is it, that the origin of these great
contests between the priesthood and the empire, cannot be dated
earlier than the year 1076, when the emperor Henry IV. was
excommunicated, and that their termination cannot be placed
later than the date of the golden bull, published by the emperor
Charles IV., in 1356;* which thus reduces the duration of
these fatal divisions to less than three, instead of the four or
five centuries, at which they are sometimes computed.' " From
this period subtract, moreover, the intervals during which the
popes and emperors were on amicable terms ; those in which
their quarrels never became more than quarrels ; those in which
the empire had no head, during the interregnums neither brief
nor rare at the time ; those in which excommunications were
attended with no political results ; those in which the spiritual
power was in no manner involved in the wars caused solely by
the discord of the electors amongst themselves ; those, in fine,
in which the popes, being obliged to act, were not responsible for
the consequences, no power being liable for the evil results of a
legitimate act ; and we shall see to what a compass are reduced
those 'four centuries of fanaticism and blood' so imperturbably
charged against the memory of the popes." *
' De Maistre, ibid. pp. 303, 375.
' On this bull, see Maimbourg, ubi supra, ann. 1356 ; Pfeffel, ibid. ; Lenglet-
Dufresnoy, Methode pour ^tudier I'Histoire, 12mo. edit. vol. vi. p. 329 ; Dic-
tion, de Mor^ri, art. Bulle d'Or.
^ See note 1, n. 307, ch. iv. supra.
•• De Maistre, ubi supra, pp. 376, 377.
CHAP. IV.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 345
ARTICLE II.
Real Advantages of this Power.
328. These Advantages redvxed principally to Three.
The preceding discussion on the pretended inconveniences of
this power, demonstrates sufficiently to any attentive reader the
great advantages which it conferred on religion and on society.
Nevertheless, it may not be useless to give a brief recapitulation
here, enabling the reader to compare these gTeat advantages with
the supposed inconveniences so often set ofl" against them. A
glance at the history of the middle ages is, in fact, enough to
convince any person, that the power of the pope and of councils
over sovereigns was the chief means used by providence for
preserving religion, and morals, and the public peace.
§ 1. Efficiency of this Power in Preserving Religion.
329. Nature of Investitures,
The first good eifect of this power appeared in the contro-
versy regarding investitures, which was the chief cause of the
severity of popes and councils against sovereigns.
To understand this first point, it is necessary to give some
notion here of investitures in general, and of ecclesiastical in-
vestitures especially.'
Investiture, in general, according to the use of the term by
medieval writers, is " the conferring, or the giving of possession
of a fief or a property by a suzerain lord to his vassal." This
transfer was usually made by some symbolical action, expressing
the cession of the fief or property to the new proprietor ; for
instance, by the presentation of a stone, of a branch of a tree,
of a sod of grass, or of any other object the use of which had
been sanctioned by the caprice of local custom.
When princes had endowed bishoprics and abbeys by assigning
to them fiefs and properties, they naturally claimed the right of
investing prelates with the temporalities of their sees or abbeys,
as they had before invested the lay proprietors of their pro-
' Ducange, Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinit. verbo Investitiira.
846 POWER 0^ THE POPE [PART II.
perties. Ecclesiastical fiefs were, in this respect, subject to the
laws of temporal fiefs ; so that bishops and abbots, no more
than temporal lords, could not enter on possession of their fiefs
until they had received investiture from the prince. This inves-
titure was given to prelates by conferring the ring and cross,
the natural emblems of episcopal jurisdiction. For this pur-
pose, as soon as a church or abbey became vacant, the ring and
cross were carried to the prince by a deputation of the chapter,
or of the abbey ; and the prince gave them to the successor whom
he elected, with a letter ordering the lay ofiicers to maintain him
in possession of the lands belonging to the chui*ch or abbey.
330. Origin of the Ccmtroversy of the Investitures.
This ceremony, so far as it implied solely the collection of
the temporalities attached to ecclesiastical dignities, was not in
itself unlawful ; but it might become the occasion of great
abuses, and really did become so very speedily in Germany.
The ring and cross being the natural symbols of spiritual au-
thority, princes abused the right of investiture, claiming by it
the right of conferring spiritual jurisdiction ; they assumed to
dispose, with sovereign control, of bishoprics and abbeys, as of
secular dignities, and of selling them for money, to the great
detriment of the rights and discipline of the Church. This was
the origin of the great controversy about investitures. The Church
had tolerated them, so long as they did not interfere with the
liberty of election ; but she protested energetically, first by the
voice of popes, and afterwards of general councils, as soon as
they were made the pretext for a manifest usurpation of the
rights which she had received from Jesus Christ, of freely elect-
ino; her own ministers.^
' See M. Jager's Introduction to the History of Gregory VII. p. vi. &c. ;
Pey, De I'Autorite des Deux Puissances, vol. iii. p. 136 ; Montagne, Appendix
de Concil. ad calcem Praslect. Theol. de Opere Sex Dierum, p. 279, &c. ; De
la Hogue, De Ecclesia, p. 455 ; Nat. Alexander, Dissert, iv. in Hist. Eccles.
ssBc. xi. xii. A perusal of these authors may correct a great number of othera
who have treated this matter not less incorrectly than superficially. M.
Nettement, in his otherwise correct and interesting Life of Suger, has not
been sufficiently on his guard against the false notions of these latter authors
(pp. 25, 47, &c.). See a review of this work in the Ami de la Religion,
vol. cxiv. p. 513, &c.
CHAP. IV.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 847
331. The Geremony of Investiture different from that of Homage, and of the
Oath of Fidelity.
To explain this matter more clearly, we must point out here
the difference between the ceremony of investiture and those of
homage and of the oath of fidelity. ^ " Investiture, we have
seen, was the conferring, or the giving possession of a fief or
property by the lord to his vassal." Homage, which ordinarily
preceded investiture, was an external profession of the subjection
and devotion of the vassal to his lord. The vassal made this
profession, kneeling and bareheaded, with his hands placed
between those of his lord, to whom he promised faithful and
loyal service, in consideration of the fief which he held of him.
Homage was ordinarily followed by the oath of fealty ; but this
latter ceremony was not necessarily performed in person, like
that of homage ; homage should be done in person — the oath of
fidelity could be taken by proxy.
332. Subject of the Contest about the Investitures. — Importance of this Question.
After these preliminary notices, it is important to remark,
that the controversy relating to ecclesiastical investitures was
altogether different from that regarding homage, and the oath of
fidelity. From the time of Gregory VII. there were, it is
true, very warm controversies between the two powers on the
two latter ceremonies, as well as on the former ; but the chief
contest was, at all times, about the investitures, which were
invariably condemned, even by those popes and councils that
beheved themselves bound to tolerate, by a prudent condescen-
sion, the ceremony of homage, and of the oath of fealty.^
Hence we see the great importance of the investitures, which
were so long contested by the two powers, with a degree of
ardour of which, at the present day, we can hardly form a notion.
The subject of that contest was not a mere ceremony, as Voltaire
and many heedless and superficial authors have asserted.^ Such
an idea could not have originated except in the most profound
ignorance of the history of this controversy.^ From all the
' Ducauge, Glossar. Inf. Latin, verbis Hominium and Juramentura.
2 Nat. Alexander, Hist. Eccles. ssec. xi. xii. cap. vii. art. v. n. 6. See notea
of Nat. Alexander and of Mansi, at the end of that chapter.
3 A^oltaire, Essai sur I'Hist. G^n. vol. i. ch. xlvi.
* The warmest contests on this subject were between the emperor Henry V.
348 POWER OF THE POPE [PART IT.
details of that history it follows, on the contrary, that never was
there a controversy of more vital interest to religion. " The
emperors," as Bossuet observes, " abused the custom of inves-
titures to sell bishoprics, and to reduce the Church of Christ to
eternal slavery." ' The real question at issue, therefore, was
nothing less than the essential lijbcrty of the Church in her own
government, and especially in the choice of her ministers ; the
thing at stake was religion itself, whose fate depends principally
on that choice ; whence it follows, that the popes, by saving the
rights of the Church in this contest about investitures, saved
religion ; as they would infallibly have ruined it had they
yielded on so essential a point. " No light quarrel, assuredly,"
observes Count de Maistre, " was this about the investitures.
The temporal power openly threatened to destroy the ecclesias-
tical supremacy. The feudal spirit, ^vhich was then dominant,
would soon have converted the Church, in Italy and Germany,
into one vast fief, dependent on the emperor. That monarch
publicly sold ecclesiastical benefices ; priests carried arms ; scan-
dalous concubinage defiled the priestly order ; one bold innovator
might have annihilated the priesthood by proposing marriage
as a remedy for greater evils. The Holy See alone battled
against the torrent, and at least enabled the Church to attain,
without a total subversion, the reform which was to be effective
in after-ages. The popes never disputed the emperor's right to
investiture by the sceptre : but only the investiture by cross and
ring. A matter of no consequence, do you say ? on the con-
trary, a matter of every consequence. How could both parties
have been so highly excited, had the matter been one of no
consequence ? The popes did not quarrel even about the
elections, as Maimbourg proves by the example of Suger.'
They, moreover, consented to the investiture by the sceptre ;
that is, they had no objection that the prelates, considered as
vassals, should receive from their suzerain lord, by feudal inves-
and Popes Pascal II. and Calixtus II. ; an account of which may be seen in
Fleury's, Bercastel's, and Maimbourg's histories. See especially the definitive
arrangement concluded in 1122, between the emperor Henry V. and Pope
Calixtus II., which put an end to all these disputes. The text alone of this
agreement sufficiently shows at once the object and the importance of this
contest. This text is given in Labbe's Councils, vol. x. p. 901.
' Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. iii. cap. xii. initio.
- Maimbourg, Hist, de la D&ad. de 1' Empire, ann. 1121.
CHAP. IV.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 349
titure, that ''simple and mixed dominion"^ (to speak the
feudal language), the very essence of a fief, implying on the
part of the feudal baron, a participation in the sovereignty, in
consideration of political subjection and military service to the
suzerain lord, from which the sovereignty is derived. But they
would not tolerate investiture by cross and ring, lest the tem-
poral sovereigT), by using these two religious symbols in the
ceremony of investiture, should seem to confer the spiritual
jurisdiction and title, by thus changing a benefice into a fief ;
and on this point the emperor found himself at length compelled
to yield.- In a word, the Church was ruined, humanly speaking ;
she would have neither form nor government, and, in a short
time, not even a name, but for the extraordinary intervention of
the popes, who ousted corrupt or misguided governments, and
personally seized the helm for the restoration of order.^
333. This Imjwrtance aclcnowJedgcd, even by Protestant A uthors.
This is the opinion formed of the investiture question, not
only by Catholic Avriters, but also by Protestants, whose profound
studies have led them to judge the popes of the middle ages
with a moderation, unfortunately not always found in certain
Catholic authors. We have already cited the testimony of
Voigt, in his History of Gregory VII. ; * and Hurter's, in his
History of Innocent III., is not less remarkable. " It was in
these first struggles of the popes," he observes, "to defend their
independence in all things pertaining to the government of the
Church, that Christianity found its preservation from the tyranny
of the temporal power, and its rescue from becoming a mere
state function, like religion among the pagans."'^
' Merura et mixtum imperium. In feudal language these words commonly
signify complete "seignorial jurisdiction," including the full administration of
justice in cases civil and criminal. See Ducange, Glossar. Infimae Latin, verbo
Imperium.
* Maimbourg, ubi supra.
^ De Maistre, Du Pape, book ii. ch. vii. p. 285-297, passim.
* Voigt, Hist, de Greg. VII. books iv. v. p. 133, &c. 177, &c. Conclusion,
p. 605, &c.
* Hurter, Hist, d' Innocent III. vol. i. p. 123.
350 POWER OF THE POPE [part II.
§ 2. Injluence of this Power in preserting Morality.
334. This Power used principally in repressing the Licentiousness of Princes.
It was not merely in maintaining the independence of the
Church against the usurpations of the temporal power, that the
temporal power of the popes conferred the most important ser-
vices on religion ; it was still more in labouring for the preserva-
tion of public morals, and especially of the marriage contract,
so frequently and so outrageously violated by the incontinence
of sovereigns.' A great enemy of the popes, who never omits
an opportunity of weeping over the supposed scandal of an
excommunication, observes that it was invariably the breaking
or the making of marriage vows that added the second scandal
to the first.- It is, in fact, true, that the chief use made by
popes of excommunication and its terrible effects, was in re-
proving the immorality of princes. The merited severity of the
Holy See in this matter towards Lothaire the Young, king of
Lorraine, against the kings of France, Robert, Philip I.,
Philip II., and many other sovereigns, is well known. Now the
least reflection must convince us of the inestimable service
confeiTcd on religion and society by the inflexible firmness of
the pope on this point. " Never," observes Count de Maistre,
" did the popes and the Church in general confer a more signal
service on the world than that of repressing among princes, by
ecclesiastical censures, the excesses of a passion terrible even in
gentle natures, but defying description in violent ones, and which
would always break through the most holy laws of marriage,
wherever it was unchecked. Love when not tamed do^vTi to a
certain degree by extreme ci^^lization is a ferocious animal,
capable of the most horrid excesses. To prevent it from
devouring everything, it must be chained ; which it cannot be
except by terror. But what can be feared by a person that
fears nothing on earth ? The holiness of the married state, the
sacred basis of public happiness, is especially of the highest
' De Maistre, Du Pape, book ii. eh. vii. art. i.
* Ferrand, L'Esprit de 1' Histoire, vol. ii. letter 47, p. 4S5. Count de
Maistre justly observes, that M. Ferrand jumbles the most incoherent notion.''
in this passage. According to him, '"'a public adultery is a scandal ; and the
act designed to prevent it is a scandal." Never were two things so different
called by the same name. — De Maistre, ubi supra, art. i. p. 270.
CHAP. lY.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 351
importance in royal families, in whiclL disorders of a certain
kind have incalculable consequences, wliich people are very far
from having an idea of. If in the youth of the northern nations,
the popes had not been able to terrify royal passions, princes
plunging from caprice to caprice, and from abuse to abuse, would
have ended by establishing the law of divorce, and perhaps
polygamy ; and this disorder propagating itself, as always
happens, through the lower orders of society, no eye can see the
limits to which such a deluge would have broken." ^
335. A dmissions of M. Hurler on this Point.
In support of these reflections we shall cite those of M. Hurter,
in his History of Innocent III. " The levity with which the
great lords married, ought to teach us duly to revere an authority
which, if unable to prevent the libertine from violating a sacred
tie, was at all events able, when complaint was made, to extend
an energetic protection to the victims, and to remind princes
that they owed good example to their subjects." ^ It is on this
principle that the same author justifies the firmness of Inno-
cent III. in maintaining the sacred laws of marriage against the
incontinence of Philip Augustus. Hurter's reflections on this
subject are the more worthy of attention, as they apply generally
to all the popes who, on similar occasions, evinced the same
firmness. " The point at issue here," he observes, " was not of
possessions, nor of disputed rights of the Holy See, but of this
great question — Is the sovereign subject to the laws of Chris-
tianity, which are to regulate relations between man and man ?
"VVe saw here, in the first place, that if these laws were enforced
in ancient times, perhaps more rigorously than in our days, that
circumstance cannot be made the ground of any accusation
against the popes. The pope had to deal in those cases, not
with the prince, but with the Christian. He combated, not as
a temporal prince, but as chief guardian of the precepts which
God had given to man. The point at issue was, which should
prevail, the will of the prince or the power reputed (then, at
least) as the centre of Christian unity ; or whether before the latter
' De Maistre, ubi supra, p. 270.
2 Hurter, Hist, d' Innocent III. vol. ii. p. 802.
352 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
the temporal power should succumb and disappear ? Innocent's
conduct in the affairs of divorce proves that he was guided
solely by the just appreciation of his own duties, and of those
of princes ; and that, inspired solely by apostolic zeal, he allowed
himself to be influenced by no human considerations. He never
would sacrifice the moral importance of his dignity, to purchase
a powerful support during the troubles in Italy, or an ally in the
dissensions of Germany, or to obtain from the king, by silence
and condescension, assistance for the Crusades. He was not
afraid of the increased number of enemies, and of embarrassinj:
difficulties, which his firmness would create for the Holy See.
By doing less, or by acting with more indulgence, he would have
done violence to his moral nature, and have mixed for himself
the bitterest cup that can be tasted by a man impressed with a
profound conviction, yet acting contrary to his principles. To
censure him in those circumstances, would be hazardous at any
time, because it would efface the distinction between might and
right, and emancipate man from every moral obligation. What
woes would have been spared to France and to Europe, had an
Innocent been seated on the papal throne during the reign of
Louis XV. It was his duty to be the pastor of kings, and
thereby the saviour of nations." ^
§ 3. Ivfuence of this Poirer in maintaining Public
Tranquillity.
336. Thh Effect admitted by unexceptionable Testimony. — Admissions of Voltaire.
This last effect is sufficiently demonstrated by the details
given in the preceding article, on the beneficial influence of
the power in question, in reconciling, as much as possible, the
authority of the sovereign with the liberty of the people, and
preventing alike the disorders of anarchy, and those of des-
potism. "We shall merely add here, that this excellent result,
which of itself justifies fully the theory of the middle ages, is
generally admitted in our time, even by authors least suspected
of partiality in favour of the Church or of the Holy See.
' Hurter, Hist, d' Innocent III. vol. i. ann. 1198, p. 199. See also, in the
Introduction to the same work (p. xxxv.), M. Dutheil's reflections on that
subject.
CHAP. IV.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 353
" The interests of the human race," says Voltaire, " required
some check on sovereigns, and some protection for the life of
the subject ; this religious check could, by universal consent,
be placed in the hands of the popes. This chief pontiff, by
never meddling in temporal quarrels except to appease them,
by admonishing kings and nations of their duties, by reproving
crimes, by inflicting excommunications on great offences only,
would have been reo;arded as the image of God on earth." ^
" Never, in my opinion," says Count de Maistre, " was there
more cogent reasoning in vindication of the popes. This check
so indispensable for the people was found, and could not be
found except in the power of the popes. It was there, not by
any express convention on the subject, which is impossible, but
by a tacit and universal convention, admitted by kings as well as
by subjects, and which has produced incalculable benefits." -
337. Admissions of M. Fen-and.
These great benefits have been expressly acknowledged by a
modern writer, who has most bitterly censured the conduct of
the popes of the middle ages towards sovereigns. ' ' During the
period of the Crusades," according to M. Ferrand, "the power
of the popes was great ; and, at that time, their anathemas,
their interdicts, were respected, were dreaded. A person who,
perhaps, was inclined to disturb the states of any sovereign
engaged in the Cnisades, knew that he would thereby expose
himself to an excommunication, which might entail the for-
feiture of his own. This impression was generally diffused and
adopted ; nor could he find co-operators even amongst those who,
at another time, might have seconded his projects." ^
338. Admissions of Protestant Authors.
A Protestant author of the last century expresses himself
still more decisively on this question, in a work which has
secured for him a distinguished rank among historians and
authors. " During the middle ages," observes M. Ancillon,
' Voltaire, Essai sur 1' Histoire G^n^ral, vol. ii. ch. Ix.
* De Maistre, Du Pape, book ii. ch. ix. p. 323.
^ Ferrand, Esprit de I'Hist. vol. ii. letter 47, p. 494.
VOL. II. 2 A
354 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
" when there was no social order, the papacy alone perhaps
saved Europe from utter barbarism. It created bonds of con-
nection between the most distant nations ; it was a common
centre, a rallying point for isolated states. It was a supreme
tribunal, established in the midst of universal anarchy, and its
decrees were sometimes as respectable as they were respected ;
it prevented and arrested the despotism of the emperors, and
diminished the inconveniences of the feudal system." '■
339. M. Coquerel.
A more recent Protestant writer observes, " that the papal
power, by disposing of crowns, prevented the atrocities of des-
potism ; hence, in those dark ages, we see no instance of a
tyrant, like Domitian, in ancient Rome ; a Tiberius could not
exist ; Rome would liave crushed him. Great despotisms deve-
lop themselves when kings believe they have no power above
them ; then it is that the intoxication of unlimited power
engenders the most atrocious enormities." ^
340. Inconveniences of this Power abundantly compoisated for hy its Advantages.
The indisputable advantages of the temporal power of the popes
during the middle ages, certainly justify the conclusion that, in
a political point of view, the evils which may have resulted from
that power were amply counterbalanced by its good effects ;
and that, consequently, it has been more beneficial than in-
jurious to society. M. Raoul Rochette, one of the most distin-
guished members of the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles
Lettres, has come to the same conclusion, after a serious and
impartial history of the middle ages. The tone of wisdom
and moderation in which he gives his opinion on the subject,
ought certainly to recommend similar delicacy to so many writers
who, with far less information and erudition on those ages,
hazard opinions so confident and dogmatic on the conduct of the
' Ancillon, Tableau des Revolutions du Systfeme Politique de 1' Europe,
vol. i. Introd. pp. 133, 157.
* Coquerel, Essai sur I'Hist. du Cliristianisme, p. 75. Not to multiply quo-
tations unnecessarily — a work of no difl&culty, — we shall merely refer to a
remarkable article in the Quarterly Review, one of the most respectable and
influential Protestant periodicals in England. It is cited in Nisard's Vie de
la Reine Blanche, p. 276.
CHAP. IV.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. 355
popes and councils of the middle ages. " There is a fact/' he
says, "which will appear from my researches, and which, I
believe, I may now announce confidently, that during the long
course of the middle ages, the influence of the popes was gene-
rally rather useful than pernicious to Europe, and that, every
thing weighed in the exact balance, society owed more virtues
and benefits to the papal power, than it suffered from the same
power vices and misfortunes. But, in order to make the pro-
bability of this assertion obvious, even to the most prejudiced
minds, I must add immediately, that a state of ci'vdlization, or
if you will, of barbarism, precisely similar to that of the middle
ages, was required, in order to enable the papal authority to pro-
duce consequences so beneficial." ^
341. Services conferred on Society by the Popes.
"We shall not enter into a more lengthened detail of the
immense services which the temporal power of the Chui'ch and
the pope conferred on religion and society during the whole
course of the middle ages.- The developments already given
are more than sufficient to enable the judicious and impartial
reader to form his opinion on the question, and to convince him
of the justness of the reflections with which Count de Maistre
closes the third part of the interesting work on which we have
so copiously drawn. " The faults of the popes, exaggerated
beyond measure, or misrepresented, and in general beneficial to
mankind, are, moreover, but the human alloy inseparable from
all temporal mixture ; and when all has been well examined and
' Eaoul Rochette, Discours sur les Heureux Efifets de la Puissance Pon-
tificale au Moyen Age, Paris, 1818, 8vo. p. 10. See also pp. 15, 28-80. See
the review of this Discourse, in the Ami de la Religion, vol. xv. p. 273.
* We could easily multiply quotations on this point. Besides those already
given in the course of this work (n. 17, 49, 124, &c.), we may name also the
following authors : — Entretiens sur la Reunion des Differentes Communions
Chretiennes, by Baron de Starck, p. 296, &c. ; Feller, Catechisme Philos.
n. 510 ; Pluquet, Diction, des Herfeies, Discours Prelim, xi. et xii. Siecles,
pp. 232, 241, &c. ; Bernardi, De I'Origine et des Progrfes de la Legislation
Fran^aise, book v. ch. iii. ; Frayssinous, Les Vrais Principes de I'Eglise Gal-
licane, 2nd edit. p. 64, &c. ; Jondot, Tableau Historique des Xations, vol. iii.
p. 396, &c. ; De Saint- Victor, Tableau Hist, et Pittoresque de Paris, 8vo. edit,
vol. ii. pp. 593-597 ; Chateaubriand, Genie du Christianisme, part iv. ch. xi. ;
Jager, Introd. a I'Hist. de Gregoire VTI. p. xxxviii. &c. ; Lefranc, Hist, du
Moyen Age, book iv. ch. \'i. § 1, ad finem ; De Montalembert, Hist, de Sainte
Elisabeth de Hongrie, Introduction, pp. xix.-xxxv. ; Da Falloux, Vie du Pape
S. Pie V. Prefe^e.
2 a2
356 POWER OF THE POPE [PART II.
weighed in the balance of the most frigid and most impartial
philosophy, it will be demonstrated, that the popes were the
instructors, the guardians, the saviours, and the real ruling soul
of Europe.^ The question is not, were the popes men, and
were they never in error ; but whether, all accounts balanced,
there was not more wisdom, more knowledge, and more \'irtue
on their throne, than on any other ? Now, on that point, no
one can so much as doubt." ^
CONCLUSION,
AND SUMMARY OF THE SECOND PAST.
342. Injustice of the Declamations against the Popes and Councils of the
Middle Ages.
We may now estimate at their proper worth the declamations
so common ^^'ith modern authors, against popes and councils,
regarding the power formerly claimed over princes in the tem-
poral order. ]\Iost of these invectives assume either that popes
and councils had no right, at that time, to judge sovereigns in
temporal matters ; or that the riglit liad not been originally
based on any legitimate title ; or that the use of that right was
pernicious to society. On the contrary, it is certain, and
demonstrated conclusively from history, that the right of judging
sovereigns in temporal matters was then vested in the Church
and the pope, by the principles of a universally received consti-
tutional law ; that this right was based, from the commencement,
on the most legitimate titles ; finally, that the use of this right,
notwithstanding the evil results which it may have sometimes
occasioned, was generally beneficial to society.
The question here is, not what were the causes which inva-
riably weakened, and even totally destroyed, the prodigious
power with which the Church and her \'isible head were so long
invested ; much less is there question of applying to the present
state of society that ancient system of law, which has long
since fallen into disuse, and which is now more than ever
rejected by the spirit of the age. The sole question is, how are
we to view the severity with which the conduct of popes and
' De Maistre, Du Pape, book iii. Conclusion, p. 154, &c.
* De Maistre, ibid, book ii. ch. ix. p. 332.
CHAP. IV.] OVER SOVEREIGNS. S57
councils to sovereigns in the middle ages lias been so often cen-
sured in modern times ; and whether that conduct can be
accounted for, and even justified, by the principles of then
existing constitutional law. From our inquiry it follows clearly,
that this explanation, which has been already adopted by learned
authors, is solidly proved from history ; and must, therefore, be
regarded as established, both by cogent arguments and imposing
authorities. It is true, that were it proved even to evidence,
it does not sanction the opinion of those theologians who
imagined that they could explain and justify, by the opinion of
the divine right alone, the conduct of popes and councils in
formerly deposing temporal princes ; but, on the other hand,
it is true, that supposing it established only by plausible and
probable arguments, and still more if these arguments be con-
clusive, it supplies a crushing reply to a mass of odious declama-
tions, a thousand times uttered against the popes and councils of
the middle ages.
o
343. Why these Invectives have been so easily admitted by Catholic Winters.
Our development of this subject may also serve to explain
how invectives so unjust and so unfounded could be so easily
listened to, not only by the declared enemies of the Church and
of the Holy See, but also by a considerable number of religious
writers sincerely attached to the Catholic Church and to the
pope. The power exercised by the popes and councils over
sovereigns in the middle ages, though generally regarded as
legitimate by contemporaries, could not fail to be censured with
more or less asperity by a small number of persons interested in
supporting the cause of those princes who had incurred the ana-
themas of the Church. These reclamations, not numerous at
first, and almost stifled by the general opinion, were afterwards
republished, at different times, by hot-tempered men, who had a
manifest interest in opposing the Holy See, and in defaming the
memory of the most illustrious popes. Hence the virulent invec-
tives of a host of Protestant and of infidel Avriters against the
popes and councils of the middle ages ; invectives taken up with
more or less heedlessness by ignorant Catholics, and sometimes
even by respectable writers, on occasions when even the best
men are dragged against their will by the spirit of their times,
358 POWER OF THE POPE OVER SOVEREIGNS. [PART II.
or by fatal prejudices. This was exemplified in France, espe-
cially during the protracted and heated contests that arose at the
close of the thirteenth century, between Boniface VIII. and
Philip the Fair, and at the close of the seventeenth century,
between Louis XIV. and Innocent XL Even authors most
partial to France admit that the government in those times was
extremely embittered against Rome ; that many prelates of the
highest order were tainted with the general feeling ; and that the
authority of those prelates, combining Avith the ascendancy of the
king and his ministers, propagated in all quarters against the Holy
See a spirit of opposition, and even of exasperation, whose
consequences prudent and thoughtful men could not contemplate
without terror.^ Manifest evidence of this general spirit and
dangerous tendency are visible in the works of many authors,
equally distinguished for the solidity of their intellect and their
attachment to the Church and tlie Holy See. We may mention
in particular Bossuet's Defence of the Declaration of 1682, and
Fleury's Discourses and Ecclesiastical History." The severity
with which those eminent authors, whose example so many
others have followed, censure the popes of the middle ages, and
especially Gregory VII. and his successors, is but too notorious ;
but the very circumstances in which they composed those works,
warn us sufficiently, that in following guides otherwise so re-
spectable and enlightened, we should be on our guard against the
pernicious bias which those circumstances must naturally have
imparted to their judgment and opinions.
' See ottr observations on the contests of Boniface VIII. and Philip the Fair
(supra, n. 220). On the contests relating to the r^t/ale in the reign of
Louis XIV., see Histoire de Bossuet, vol. ii. book vi. n. 6, p. 124, &c. ; Nou-
veaux Opuscules de Fleury, 2nd edit. p. 208, etc. ; L'Ami de la KeUgion,
vol. xxvi. p. 33, &c. ; D'Avrigny, MJmoires Chronol. et Dogm. vol. ill.
ann. 1681, 1682.
'^ Hist, de Bossuet, Pieces Justificatives in book vi. n. 1. Remark, espe-
cially, pp. 393, 394, 418, 419, &c. ; also, Defense de la Declaration, lib. i.
sect. i. cap. vii. ; lib. iii. cap. ii. ix. x. et alibi passim. On the Discours et
I'Histoire Eccl^siastique de Fleury, see L'Ami de la Religion, vol. xxii, pp. 241,
353, &c. ; Marchetti, Critique de I'Histoire Eccl&iastique de Fleuiy, 2 vols.
8vo. J Muzzarelli, Remarques sur I'Histoire Eccl^siastique de Fleury.
CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE.
VIII.— Pages 2, 117, 179, 199.
Origin, progress, and modifications of the opinion icldch attrihutes
to the Church and to the pope a divine right, direct or indirect^
of temporal jurisdiction.
It has, we believe, been clearly demonstrated in the second part
of this work, that the opinion which attributes to the Church and
the pope a direct or indirect power of jurisdiction over temporals,
by divine right, 1st, either was unknown or had but few advocates
before the pontificate of Grregory YII. ; 2ndly, that it did not
begin to be received until a much later period ; Srdly, and finally,
that it was never either taught or implied by councils or by popes,
even in those decrees which seem to extend to its greatest limits
their authority over temporals.^
The development of these three points was sufficient for the
principal object of our work, which was to prove that the power
exercised by popes and councils over sovereigns during the
middle ages, was not grounded on the theological opinion of the
divine right, »but on the constitutional law then received in
Catholic Europe.
Nevertheless, to elucidate the matter still more, it may not be
useless to state here the origin, progress, and changes of the
opinion which attributes to the Church and to the pope a direct
or indirect jurisdiction over temporals, by virtue of the right
divine.
Some of the advocates of this opinion attribute to the Chiu-ch
and the pope a power of direct jurisdiction, others, a power of
only indirect jurisdiction over temporals .^
* For the development of these three points, see ch. iii. part ii. art. i. We
have observed, in the same place, that the historical truth of these three points
in no manner affects the controversy regarding the opinion in question,
* See the authors cited above, p. 2, especially Cardinal Bellarmine.
360 CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE.
1. The advocates of the first opinion maintain, that the Churcli
and the pope have received immediately from God, full power to
govern the world, both in spirituals and temporals ; but in such a
waj that while they themselves must exercise the spiritual power,
they must entrust the temporal to secular princes ; whence it
follows, in the system of these authors, that the temporal prince
is but an official of the Chm-ch, from whom he directly receives
his power ; and that the Church, which entrusted it to him, to be
used in conformity with the order of God, can also take it from
him, should it be used against that order.
AVe know no writer of any eminence that defended or supposed
this opinion before tlie twelfth century ; but its origin may, we
think, be traced to that period. The first that, to our know-
ledge, advocated it was John of Salisbury, chancellor of the
archbishop of Canterbury, and afterwards bishop of Chartrea,
and author of a work entitled Polycraticus, sive de Nugis Curia-
lium.i This work, which was addressed in 1159 to Thomas Becket,
tlien ChanccUdr of England, and afterwards archbishop of Can-
terbury, is divided into eight books, whicli, in very interesting
and varied forms, contain a valuable series of philosophical and
moral reflections on the duties of tlie great. In the fourth book,
the author explains and openly advocates the theological opinion
of the divine right, in the sense already explained.^
' This work, which was often printed by itself, was reprinted in vol. xxiii.
Bibliotheca Patrum, Lyons, 1677. There is an analysis of it in Fleury, Hist.
Eccl. vol. XV. book Ixx. n. 35. D. Ceillier, Hist, des Auteurs Eccl^s. vol. xxiii.
p. 272. Hist. Litt. de la France, vol. xiv. p. 98, &c. Hist, de I'Eglise Gall,
vol. X. p. 46. See also a sketch of this work, supra, n. 145, ch. ii. note 1.
* " Est ergo, ut eum plerique definiunt, princeps potestaa publica, et in
terris qusedam divinfe majestatis imago. Omnis enim potestas ^ Domino Deo
est, et cum illo fuit semper, et est ante sevum. Quod igitur princeps potest,
ita b, Deo est, ut pote.stas h, Domino non recedat ; sed eA utitur per suppositara
manum, in omnibus doctrinam faciens clementiie, aut justitife suie. ^i« ergo
resistit potestatl, Dei ordinationi resistit, penes quem est auctoritas conferendi
earn, et ctmi vult, auferendi et minuendi eam. . . . Hunc ergo gladium de manu
EcclesicB accipit princeps, cUm ipsa tamen gladium sanguinis omnino non habeat.
Habet tamen et istum ; sed eo utitur per principis manum, cui coercendorum cor-
porum contulit potestatem, spiritualium sibi in pontificibus auctoritate reser-
vata. £sf ego 2y>'i)iceps sacerdotii quidem minister, et qui sacrorum officiorum
illam partem exercet, qupe sacerdotii manibus videtur indigna. . . . Profectt), ut
Doctoris gentium testimonio utar, major est qui henedicit, quam qui bcacdicitur;
et penes quem est conferendse dignitatis auctoritas, eum cui dignitas ipsa con-
fertur, honoris privilegio antecedit. Porrb de ratione juris, ejus est nolle,
cujus est velle ; et ejus est auferre, qui de jure conferre potest. Nonne Samuel
in Saulem, ex causa inobedientise, depositionis sententiam tulit, et ei, in regni
apicem, humilem filium Isai subrogavit?" — Polycraticus, lib. iv. cap. i. iii.
(Biblioth. Patrum. tom. xxiii. p. 294, &c.)
Many modern writers have also attributed to John of Salisbury the doctrine
CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE. 861
It seems that this opinion had not at first many advocates, at
least among the writers of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
The most eminent authors of those times attribute to the Church
a directive power alone over temporals ; that is, the power of
enlightening and directing the conscience of the faithful on the
obligations arising from the oath of allegiance to sovereigns ; ^
to this power, some merely add a power of temporal jurisdiction
over the Catholic princes of the West, in virtue of Constantine's
donation.2 It is certain, nevertheless, that John of Salisbiu-y's
opinion, ■ though almost unnoticed in his own day, afterwards
found a certain number of advocates. St. Thomas of Canterbury,
an intimate friend of the author's, and to whom the work was
dedicated, appears to adopt his opinion on the temporal power of
the Church.-^ The compiler of the Laws of Suabia, in the twelfth
of tyrannicide, which allows any private person, by his own private authority,
to kill a tyrant. (See the authors cited in the last note.) The author of the
Hist. Litteraire de la France attributes, and with severe reprehension, this
doctrine to John of Salisbury ; but the imputation is, we believe, unfounded.
He holds, certainly, that it is lawful to kill a public tyrant ; that is, a notorious
usurper of the supreme power ; but he manifestly supposes that even such a
one cannot be killed except in the name of the piuhlic autlwrity. " Aliter cum
amico," .says he, "aliter vivendum est cum tyranno. Amico utique adulari
non Ucet ; sed aures tyranni mulcere hcitum est. Ei namque licet adulari,
quem licet occidere ; porr6 tyrannum occidere, non modo licitum est, sed
aequum et justum ; qui enim gladium accipit, gladio dignus est interire. Sed
accipere intelligitur, qui eum propria temeritate usurpat, non qui utendi eo,
k Domino accipit potestatem. Utique qui k Deo potestatem accipit, legibus
servit, et justitise et juris famulus est. Qui verb eam usurpat, jura deprimit,
et voluntati sufe leges submittit. In eum ergo meritb armantur jura, qui
leges exarmat ; et lyvhlica potestas ssevit in eum, qui evacuare nititur publicam
manum." — Ibid. lib. iii. cap. xv.
This explanation at once solves all the objections that might be raised from
several passages on the same subject in the course of his work (lib. viii.
eh. xviii. &c.), and especially in ch. xx. of book viii, where the following
passage occurs : " Auctoritate divine paginte, licitum et gloriosum est, pub-
licos tyrannos occidere ; si tamen fidelitate non sit tyranno obnoxius interfector,
aut honestatem non amittat. . . . Hoc tamen cavendum docent historise (sacrte),
ne quis illius moliatur interitum, cui fidei aut sacramenti religione tenetur
astrictus. . . . Sed nee veneni, licet videam ad infidelibus aliquando usurpatum,
nllo umqiiam jure indidtam lego licentiam. Non qu5d tyrannos de medio
toUendos non esse credam ; sed sine religionis, houestatisque dispendio."
Observe that in this last passage, as well as in that cited before, the author
does not allow private persons to kill a tyrant, except m cases p>ermitted hyleiio.
For if he prohibits the tise of poison against a tyrant, it is solely because that
means is not sanctioned hy any law.
' For an explanation of the most eminent authors of the twelfth and thir-
teenth centuries on this subject, see ch. iii. part ii. art. i. n. 190, &c.
^ This opinion was adopted by Gervais of Tilbury, who appears to have
borrowed it from more ancient authors. Supra, ch. ii. art. iv. n. 144, ch. iii.
n. 168, 169, text and note.
3 " Ecclesia Dei in duobus constat ordinibus, clero et populo. In clero
362 CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE.
century, teaches the same opinion much more clearly.^ Cardinal Bel-
larmine attributes it also to some more recent writers, especially to
Cardinal d'Ostia, Henry de Suza. This latter author goes so far
as to assert, that " since the coming of Jesus Christ all the domi-
nion of infidel princes was transferred to the Church, and is
vested in the pope, as the vicar of Jesus Christ, the King of
kings ; whence he infers, that the pope can, by his own authority,
grant the kingdoms of infidel princes to any of the faithful whom
he may think proper to select." ^
sunt apostoli, apostolici viri, episcopi, et caeteri doctores Ecclesiae, quibus
commissa est cura et regnura ipsius Ecclesiffi ; qui tractate habent negotia
ecclesiastica, ut totum reducatur ad salutem animaruui. Unde et Petro
dictum est, et in Petro aliis Ecclesiae Dei rectoribus, non regibus, non {>rin-
cipibus : Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram adijicabo Ecdesiam vieam, ct
portw inferi non j^riwcUchunt adrcrsus cam. In populo sunt reges, principes,
duces, comites, et alias potestates, qui siecularia haljent tractare negotia, ut
totum reducant ad pacem et unitatem Ecclesiae. Et quia certuni est, reges
potestatem suam accipere ah Eccfestd, non ipsam ah illis, sed a Christo ; ut salv^
pace vests, loquar, non habetis episcopia pnecipere, absolvere aliquem, vel
excommunicare, trahere clericos ad sajcuiaria examina, judicare de Ecclesiis
vel deciniis, interdicere episcopis ne tractent causas de transgressione fidei vel
juramenti, et multa in hunc modum, quae scripta sunt inter CoiuuetudvMS
vestras, quas dicitis avitas." — S. Thomae Cantuar. Epis. lib. i. epist. 64, ad
regem Henry II. (ito edit. Brussels, vol. i. p. 94).
" Ad sacerdotes suos voluit Deus quse Ecclesiaj suae sunt disponenda perti-
nere, non ad potestates saeculi ; quas, si fideles, sint, Ecclesise suae sacerdotibus
voluit esse sujjjectas. Non vobis igitur vindicetis jus alienura, et ministeriuni
quod alteri deput-atum est ; neque contra eum contendatis, h. quo omnia sunt
constituta ; nee contr-a illius beueficia pugnare videamini, k quo vestram
consecuti estis potestatem." — Ibid. epis. G5, ad eumdem, p. 99. See also
letter 108, addressed to Gilbert, bishop of London. (Ibid. p. 169.) — D. Ceillier,
Hist, des Auteurs Eccl^s. vol. xxiii. p. 262.
' See oh. iii. of this second part, art. ii. n. 268.
* "Credimus tamen, imb scimus, quod Papa est generalis vicarius Jesu
Christi salvatoris,et ideo potestatem habet, non solum super Christianos, sedet
super omnes infideles, ctim Christus plenariam receperit potestatem.
" . . . . Quando autem Papa illis qui vadunt ad defendendam, et recuperan-
dam terr.am sanctam, dat indulgentias, et infidelibus terram possidentibus
bellum indicit ; licitb facit Papa, et justam causam habet ; ciim ilia (terra)
consecrata sit nativitate, conversatione et morte Jesu Christi, "fet in qud (terra)
non colitur Christus sed Machometus. Unde et quamvis infideles ipsam possi-
deant, justb tamen esinde expelluntur, ut incolaturh, Christianis, et ad ipsorum
dominium revocetur ; nam et praedicatione apostolorum, et justo bello victa
fuit, et acquisita ab imperatore Romano, post mortem Christi ; et ideo Papa,
ratioue imperii Romani quod obtinet, potest et debet ipsam ad suam jurisdic-
tionem revocare ; quia injuste ab illis qui de jure hoc non poterant facere,
noscitur spoliatus ; et haec ratio sufficit in omnibus aliis terris, in quibus non-
numquam imperatores Romani jurisdictionem habuerunt Mihi tamen
videtur, qut)d in adventu Christi, omnis honor, et omnes principatus, et omne
dominium et jurisdictio de jure et ex causa justS,, et per ilium qui supremam
manum habet, nee errare potest, orani infideli subtracta fuerit, et ad fideles
translata." — Hostiensis, Commentaria in libros Decret. lib. iii. tit. xxxiv.
De Veto et voti Redemptione, cap. viii. n. 26, 27. (Edit, de Venise, 15S1,
CONFIBMATORY EVIDENCE. 363
It appears amazing at the present day, how an opinion so dan-
gerous, and so subversive of the rights of sovereigns, should have
hardly excited in the beginning the least reclamations, either from
doctors or from princes themselves, who should feel such an
interest in denouncing it.^ Our astonishment, however, subsides
when we reflect that, for a veiy considerable time, this opinion
found but a very small number of advocates ; and that, when it
was first broached, the authority of the Church and the pope over
sovereigns had been long since recognized, and based on the con-
stitutional law of the principal states of Catholic Europe. In
such circumstances, we see that the theological opinion of the
direct power was regarded as a mere speculation, having no more
practical influence than that which accounted for the temporal
power of the pope by the pretended donation of Constantine.
But when sovereigns, after having so long recognized and favoured
the temporal power of the clergy, gave unequivocal proofs of
their resolve to restrict it (which happened after the thirteenth
century in most of the principal states of Europe 2), the opinion
which attributed to the Church and the pope a dii'ect jurisdiction
over temporals, by virtue of divine institution, acquired new
importance, and should naturally excite warm controversy.
Hence the efibrts of the most eminent theologians to modify or
correct whatever was excessive in the theological opinion of the
direct power ; and hence, apparently, the real origin of the opi-
nion of the indirect power, which we now proceed to explain.
2. In this second opinion, the Church and the pope have
received from God, directly and immediately, no power over
temporals, but over spirituals solely. The power, nevertheless,
which they have of regvilatiug spirituals, includes, indirectly and
inferentiaUy, the power of governing temporals also, when the
vol. iii. p. 128, verso.) Mamachi (ubi supra, p. 175, note), cites tins passage
as taken from the Summary of the Decretals, by the same author ; this is a
mistake.
' The author of the Hist, de I'Eglise Gallicane especially expresses great
astonishment on this point (ubi supra, p. 48).
^ The history of the principal states of Europe since the thirteenth century,
supplies manifest proofs of the general tendency of modern governments to
restrict the temporal power of the clergy. This is observable especially in
England in the reign of Henry II., in France in the reign of St. Louis, and
still more of Philip the Fair, and of Philip of Valois. In proportion as we
advance to more modern times this tendency becomes every day more powerful,
and excites the most heated controversies between the two powers ; so that
henceforward peace seems impossible between them, except on the basis of an
exact demarcation of their respective rights.
864 CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE.
greater good of religion requires it. Bj virtue of this indirect
power, the pope, as vicar of Jesus Christ, cannot " ordinarily,"
that is, as ordinary judge, either depose princes, or make any law
on temporal matters ; but in certain extraordinary cases he can do
so, when it is necessary for the salvation of souls with which he is
immediately charged. ^
Cardinal Bellarmine, who may be considered as the principal
advocate,^ if not the author of this theory, cites in its support a
great number of writers more ancient, such as Hugo de Sancto
Vietore, St. Bernard, Alexander Alensis, St. Bonaventure,
St. Thomas Aquinas, &c.^ These authors, however, are very far
from being so favourable to the indirect power as may appear at
first sight, and as Bellarmine supposes. Some of them maintain
no more than the directive power of the Church and of the pope
in the sense already explained by Fenelon ; that is the opinion
especially of Hugo de Sancto Yictore, and of St. Bernard,"* to
whom may be added also Alexander Alensis, St. Bonaventure,
John of Paris, Gerson, &C.'' The others maintain the direct
' On the development of thia opinion in the second part of this work, n. 4,
p. 3, vol. ii.
* Caiilinal Bellarmine appears to be the real author of this opinion, which
since his time has supplanted the opinion of the direct power, generally
admitted previously by scholastic theologians. (Tournely, De Ecclesid, vol. ii,
p. 320. De la Hogue, De Ecclesia, p. 246. Feiler, Diet. Hist, article Bellar-
mine.) The opinion of the learned Cardinal appeared at first so singular to
many theologians, and especially to Pope Sixtus V., that, notwithstanding his
great esteem for the author, he believed it his duty to place on the Index the
work in which it was advocated. The new edition of the Index in which this
work was proscribed, was on the point of being publi.shed when Sixtus V.
died ; but his successor. Urban VII., did not think it expedient to ban a work
otherwise so useful, and an author who had rendered such eminent services to
religion ; the work was accordingly erased from the Index. See on thia
subject Sacchini, Hist. Societatis Jesu, part v. vol. i. p. 499. Vita Roberti
Bellannini, auct. Fuligato, lib. ii. cap. 7, pp. 7, 8. Vie du Card. Bellr.rmine,
by P. Frizon, book ii. p. 116. D'Avrigny, jVfem. pour servir Ji I'Hist. Eccl^s.
xviith Sifecle, Nov. 1610.
^ The texts of these authors are cited at great length by P. Eoncaglia,
Animadversiones in Nat. Alex. Dissert, ii. ad Hist. Ecclfes. Sseculi, xi. § 4.
* See oh. iii. of this second part, n. 196, &c.
* See the works of these authors cited by Bellarmine, ubi supra, cap. i. v.
Alexander Alensis expressly adopts on this point the doctrine of Hugo de
Sancto Vietore, whose very words he cites. (Alexander Alensis Summa
Theol. terlia parte, quaest. 40, membro 5. Fleury, Hist. Eccles. vol. x\'ii.
book Ixxxii. n. 15.) St. Bonaventure's opinion can be easily explained in the
sen.se of a power purely directive. (S. Bouav. De Hierarchi.a Eccles. lib. i.
cap. ult. in fine ; lib. ii. cap. 1, in fine.) The same may be said of John of Paris,
a famous Dominican, who in his treatise De Potestate Regia et Papali, de-
fended Philip the Fair against Boniface VIII. See the passages from this author
CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE. 365
power, nor can they without the greatest difficulty be explained in
any other sense ; this appears to be the opinion of St. Thomas,
of Augustine Trionfe, of Alvarez Pelagius, &g.^ These latter
authors, it is true, to soften down whatever appeared extreme in
the opinion of the dii'ect power, sometimes seem to reduce it to
^an indirect power, but all of them lay down, as the fundamental
principle, that the pope received immediately from Grod, temporal
as well as spiritual power; which is the very essence of the
opinion of the direct power. ^ Accordingly the very difficulty of
reconciling the different explanations of these authors, has occa-
sioned this result, that some of them are cited by Cardinal Bellar-
mine himself, at one time as advocates of the direct, at another
of the indirect power only.^
Whatever may have been the opinion of these ancient authors,
it is certain that Cardinal Bellarmine's explanation was thence-
forward generally adopted by Ultramontane theologians.^ Never-
theless, the objections proposed to them compelled many of them
to modify their opinion stUl more, so as seemingly to restrict the
power of the Chiu-ch and of the pope, in temporals, within much
narrower limits ; reducing it, in fact, to the simple decision of a
case of conscience on the effect of the oath of allegiance which
binds subjects to their sovereign. In this latter explanation, the
pope or the Church cannot, properly speaking, either depose a
cited by Mamaclii, ubi supra, pp. 155, 173, 183. Gerson is explained in
the same sense by Fenelon. (De Auct. S. Pont. cap. 27 ; CEuvres de F^nelon,
torn, ii.)
' See the works of these authors cited by Bellarmine, ubi supra, cap. i. v.
^ See the doctrine of St. Thomas, especially in his Commentary on the
Book of Sentences, in which he expressly teaches, "that according to the
institution of God himself, the King of kings, the pope possesses the highest
degree of both powers, the spiritual and the temporal. " Potestati spirituali
etiam ssecularis potestas conjungitur in Papd, qui utriusque potestatis apicem
tenet, scilicet spiritualis et saecularis ; et hoc, illo disponente qui est sacerdos
et rex in seternum, Rex regum et Dominus dominantium." — S. Thomas,
Comment in sec. librum, Sentent. Dist. 44, qutest. ii. art. iii. in fine.
Nat. Alexander (Dissert, ii. in Hist. Ecclds. Ssculi xi. art. x. n. 12) attempts,
but we think in vain, to explain these passages in any other sense.
* Bellar. ubi supra, cap. i. v. In ch. i. he expressly attributes the opinion
of the direct power to Augustine Trionfe, and to Alvarez Pelagius ; while in
ch. V. he explains it in the sense of the indirect. It is obvious that the
learned Cardinal felt the same difficulty with regard to the doctrine of
St. Thomas of Aquinas, and of many other ancient theologians.
* See the authors cited in the second part of our Inquiry, n. 4, note T.
But observe, that the Abb^ de la Mennais, in those works which we have
cited there, is not satisfied with the indirect power, but expressly re\'ives the
opinion of the direct power. See the passages of this writer which we have
cited in the Hist. Litt, de Fenelon, part iv. n. 74.
366 CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE.
sovereign or absolve his subjects from their oath of allegiance ;
but they can, at least, declare or decide the case in which he for-
feits his throne for some crime contrary to religion, and in which
his subjects are consequently freed from their oath of allegiance
to him. The advocates of this opinion insist, that the oath of
allegiance is not by its nature irrevocable, that a case may arise
in which it ought to be renounced or declared null ; and that,
even supposing it were irrevocable, cases may happen in which
fair doubts may arise about its validity, and in which it may be
necessary to have a decision which could tranquillize consciences.
They add, that it belongs to the Church and the pope, by virtue
of their spiritual authority, to decide these cases of conscience,
that is to say, to dissolve the oath of allegiance, or at least to
declare it dissolved. This they contend is the meaning of the
indirect power advocated by BellaiTuine, and by many other
theologians.'
This explanation, it must be admitted, comes very near that of
Fenelon, who reduces the power of the Church and of the pope
in the temporal order to a merely directive power.- StiU the
developments of these two opinions by their principal advocates
prove that they cannot be the same. For, first, most of the
advocates of the first opinion seem most unwilling to abandon the
opinion of Cardinal Bellarmine and of the authors who have
followed him ; tliey not only cite him confidently as the great
advocate of sound principles in this matter, but in the develop-
ment of their opinion, they manifestly attribute to the Church
and the pope a real power of jurisdiction in the temporal order ;
so that they in reality reassert the opinion which at times they
appeared willing to abandon.^ Secondly, the defenders of the
' This is the sense in which Cardinal du Perron maintains the indirect power
in the famous discourse which he pronounced in the chambers of the Tiers
Etat, during the States-General of 1614. (CEuvres du Card, du Perron,
p. 593, &c.) See, regarding this harangue, the Collection des Procfes- verbatix
des Assemblies du Clerg^, vol. ii. p. 173, &c. D'Avrigny, Memoires pour
I'Hist. Eccles. du xvii. siecle, vol. i. 27th Oct. 1614. For a fuller exposition
of the opinion of Card, du Perron, may also be consulted the works of
Eoncaglia, of Bianchi, and of Mamachi, cited above, p. 1, vol. ii. Lettres sur
les Quatre Articles de 16S2 (by Card. Litta^, letter ix. Muzzarelli, II buon
uso della Logica. Opuscul. 21, Greg. VII. part ii. p. 48 of the French
translation. Eohrbacher, Des Eapports directs entre les deux Puissances,
Paris, 1838 ; 2 vols. 8vo.
* See an exposition of this latter opinion, part ii. n. S, &c.
' See the authors cited in the first note of this page ; and especially
Mamachi, pp. 181, 185, 202.
CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE. 367
first opinion commonly maintain, that in a Catliolic nation, the
profession and maintenance of the Catholic religion are, by the
natiu'al law, an essential condition in the election of the sovereign,
and in the oath of allegiance taken to him by his subjects ;
wlience they infer, that the deposition of an heretical prince or
of an abettor of heresy, and a fortiori, of an infidel prince,
follows from the natural law itself ; and that the Church or the
pope can, in that ease, declare subjects absolved from the oath of
allegiance. Agreeably to these principles, they maintain with
St. Thomas, and with Cardinal Bellarmine,i that the Church and
the pope could have declared the pagan emperors of Rome, and
especially Julian, deposed from the empire, and their subjects
absolved from all obligation towards them, if such a declaration
had been consistent with prudence ; by the same principle they
explain the conduct of Popes Gregory III., Stephen II., and
Leo III. in detachmg from the empire of the East many provinces
of Italy, after the emperors of Constantinople had become heretics
or abettors of heresy .^ Penelon and the advocates of the direc-
tive power are very far from admitting these consequences, or the
principles from which they follow. They regard the stipulation of
professing Catholicity, made in the election of the sovereigns of
the middle ages, not as a point of natural law, but of human
positive law, forming part of the constitution of the Catholic
states of Eui'ope. This is manifestly Fenelon's opinion in his
"Dissertation on the authority of the Pope." ^ His doctrine is
still more expressly developed in the " Essay on Civil Govern-
ment," composed by the Chevalier de Eamsay, according to the *•
principles of the archbishop of Cambray. In that work, nothing
is more earnestly and frequently incidcated, than the obligation
of loyalty even to the most wicked princes, and of respecting in
them the authority of God. The author goes so far as to stig-
matize as false devotees, those who dare to make religion the pre-
text of revolt. "Our object is not,"^ he says, "to justify the
inhupian and barbarous conduct of sovereigns who trample on
' S. Thomas, 2. 2. qusest. 12, art. ii. ad primura. Bellarmine, ubi supra,
cap. vii. tertia ratio.
* Bianchi, Delia Potesta e della Politia della Chiesa, torn. i. lib. iii. § 8.
Mamachi, Origines et Antiqiiit. Christ, torn. iv. p. 202. Muzzarelli, Greg. VII.
p. 61, &c. Rohrbacher, Des Rapports entre les deux Puissances, torn. i.
ch. xi. xii. xvii. xix. xxi. &c.
^ See the exposition already given of Fenelon's opinion (part ii, n. 8, &c.).
^ Essai sur le Gouv. Civil, ch. x. p. 376.
368 CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE.
the people, and crush them with exorbitant taxes. I only assert
that, if their excesses cannot be checked by legitimate means,
compatible with order and subordination, they must be borne in
patience. Notliing is more hideous than tyranny, when one
thinks of the tyrant only ; but this deformity disappears, when
we regard that supreme providence which uses passing disorders
as a means of accomplishing its eternal order. It would be,
therefore, revolting against God himself, to revolt against the
powers which He has established, even when they abuse their
authority. This reflection naturally brings us to consider whether
religion can be a ground for revolt. The false devotees of all
religions and of all sects unanimously cry out, ' religio sancta,
summum jus' (the true religion, the supreme law). This opinion
is founded on a false notion of religion." In another passage,
the author labours to prove, that even in the case in which the
prince would order anj-thing against the divine or the natural law,
he never can be opposed by active resistance, by revolting against
hi 111 ; but only by passive resistance, which consists simply in not
doing what he orders. " These," he adds, " are the sentiments
of all the great men of the old and of the new law ; this is the ,
doctrine of tlie prophets and apostles ; this, in fine, was the
conduct of all the heroes of Christianity during the first centuries.
For seven hundred years after Jesus Christ, we do not find a single
instance of revolt against the emperors on the grounds of religion." ^
These explanations show the essential dillerence that exists
between the directive power, admitted by Fenelon, and the
indirect power, in the sense explained by the Ultramontane theo-
logians in modern times.^ Still we are inclined to believe, that
many of them would have willingly adopted Fenelon's opinion
had they known it ; '^ tliat there is a marked tendency among
foreign theologians to admit it ; "* finally, that the defenders of the
direct or indirect power, were mainly drawn to that opinion by
the difficulty of otherwise accovmting for or vindicating the con-
duct of the popes of the middle ages to sovereigns.'^ If our
' Essai sur le Gouv. Civil, ch. xviii. p. 464.
' This may serve to explain all that we have said on the same subject in
I'Hist. Litt. de Fenelon, part iv. n. 79, &c.
^ Card. Litta especially, seems to lean to that opinion in his letter already
cited.
* The reception given to the first edition of this Inquiry in foreign coun-
tries, and even in Rome, as well as in France, seems to justify this conjecture.
* Cardinal Bellarmine in particular appears to have been driven to the theory
CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE. S69
conjectures on thia subject are well grounded, may we not very
fairly hope, tliat in proportion as Fenelon's opinion becomes
known, it will supplant altogether the old theory of the direct or
indirect power ?
The conduct and language of the Holv See in later times
seem to give some countenance to those conjectures. Many
official documents of unquestionable authenticity show clearly
how far the Holy See at present is from maintaining this direct
or indirect power. Moreover, on the distinction between the two
powers, and on the independence gf princes in the temporal
order, the Holy See openly professes principles which it is exceed-
ingly difficult to reconcile with the theological theory of the
direct or indirect power. In confirmation of this assertion, the
reader is referred especially to several Briefs of Pius YI, relating
to the French Eevolution ; ^ the letter of Cardinal Antonelli, prefect
of the Propaganda, to the archbishops of Ireland, June 23rd,
1791; 2 Encyclical Letter of Pope Gregory XVI. to all the
patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops, August loth, 1832 ; ^
Statement of law and of fact in answer to the Declaration of the
Prussian Government, December 31st, 1838 ; "* in fine. Allocution
of Pope Gregory XYI. pronounced in a recent consistory, July 8th,
1839.* An attentixe perusal of these documents must, we think,
satisfy the reader that the Holy See, far from favouring, at the
present day, the theological opinion of the direct or indirect
power, embraces readily such opportunities as present themselves
of showing the slight importance it attaches to that opinion, and
of openly professing principles which subvert, or at least, are not
easily reconciled with it. Hence many judicious writers have
thought themselves justified in inferring from the difierent docu-
ments just cited, that the theological theory of the direct or
of the indirect power, by the desire of vindicating the popes and clergy of the
middle ages against the attacks of Protestants, and of the more ancient here-
tics, who went so far as to pretend that the pope had no authority, by di\-ine
right, over secular princes, and that neither the pope nor the bishops could
lawfully acquire any temporal dominion. By advocating the indirect power,
the learned cardinal believed that he struck the middle and proper course,
between the excesses of heresy and the opinion of the direct power, which he
considered to be manifestly extravagant. See Bellarmine, ubi supra, ch. 1.
' Brefs de Pie VI. ; Paris edit. 1798, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 121, 131, 271, &c.
* This letter is published in the Ami de la Religion, vol. xviii. p. 198, &c.
' Ibid. vol. Ixxiii. pp. 209, 241, &c.
* Ibid. vol. ci. p. 193, &c.
* Ibid. vol. cii. p. 14.5, &c.
VOL. II. 2 B
370 CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE,
indirect power is, at present, "obsolete even among the Ultramon-
tanes." »
It is true, a writer of our own times has charged the court of
Home, and especially Pius VII., with a secret attachment to that
opinion, so as even to make it the basis of the secret instructions,
given in the years ISOi and 1805, to Delia Genga (afterwards
Leo XII.), who was then sent as niuicio extraordinary to the
Diet at Eatisbon, to negotiate an arrangement between Austria
and the Holy See.^
But independently of the fact that the testimony of this
author is manifestly liable to suspicion, in consequence of the
violent and embittered hatred which he evinces against the Holy
See in the whole course of his work,' we must also observe that
he cites not a single document nor testimony worthy of credit to
substantiate his charge. He neither names the author of the docu-
ments which he cites, nor tells where they can be found, that their
authenticity may be tested. They have accordingly been rejected
by judicious critics, and especially by M. Picot, who has repeatedly
given his opinion of them in the Ami de la Religion."* All these
objections are confirmed by a brief of August 30, ISOG, addressed
to Cardinal Caprara, in which the pope expressly disavows " cer-
tain letters which Napoleon asserted had been sent to him from
' See the authors cited above, vol. ii. p. 4, note2. Also the Pieces Justificatives
of M. Affr6's (afterwards archbishop of Paris) work, Essai Hist, sur la Supr6-
matie Temporelle de I'Eglise et du Pape, p. 504, &c.
* Daunou, Essai Hist, sur la Puiss. Temp, des Papes, edit, of 1818, vol. ii.
pp. 318-321. This charge has since been repeated confidently on the sole
authority of Daunou, by some writers whose notorious prejudices against the Holy
See naturally inclined them to adopt and publish any stories, however injurious
to its authority (see Ami de la Religion, vol. xviii. p. 200). Gregory, Taba-
raud, Silery, and other writers of the same party, seized with avidity so fine a
text for declamation. It also appears in an anonymous work, published in
1821, with the title, Origine, Progrfes, et Limites de la Puissance des Papes
(8vo. p. 229). This work, like that of Daunou' s, bears the stamp of a violent
hatred of the Holy See ; and the similarity between the two works affords
grounds for suspecting that they came from the same pen. However that may
be, Daunou's diatribes have lately been re-echoed by the Protestant consistory
of the Walloon Church, at Leewarden in Holland. (See the Ami de la Keligioa
on this subject, vol. ex. pp. 251, 298, 426.)
For the object and history of Delia Genga's mission to the Diet of Ratisbon,
in 1804, see Mem. pour servir Ji I'Hist. Eccles. du xviii. Sifecle, by M. Picot,
vol. iii. p. 441, &c. ; Henrion, Hist, de I'Eglise, vol. xii. pp. 296, 315 ;
Artaud, Hist, de Pie VII. vol. i. ch. xxxi. ; vol. ii. ch. v. p. 53, 8vo. edit. ;
Hist, de L^on XII. vol. i. ch. i. p. 8, &c. ; L'Ami de la Religion, vol. v.
p. 254, &c.
^ See the review of this work in the Ami de la Religion, vol. xxviii. pp. 1,
193, 369. See also a notice on the author, vol. cv. p. 602, and vol. ex. p. 33.
* L'Ami de la Religion, vol. xviii. p. 196 ; xix. p. 357 ; xxi. p. 116.
CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE. 371
Vienna, and in which his imperial majesty had been treated with
no great respect. We repeat," the pope writes, "that we had
abeady ordered our secretary of state to inform you, the
moment we heard the matter spoken of, that the whole statement
is false ; we tell you so sincerely, and without the least fear of
being belied. As his majesty has the originals in his possession,
he can comdct us whenever he pleases. That any person of any
rank whatsoever should have written things so imprudent, so
false, and so reprehensible, is a matter we absolutely know nothing
of, and for which we cannot be responsible. This we do assert
confidently, that these letters came neither from us, nor from
our ministry ; if such were the fact, it would be the only charge
that could be made against us." ^
Though these observations are more than sufficient to show
how little credit those clandestine documents are entitled to, we
could still cite in support of our observations the testimony of
M. Artaud de Montor, than whom none was better qualified to
judge the credit due to these pieces,- He unhesitatingly pro-
nounces them unworthy of any credit, and as having been
fabricated, or at least falsified, by private persons without any
authority. He adds, that the well-known character of Pope
Pius YII., of Cardinal Consalvi, of Delia G-enga, and of all the
agents of the pontifical government at that period, excludes the
possibility of attributing to them the secret instructions cited
by M. Daunou. Supposing that these pretended instructions
were not fabricated by some enemy of the Holy See, they are
probably the work of some enthusiast, who may have been in
correspondence with Delia G-enga, but for whose opinions or pre-
tensions neither the pope nor the principal agents of his govern-
ment can be accountable. M. Artaud, who was intimately
acquainted with the state of things, asserts that there was at
Rome a rather numerous party of these over-confident persons, as
' L'Ami de la Religion, vol. xxi. p. 116.
• M. Artaud de Montor was sent to Eome by the French government as
secretary of legation, at first in 1801, during the negotiations about the
Concordat, and again in 1804, after the death of M. Gandolphe, who had
succeeded Chateaubriand in that place only a few months before. In the
History of Pius VII. (vol. i. ch. xxxi. vol. ii. ch. v.), and in that of Leo XII.
(vol. i. ch. i.), may be seen the details given by M. Artaud, on the deplorable
state of the churches in Germany in the commencement of the nineteenth
century, and on the extraordinary mission given by Pius VII. to Delia Genga
(afterwards Leo XII.) to effect an arrangement on that subject with the Court
of Austria.
2 B 2
372 CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE.
there always are in times of crisis, to the no slight embarrassment
of governments. Indignant at the ambitious pretensions of Bona-
parte, and the vexations which he was beginning to cause to the
Holy See, these ardent men wished that Pius VII. should use
against this new persecutor of the Church measures similar to
those which popes Gregory YII., Innocent IV., and some other
popes, had formerly used against princes guilty of similar excesses.
It is manifest that Delia Genga might be in correspondence with
some individuals of this class, without in any manner approving
their extravagant opinions.
IX.— Pages 7, 251, 309, 313.
Works to he consulted on the Controversies relating to the Sights
of Elizabeth to the crown of England, and of the king of
Navan'e {aflericards Henry IV.) to the crown of France.
1, On the first of these subjects the following are the principal
works to be consulted : —
Allen, Ad Persecutores Anglos pro Catholicis, vera, siiicera et
modcsta Respousio, 1584, 8vo. cap. iv. v. pp. 112, 143, &c., of the
Latin edition. The same, Exhortatio ad nobiles et populum
Anglise, 1588. Doleman, Conference on the next succession to
the crown of England, 1593, 8vo. part ii. cap. vii. p. 116. On
those works consult Lingard, History of England, vol. vi. p. 571.
2. On the controversy relating to the rights of the king of
Navarre (Henry IV.) to the crown of Prance, see the following
works : —
De justa Reipublicse Christianae in reges impios et hrereticos
auctoritate. Parisiis, 1590, 8vo. cap. ii. vii. viii. The first edition
of this work is anonymous ; the second, published at Antwerp,
1592, is in the name of William Rose, bishop of Senlis, to whom
the work is commonly attributed. Jean Boucher, De justa
Henrici III. abdicatione e Francorum regno, Parisiis, 1589,
8vo. ; Lugduni, 1591, 8vo. lib. i. cap. xxiii. ; lib. ii. cap. xv.
&c. Reponse des vrais Catholiques Fran9ais ii I'avertisscment
des Catholiques Ajiglais, pour I'exclusion du roi de Xavarre de la
covu-oime de France (by Louis d' Orleans, advocate of the parlia-
ment of Paris), 1588, 8vo. part iv. p. 147, &c., 528, &c.
These works, the object and occasion of which we have already
explained (supra, cap. iii. n. 289, 292), are the most important
that appeared at the time against the rights of Elizabeth to the
CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE. 373
croAvn of England, and against those of the king of Navarre
(Henry IV.) to the crowu of France. All of them cite against
these sovereigns the old legislation ot the Catholic states of
Europe, especially of France and England, which excluded heretics
from the throne. There is in other respects a great difference of
principles in these two works. Besides human positive law, the
English authors also appeal to the divine right, but only in the
sense of those theologians who attribute to the pope an indirect
jurisdiction over temporalities. The French authors, especially
William Rose and John Boucher, go much farther, adding to that
theological opinion tbe most dangerous principles on the pre-
tended right whicb society', they said, -essentially possessed of
deposing and even killing tyrants. It is amazing with what con-
fidence and audacity these two authors, and especially the second,
advocate so terrible a doctrine, and what conclusions they deduce
from it, so as to justify even a private person to slay a notoriously
heretical or excommunicated prince. Anquetil, in his Esprit
de la Ligue (vol. ii. p. 30), comments, no doubt, on these very
grave errors ; still he seems to pass too high a compliment to
Hose's work, by representing it as being, in the polemical order,
the work of a man of genius. He ought, at least, to have added,
of a turbulent and revolutionary genius, a character always cen-
surable in the eyes of wise men, but especially unbecoming a
bishop, who is bound by his state to resist and to moderate those
violent passions which tend to the subversion of society. Never-
theless, how dangerous soever may seem the principles advocated
at this period by this author, and by many other Catholics, our
astonishment must subside considerably when we remember that
the Protestants, against whom these books were principally
written, admitted on tliis matter principles still more dangerous,
by abandoning to the caprice of the people the judgment on the
case of deposition, which Catholic authors reserved to the Church
and the pope. William Eose (ubi supra, cap. x.) carefully notes
this essential difference between his principles and those of his
adversaries. The doctrine of Protestants on this subject is care-
fully stated and discussed by Bossuet. See Cinquieme Aver-
tissement aux Protestants, and La Defense de I'Histoire des
Variations (ffiuvres de Bossuet, vol. xxi.).
In his explanation of the bull by which Adrian IV. granted
Ireland to Henry II., our author assumes that Peter pence were
paid by Ireland before the English invasion, and that they were
the sole title specified in that bull to the temporal power of the
pope over Ireland.
Peter pence were not paid by Ireland before the invasion, nor,
though they were expressly promised by the invaders, does it
appear that they were ever paid after it.
The title which the pope does assign in the bull to his temporal
power over Ireland, was one which Henry II. himself admitted,
and which is clearly no other than the supposed donation of Con-
stantine. That donation was believed to be authentic by many
writers of the day, and especially by the ambassador who obtained
from the pope the grant of Ireland for Henry II.
It is very difficult to explain satisfactorily Adrian's bull by any
of the principles developed by our author in this work. Some
information on the subject may be seen in the notes to the second
volume of Camh'ensis Evers^is, printed for the Celtic Society.
One thing is certain, that Adrian's bull had much less influence
on the first settlement of the English in Ireland than is commonly
supposed.
INDEX.
1 . The Roman figures occurring occasionally in this Index refer to the Preface ; the
Arabian to the body of the work. The volumes are indicated by i. and ii.
2. The passages to which reference is given are not always in the text ; they are some-
times in the notes of the pages referred to.
3. Some articles in the Index being rather long, we have, in order to faciUtate reference,
divided them into different paragraphs, according to the nature of the subject.
4. To avoid useless repetition of the details of the Index of Chapters, prefixed to these
volumes, we sometimes refer to it in this Alphabetical Index. (See especially the article
" Pope.") In a great number of other articles the reader can easily supply this reference.
ABLAVIUS, governor of Africa. (See Constantine.)
ADORATION given to Charlemagne, in the ceremony of his coronation, by
Pope Leo III. i. 235, 236, 275. The pope did not then recognise the
sovereignty of Charlemagne in Rome, i. 267.
ADRIAN I., Pope, regards himself as sovereign of Rome, and of the Ex-
archate, i. 230. He implores the aid of Charlemagne against the emperor
of Constantinople, ib. He implores the same protection against the
Lombards, i. 232. The inhabitants of Spoletto and Rieti give themselves
to the Holy See under his pontificate, i. 233. He demands from the em-
peror of Constantinople restitution of the patrimonies of the Holy See, which
lay in Greece and the East, i. 234. He never cited as authentic Constan-
tino's donation, i. 322.
ADRIAN II., Pope, his political conduct condemned v?ithout reason by some
modem authors, ii. 40, 135, note. He promises the empire to Charles the
Bald, ii. 135, 163, 282.
ADRIAN IV., Pope. His contest with the emperor Frederick II. regarding
the dependence of the empire on the Holy See, ii. 170. Is it a fact that he
assumed to grant Ireland to Henry II. king of England ? ii. 219.
AIGNAN, St., bishop of Orleans, saves his episcopal city by mediating with
Attila, i. 39.
ALARIC II., king of the Visigoths, publishes in his states an epitome of the
Roman laws, i. 87. This code received commonly in the West under the
title of the Roman Law and the Theodosian Code, ib. It contains all the
provisions of the Roman law against heretics, ib.
ALBIGENSES. Laws published against these heretics by the third and
fourth Councils of Lateran, ii. 96. Confirmation of these laws by the autho-
rity of Frederick II. and of St. Louis, ii. 101.
ALEXANDER III., Pope, excommunicates and deposes the emperor Fre-
derick Barbarossa, ii. 114, 131. {See Frederick Barbarossa, and John of
Salisbury.)
ALEXANDER VI., Pope. Examination of his bull. Inter ccetera, which
divided between the kings of Spain and Portugal some newly-discovered
countries, ii. 241. This bull does not imply the theological opinion of the
direct power of the Church over temporals, ii. 242. Injustice of the cen-
376 INDEX.
Bures passed on the Church for this and similar decrees, ii. 243. This decree
explained and vindicated by Grotius, ii. 240, note. Maltebrun's inconsis-
tency in his explanation of tiiis decree, ib.
ALEXANDER, Natalis, doctor of the Sorbonne. His mistake on the Letters
of Gregory VII. to Herman on the excommunication of the king of Ger-
m.any (Henry IV.), ii. 107, note. Another mistake on the letter of Gre-
gory VII. concerning Kodolph's election, ii. 113, note.
ALEXANDRIA, Church of. Constantine's liberality to this church, i. 97.
Its wealth and revenues in the seventh century, i. 114. {See John the Al-
moner.) Temporal power of the patriarch of Alexandria from the fourth
century, i. 171. {See Patriarchs.)
ALLEGORY of the two swords. {See Swords.)
ALTAR OF VICTORY, removed from the senate by order of Constantius,
i. 55, 56. Restored by Julian, i. 55. Again removed by Gratian, ib.
Petition of Symmachus for restoration of that altar, i. 55-57. This petition
opjiosed by St. Ambrose, ib. The emperors Valentinian II. and Gratian
paid no regard to that petition, ib. Their firmness on that point imitated
by Theodosius, i. 59.
AMBROSE, St., chosen by the empress Justina to negotiate with the tyrant
Maximin the affairs of the empire, i. 38. Opposes the petition of Symma-
chus for the restoration of tlie altar of Victory, i. 56, 57. Asserts as a
notorious fact, that the majority of the Roman senate was Christian at that
time, i. 56, note. Error of M. Beugnot on this point, ib. St. Ambrose
blames the conduct of Valentinian I. towards the clergj', i. 107, note. His
doctrine on the obligatifm of paying taxes levied on church lands, i. 139, 140.
Unjustly accused of avarice by Beugnot, i. 128, note.
AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS, a pagan author of the fourth century,
unjustly accuses the pope of luxur}- and secular pomp, i. 128, 129.
ANASTASIUS, Emperor, is threatened with the forfeiture of the empire, in
consequence of the protection which he gave to the Eutychians, i. 172, 173,
&c. 185.
ANASTASIUS the Librarian. Different editions of his Lives of the Popes,
i. 97. Details given by him of Constantine's liberality to the Roman
Church, i. 97, 102. Credit due to his narrative on that point, i. 102, text
and note. Account of the revolution in Italy under the pontificate of
Gregory II. i. 198. This account confirmed by Paulus Diaconus, i. 204.
{See Gregory II.)
ANCILLON, a Protestant author, acknowledges the great benefits which
society derived from the temporal power of the popes in the middle ages,
ii. 353.
ANGLO-SAXONS. {See England.)
ANSELM, St., Archbishop of Canterbury. Character given by him of the
king of Germany (Henry IV.), ii. 45.
APOSTATES. Provisions of the Roman law regarding them, i. 77. These
provisions adapted substantially in the legislation of all the Christian states
of the middle ages, ii. 68.
ARAGON, kingdom of, formerly considered a fief of the Holy See, ii. 151.
Pope Martin IV. grants that kingdom to Philip the Bold, ib.
ARAGON, Nicolas Roselli, Cardinal of. {See Roselli.)
ARIANS. Protected by Constantine, Constantius, and some other emperors,
i. 88, 89.
ARISTOTLE. His principles on the union of religion and the state, i. 3, 4.
ARLES, second Council of. Its enactments on the temporal effects of public
penance, ii. 71, 72.
ARNOBIUS demonstrates against the pagans the divine origin of the Christian
religion by the fact alone of its establishment, i. 44.
INDEX. 377
ARNOUL, Emperor, crowned by Pope Formosus in 896, ii. 93, note, 281.
The Romans swear fidelity to him, ib.
ARNOUL, bishop of Lisieux, in the twelfth century, supposes the special
rights of the pope over the German empire as a point of constitutional law
universally admitted, ii. 155.
ARTAUD DE MONTOR, M. le chevalier, secretary of the legation to Rome
under Pius VII. ii. 371, note. Interesting details in his History of Pius VII.
of some interviews of the abbe Emery with the emperor Napoleon, i. 235,
299, 300. He denounces as not authentic the pretended secret instructions
addressed by Pius VII. to his nuncio at Vienna, in 1805.
ASYLUM. "Wliat was the right of asylum, i. 143. Origin of this right,
i. 143. Maintained by the Christian emperors, but with wise restrictions,
i. 144. Zeal of the clergy for the maintenance of this right, i, 145.
Advantages of this right when restricted mthin due limits, i. 147. Wise
conduct of the Church in this regard, i. 148.
ASSEMBLIES, MIXED. {See Councils.)
ASTOLPHUS, king of the Lombards, besieges Rome under the pontificate of
Stephen II. i. 218. {See Stephen II.) Obliged by Pepin to raise the siege,
and to restore to the Roman Church the cities and territories which he had
taken from it, i. 220. Astolphus besieges Rome a second time, i. 221.
Pepin compels him to raise the siege, and imposes on him more rigorous
terms, i. 224. Compelled to ratify Pepin's donation to the Roman Church.
{See Pepin's donation.)
ATHENIANS, their respect for religion, i. 10. {See Religion.)
AUGUSTUS, Emperor, revives the old Roman laws against foreign religions,
i. 24.
AUGUSTINE, St., establishes in the West purely ecclesiastical communities,
i. 36. Propagation and services of that institution, ih. His principles
on the liberality of the faithful to the Church, i. 110, 112. On the modera-
tion which human justice ought to observe in the punishment of criminals,
i. 146, 149. On the right which people have, in certain cases, of transfer-
ring their allegiance to a new sovereign, i. 214.
BALE, Council of. Its decrees in temporal matters authorized by the consent
of princes, ii. 243.
BARCELONA, Councils of. Laws of the first Council of Barcelona (in 540)
on the temporal effects of pul>lic penance, ii. 72 ; and of the second council
(in 540) on the .same subject, ih.
BARONIUS, Cardinal. Incorrect assertion relating to ecclesiastical immunities
under the Christian emperors, i. 139, 141. This assertion severely criticised
by Bingham, ib. note.
BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE. Its origin, i. 98, note. Ornaments by
which it was enriched by Constantine, i. 98.
BECANCELDE, Council of, in England, ad. 694. Its doctrine on the dis-
tinction of the two powers, ii. 93.
BELLARMIN, Cardinal, exaggerates the severity of the Roman law
against heretics, i. 70, note. His opinion on the origin of ecclesiastical
immunities, i. 142. He appears to be the author, or at least the principal
advocate, of the theory of the indirect power of the Church over temporali-
ties, ii. 3, note, 363, 370. {See Powers.) His treatise De Romano Pontitice,
put on the Index by Sixtus V., but taken off by Urban VII. ii. 363, note.
BELUS. Riches of his temple in Babylon, i. 313.
BENEVENTUM, duchy of. The inhabitants of this duchy express a wish,
through the mediation of Pope Stephen II., to place themselves under the
protection of the king of France, i. 234, note. How Charlemagne could
dispose of that duchy before he had conquered it, i. 233.
378 INDEX.
BERNADOTTE, marshal of Fiance, afterwards king of Sweden. {Su
Sweden.)
BERNARD, St. His doctrine on the power of the Church in the temporal
order, ii. 212. Bossuet and Fleury interpret him in the moderate sense of
the directive power, ii. 234, 235. Sense in which lie applies the allegory of
the two swords, ii. 212. Erroneously supposed by Bossuet to have been the
first that used that allegory, ii. 216, note. In what sense he attributes to
popes the right of disposing of kingdoms and of empires, ii. 214, &c.
BERNARDI, academician. How he explains the origin and progress of the
temporal power of the clergy in tiie middle ages, ii. QQ.
BERNRIED, Paul, an author contemporary with Gregory VII., supposes
as a point of constitutional law universally admitted, the pope's right of
deposing kings in certcain cases, ii. 154. Also supposes that an emperor
remaining obstinately under excommunication during an entire year, incurred
the penalty of deposition, ii. 109, note,
BERTHIER, Pere, Jesuit. His opinion on the great advantages of the tem-
poral power of the clergy in France, under the second and third race of
kings, ii. 149,
BESANT of gold. {See Coins,)
BEUGNOT, M., author of the Histoire de la Destruction du Paganisme en
Occident. Spirit of his work, i. 305, 306. Assertions hazarded by him on
the sovereign pontitfghip of the Christian emperors, i. 23, note. (See
Roman Emperors, Sovereign Pontiff.) Injustice of his censures on Eusebius
with regard to a law of Constantine aqainst idolatry, i. 305. His errors on
the state of Christianity in the empire under Constantine and his successors,
i. 46, 56, notes. Erroneously asserts that at the time of the petition of Sym-
raachus the majority of the senate were still pagan, i. 57, note. (See Ambrose,)
Unjustly charges the clergy of the fourth century, and especially St, Am-
brose, with avarice, i. 128, note.
BINGHAM, English author of a work entitled, Origines et Antiquitates Eccle-
siasticae. Controverts without solid reason Anastasius's account of Con-
stantine's liberality to the Roman Church, i. 102, note. Carefully discusses
the question of ecclesiastical immunities under the Christian emperors, i. 132,
note. Censures severely an error of Baronius on this matter, i. 134,
141, note.
BISHOPS. Origin of their prerogatives, and of their temporal power, under
the Christian emperors. (See Clergy, Religion.) How they were chosen
during the first centuries, i. 31. Their eminent virtues, i. 30. Their pa-
ternal government, i. 31. Their spirit of poverty, i. 32. Their devotion to
the service of the Church, i. 33. Often chosen from the monastic state after
Constantine's conversion, i. 35. Many retained in the episcopacy the
observances of the monastic life, i. 36, Their influence often useful to the
cities and provinces attacked by the barbarians, i. 39. At first mere arbi-
trators of differences during the persecution, i. 150. Reasons for retaining
that arbitration under the Christian emperors, i. 151, Extent of their juris-
diction in temporal matters under Constantine and his successors, i. 135,
149. (See Jurisdiction, ecclesiastical.) They afterwards became judges in
the strict sense, i. 153, 154, Increase of trouble brought on them by this
jurisdiction, i. 160. Their influence in the civil administration, i. 162 ; ii.
65. In what sense the prince is styled bishop exterior, i. 67. (See Powers.)
BLASPHEISIY, Origin of the temporal penalties inflicted on it by the laws
of all Christian states in the middle ages, ii. 68.
BONIFACE VIII., Pope. Examination of his bull TJnam Sanctam, ii. 232-3.
The strongest expressions in that buU borrowed from St. Bernard and Hugo
de Sancto Victore, ii. 234. (See these two names.) Remarkable conclusion
of this bull, ii. 235, 261. Moderate sense in which it is explained by Boni-
face himself, ii. 234. His doctrine not favourable to the theological theory
INDEX. 379
of the right divine of the Church over temporals, ii. 235. Why it was at
first explained in a sense favourable to that system, ii. 235 — 237- That bull
not revoked by Pope Clement V. ii. 237.
BOSSUET. His principles on the union of Church and state, i. 18, note.
Divine power manifested in the establishment and conservation of Chris-
tianity, i. 47, 89, 90. Admires the divine providence which established the
temporal sovereignty of the Holy See, i. 300. Justifies the revolution that
occurred in Italy under Gregory VII. and his successors, i. 215. {See
Gregory II., and Publicists.) Seems not to have carefully examined the
questions relating to the origin of the temporal sovereignty of the Holy See,
i. 245, note. Supposes without any proof that Charlemagne was sovereign
of Rome by right of conquest, i. 254, note. Justly regarded as the prin-
cipal defender of Galilean maxims, ii. 5. Considers the system of the
sovereignty of the people, maintained by Protestants, as more dangerous than
that of the Ultramontanes, ii. 332. Why he sometimes censures so severely
the conduct of popes in his Defence of the Declaration, ii. 300, 357.
Admits substantially the directive power of the Church in the temporal
order, ii. 181. Does not reject the opinion which explains the conduct of
the popes of the middle ages to sovereigns by the then existing constitu-
tional laws, ii. 8. Expressly acknowledges the rights of sovereignty of the
Holy See over many states, ii. 299. Does not deny that the pope had some
similar right over the Roman-German empire, ib. Admits the general
belief of the middle ages on the temporal effects of excommunication in the
case of sovereigns, ii. 133. Appears, however, not very consistent in this
matter, ii. 114. Appears not to have caught the real meaning of the letters
of Gregory VII. to Herman, on the excommunication of the king of
Germany (Henry IV.), ii. 107, note. Falsely supposes that many sovereigns,
who were excommunicated and deposed by the popes, lost none of their
authority, ii. 128-129, 134. Admits the concurrence of sovereigns in
establishing the temporal effects of excommunication in the middle ages,
ii. 83. Explains by that principle the temporal penalties enacted against
heretics by the third and fourth Councils of Lateran, ii. 133, 144, 166.
Considers as unquestionable the great influence allowed by sovereigns to
popes in the political affairs of Europe during the Crusades, ii. 61. His
account of the origin and progress of the temporal power of the clergy in
the middle ages, ii. 64. His opinion on the contest between Heniy II. king
of England, and St. Thomas of Canterbury, ii. 118. Falsely supposes that
the allegory of the two swords was first used by St. Bernard, ii. 216. (See
Swords.) His embarrassed language regarding the oath of allegiance,
ii. 253, note. {See Oath of Allegiance.)
BRUNEHAUT, queen of France. Privileges gi-anted by St. Gregory the
Great to the monasteries and hospital of Autun, at the request of this queen
and of Theodoric her grandson, ii. 141. {See St. Gregory the Great.)
BULLS of Popes. {See Alexander VI., Boniface VIIL, Paul III., Pius V.,
Sixtus V.)
BURKE, Edmund, English statesman of the last century, understood the
true relation of popes to other sovereigns, ii. 39.
BURSE, Follis. Different meanings of this word under Constantine and his
successors, i. 97, note.
CiESAR, Julius. As high pontiff reforms the calendar, i. 20.
CALCUTH, Council of, in England, a.d. 787, a mixed assembly, ii. 38.
Its provisions regarding the election of a king, ib. Its doctrine on the
distinction between the two powers, ii. 190.
CALVIN, His principles and those of the first reformers on the incom-
patibility of the temporal with the spiritual power in the person of ministers
of the Gospel, i, 285, ii. 294, notes. {See Protestants.)
CAPITULARIES of the French kings. First promulgated by the authority
380 INDEX.
of the two powers, ii. 33, 77, 189. They proclaim the principles of Gelasius
and of all anticjuity on the distinction and reci[)rocal independence of the
two powers, i. 183, ii. 188, text and notes. Strict union esfciblished by
them between the Church and the state, ii. 33, 145, note. Their enactments
on the temporal effects of public penance, ii. 75. And on the temporal
effects on excommunication, ii. 85.
CAPITULATION, Imperial. Meaning of the word, ii. 32, ii. 308. Obliga-
tions of those conventions, ib. 309. {See Conditions, and Charles V.)
CAPTIVES. Beneficent influence of Christianity on the fate of captives, i. 122.
CENTENARY OF GOLD. {See Coins, Weights.)
CEREMONIES, Egyptian and Jewish. Proscribed by Augustus and Tiberius,
i. 23, 24. {See Religion.)
CHARLEMAGNE. Pope Adrian I. implores his aid against the Lombards,
i. 232. Accedes to that request, ib. Subverts the kingdom of the Lom-
bards, ib. Confirms and increases Pepin's donation, ib. (See Charlemagne's
Donation.) Pope Leo III. implores his protection against a conspiracy,
i. 236. Receives the imperial crown from Pope Leo III. ib. {See
Leo III.) Charlemagne accused of dissimulation in this matter by some
modem authors, i. 237, note. Elucidation of some points relating to hia
coronation, i. 327. Extent and boundaries of his empire, i. 240, note.
His titles of emixror and patrician did not confer on him the sovereignty of
Rome, i. 255, &c. 260, 272. {See Patrician, Emperor.) Not sovereign of
Rome by right of conquest, i. 254, ii. 277-8. Acquired his title of emperor
from the pope's nomination, ii. 276. His will drawn up, in 806, in the Diet
of Thiouville, i. 260, ii. 277. Inferences from that deed on the question of
the sovereignty of llome at that time, ib. Other inferences from the same
deed on the question of the pope's right to elect the emperor of the
West, ii. 297. Another will of Charlemagne's in 811, i. 278. It does not
imply his sovereignty over Rome, ib. Money coined at Rome in his reign,
i. 237, 282. Does not prove that he was sovereign of tliat city, i. 282. His
policy and that of his successors in the establishment of ecclesiastical
baronies, ii. 57. Associates his son Louis le D^bonnaire in the empire, with
the poi)e's consent, ii. 162, 283. His Capitularies. {Sec Capitularies.)
CHARLES OF ANJOU, brother of St. Louis, accepts the kingdom of
Sicily offered to him by the pope, ii. 151.
CHARLES THE BALD, Eniptror. Pope Adrian IT. promises the empire to
him, ii. 135, 163, 282. Crowned emperor by John VIII., and acknowledged
by the lords of Lombardy, ii. 163, 282. His petition to the Council of
Savoniferes, in 859, ii. 134, 146, 183.
CHARLES THE SIMPLE, king of France. Letter written to by Fulk
of Rheims, dissuading him from an alliance with the Normans, ii. 146, note.
CHARLES M ARTEL, called to the relief of Italy by Gregory III. i. 212.
{See Gregory III.)
CHARLES v., Emperor. Imperial capitulation which the electors required
him to sign at his election, ii. 32, 308. {See Capitulation, Conditions.)
CHILDEBERT II., king of France. His constitution annexing to excom-
munication the forfeiture of ci\-il rights, ii. 84.
CHILDERIC III. deposed and confined in a monastery, i. 292. (See Pepin
the Little, and Zachary.) Did he abdicate voluntarily ? i. 338.
CHRISTIANITY. {See Christian Religion.)
CHLTRCH. Its miraculous preservation, i. 88, 90. Nature and spirit of its
government, i. 31, 32, 34. Not democratic in the primitive ages : errors of
Mosheim and Guizot on this point, i. 31. Church alone can decide matters
in the spiritu.al order, i. 66, 68. Princes have no power in such matters,
except to confirm the laws of the Church, i. 61, 67. {Sec Powers.) Laws
of the Church confirmed by the edicts of the Christian emperors, i. 60.
INDEX. 381
Submission of the Church to laws least favourable to her immunities, i. 138.
Certain severe enactments of the Roman law against heretics never approved
by the Church, i. 75. Directive power of the Church and of the pope in
temporal matters, ii. 10, 180, 199. How it differs from the power of juris-
diction admitted by the advocates of the theological theory of the right
divine, ib. ; ii. 12. The directive power willingly admitted even by theo-
logians opposed to the right divine, ii. 12, 181. Neither councils nor popes
ever taught or supposed in their decrees the theological opinion of the divine
right, ii. 186, 218, 260. {See Powers.)
CHURCH, Roman. Its wealth during the persecutions, i. 95. Constantine's
liberalities to, i. 98. Increase of its wealth under the Christian emperors,
i. 115. Its patrimonies, ib. Its boundless munificence, i. 124, 179. {See
Patrimonies, Pope.)
CICERO. His principles on the union of religion and the state, i. 5. His
doubts on the immortality of the soul, i. 18.
CLEMENT v.. Pope. His contest with the emperor Henry VIT. on the
dependence of the empire on the pope, ii. 172. Never revoked the bull of
Boniface VIII., Unam Sanctam, ii. 237.
CLEMENT VI., Pope. Confirms the sentence of excommunication and de-
position issued by John XXII. against Louis of Bavaria, ii. 166.
CLEMENT VII., Pope, excommunicates Henry VIII. king of England,
ii. 247.
CLERGY. Their eminent virtues during the persecutions, i. 30. Respect
in which they were held by the faithful, and even by pagans, i. 37. Con-
tinued so after Constantine's conversion, ib. Remarkable admissions of
Julian the Apostate on this point, i. 38. Wealth and properties under the
Christian emperors, i. 96. {See Property, Church.) Temporal power of,
not incompatible with the character and functions of ministers of religion,
i. 284, 285, text and note. Origin of this power traced to the usage and
maxims of antiquity on the union of religion and the state, i. 28, 29, 176.
{See Religion.) Additional reasons for this power in the services rendered
to the state by the clergy, both before and after Constantine's conversion,
i, 28, 40, 179, ii. 64. Their immunities and jurisdiction in the temporal
order under the Christian emperors, i. 153. {See Immunities, Jurisdiction.)
Their influence in the civil administration, i. 162. Attributions of bishops
in general more extensive in the West under the monarchy of the Lombards,
i. 166. Bishops intrusted from that time with the defence of cities, i. 167.
Attributions of the patriarchs from the fourth century, ib. Influence
of the clergy in public affairs from the very nature of the governments of
the middle ages, ii. 33. That influence required at the time for the general
interests of society, ii. 46, 56, 64, &c. Tendency of modern governments
to restrict the power and influence of the clergy, ii. 363, text and notes.
CODE CAROLINE. Object of that collection ; its principal editions, i. 215,
note.
CODE JUSTINIAN. {See Law, Roman.)
CODE THEODOSIAN. {See Alaric II., and Law, Roman.)
COINS. Comparison of ancient with modem ; authors to be consulted on
that point, i. 309. Value of the denarius, the dragma, under the empire,
i. 97, 103. Value of the sestertius, i. 103. Value of the gold sou or besant,
i. 309. Value of the centenarium of gold, i. 315, 316. Coins minted at
Rome under Charlemagne, i. 237, 282 ; do not prove that he was sovereign
of that city, i. 283. The right of coining money enjoyed during the middle
ages by a great number of churches, abbeys, and of private lords, ib.
COMMUNITIES, Ecclesiastical. Their origin in the East and in the West,
i. 35. Their propagation in France and Spain from the fourth century,
i. 36. {See St. Augustine, and St. Eusebius of Vercelli.)
382 INDEX.
COMMOmVEALTHS or Republics of the middle ages, i. 258, note.
COMPIEGNE, Council of, in 883. Cause of Louis le D^bonnaire examined
in, ii, 77. Did not, strictly speaking, depose the emperor, ib. text and notes.
CONDITIONS made in the election of sovereigns in elective monarchies, ii. 9,
note, 16, Lawfulness of those conditions, ii. 31. Their effects, ib. Con-
ditions in the election of the kings of Spain in the seventh century, i. 87,
ii. 267. {See Oath of Catholicity.) Conditions in the election of kings of
France of the first race, i. 337. Conditions in the election of the emperors
of the West, ii. 154, 308. Tlie Catholic religion a condition in the election
of sovereigns in the middle ages, ii. 9, 16, 33, 265, 399. This condition
still required of the emperor in the sixteenth century, ii. 307. Inferences
from these conditions, as bearing on the deposition of sovereigns, i. 174,
ii. 265.
CONSTANCE, Council of. Its decrees on temporal matters sanctioned by
the consent of princes, ii. 243. Condemns the doctrine of tyrannicide,
ii. 255. (See Tyrannicide.)
CONSTANTIUS and CONSTANS, sons of Constantine, imitate his moderate
policy towards the pagans, i. 53. Prohibit idolatry, i. 54, 306. Constan-
tius removes the altar of Victory from the senate-house, i. 54. Hia laws
against the Jews, i. 74. Protects Arianism, i. 83.
CONSTANTINE the Great. Divides the provinces of the empire into four
prefectures, i. 41, note. Restricts the attributions of the praetorian prefect,
ib. Sincerity of his conversion to Christianity, i. 47. His first edicts in
favour of the Christian religion, i. 48. His constant policy in discrediting
idolatry, i. 50. His edicts against secret divination, i. 51. His moderate
conduct to the pagans, i. 52. Publishes about the close of his reign a law
ordering all the temples to be closed, and all exercise of idolatry to cease,
i. 52, 53, 305. Tolerates, nevertheless, the exercise of idolatry through the
whole course of his reign, i.51, 52,304, 305. Confirms the Council of Nice, i. 60.
In what sense styled exterior bishop, i. 67. Seduced by the Arians at the
close of his life, i. 88. Transfers to the Christian religion and to its ministers
the honours and prerogatives formerly enjoyed by the pagan religion, i, 27,
28, 105, text and notes. His letter to Ablavius, governor of Africa, on
his motives for protecting the Christian religion, i. 63. His letter to Anu-
linus on the same subject, i. 132. His laws in favour of the Christian
religion, i. 48, 61, 96, 106. His laws against the Jews, i. 74. He grants
some immunities to their head men, i. 76. His laws against heretics,
i. 77, 79. His liberality to the churches, i. 98. His liberality to the
Roman Church in particular, i. 101, 309. Sources of those liberalities,
i. 102. His laws in favour of manumission, i. 123. His principles on the
importance of ecclesiastical immunities, i. 152. Extent of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction during his reign, i. 153. Law directed to Ablavius on that
subject, i. 154. Is that law authentic ? ib. His pretended donation to
the Roman Church. {See Donation of Constantine.)
CONSTANTINE Copronymus on amicable relations with Pope Zachary,
i. 215. Gives new patrimonies to the Roman Church, i. 217.
CONSTANTINOPLE. Constantine absolutely prohibits idolatry in it, i. 50.
Its numerous hospitals under the Christian emperors, i. 121. Its special
immunities, i. 138.
CONSTITUTION of the governments of the middle ages. {See Government.)
CONSUL, CONSULATE. What was this dignity in the Greek empire,
i. 219, note. Meaning of the title as given to Clovis by the emperor Ana-
stasius, i. 330. Nature of the Consulate offered to Charles JIartel by Pope
Gregory III. i. 219, note.
CONTINENCE of Clergy. Discipline of the primitive Church on this point,
i. 32, 33.
CONTRIBUTIONS. (See Immunities.)
INDEX. 883
COQUEEEL, a Protestant author, admits the great benefits conferred on
society by the temporal power of the Church during the middle ages, ii. 354.
CORSICA, island of. How Charlemagne could dispose of, before he had
acquired it, i. 233.
COUNCILS, principles for explaining decrees of, in temporal matters under
Christian emperors, i. 158. Many councils in the middle ages were mixed
assemblies at once ecclesiastical and civil, ii. 33, 36, 37, 189, 193, text and
notes. They never taught nor supposed the theological theory of the
divine right on the temporal power of the Church, ii. 186. (.S'ee Power,
Church.) The four first general councils confirmed by the authority of the
emperors, i. 60. Enrolled by Justinian among the laws of the empire, ib.
Councils of Lateran, of Toledo, of Lyons, of Bale, of Constance, &c. (See
these words.)
CHIMES against religion, severely punished at all times by ancient nations,
i. 4, 6, 9, 12, 22. Motives for this severity, i. 1, 2, 62, 64. This severity
approved by the most eminent authors, ancient and modern, i. 4, 23, 64, 65,
■^6. Temporal penalties enacted by the Christian emperors against trans-
gressors of the laws of the Church, i. 62. Grounds of these edicts, i. 62, 66,
81, 84. Moderation to be observed in the application of penal laws on this
matter, i. 69, 70, 145. The severity of the Roman law on this point not
approved by the Church, i. 71. Reasons for that severity, i. 72, 73. Mo-
dified in practice, ib. Temporal penalties inflicted by ecclesiastical tribunals
under the Christian emperors, i. 159. The sanction of temporal penalties
added to divine and ecclesiastical laws by the ancient governments, the
necessary consequence of the union of the two powers, i. 43, 62 ; ii. 67.
{See Excommunication, Heresy, Powers, Religion.)
CRUSADES. Defence of, ii. 60, 61, note. They increase the influence of
the pope in the political aflairs of Europe, ii. 60, &c. 228, &c. Services
rendered to Europe by the popes during the Crusades, ii, 60, 67, 230, 353.
CYRIL, St., Patriarch of Alexandria. His temporal power, i. 168. Use
which he made of this power against heretics and Jews, i. 169. {See
Parabolains.)
DALMATIA, kingdom of A fief of the Holy See under Gregory VII.
ii. 65. Origin of this feudal dependence, ib. note.
DANIEL, Pfere, Jesuit. Sometimes adopts too readily the severe censures of
some modern authors against the conduct of the popes of the middle ages,
ii. 40, note. His mistake about the conduct of Lothaire I. at Rome,
i. 282, note.
DAUNOU, author of the Essai Historique sur la Puissance Temporelle des
Papes. Spirit of that work, ii. 370. Remarkable admissions of the
author on the origin of the temporal sovereignty of the Holy See, i. 296.
Inconsistent in his judgments on the popes of the eighth century, i. 253.
His malignant imputations against the Holy See, and especially against
Pope Pius VII. ii, 370.
DECAMPS, Fi-anfois, author of many curious Dissertations on the history
of France, i. 338, note. His singular opinion on the title of emperor given
to Charlemagne by Pope Leo III. i. 329, Admits the common origin of the
three races of French kings, i. 338, note.
DECRETALS. Supposed epoch of the publication of the False Decretals,
i. 317, 321, 324. Principal editions of them, i. 317, note.
DEFENSOR. Principal meaning of that word in ecclesiastical writings,
i. 140, 163, notes 255. {See Patrician.)
DE GERANDO. His mistake concerning the origin of hospitals, and the
influence of the Christian religion in establishing them, i. 119, note.
DELPHI. Prodig-ious wealth of its temple, i. 9, 11, 312, 313.
S84 INDEX.
I)E MAISTRE, Count. His principles on the use of temporal power in
matters of religion, i. 65, 66, 73. On the ancient custom of burning here-
tics, ib. His explanation of the conduct of popes in formerly deposing
temporal princes, ii. 13, &c. How his opinion differs from that of Fenelon,
ii. 17. {''See Law, constitutional, Fenelon.) Objections against some of his
proofs, ii. 18, 264. Explaius and justifies the conduct of the popes of the
middle ages in their quarrels with the emperors of Germany, ii. 323, 342.
Prefers the political theories of the middle ages to all modern theories,
ii. 328. Justifies the application of that theory made by the popes, ii. 334,
341, 351. His explanation of those decrees of the Holy See which divided
newly-discovered countries between the kings of Spain and Portugal, ii. 243.
DENARIUS, Roman. (6'ee Coin.)
DEPOSITION OF PRINCES. (&c Conditions, Excommunication, Heresy,
Oath.)
DIACONIA. Different meanings of that word in ecclesiastical writers,
i. 125, 160, note.
DICTATUS PAP^. Are these maxims St. Gregory's (VII.) ? ii. 201, note.
Explanation of, ib.
DIDIER, king of the Lombards, leagued with the emperor of Constantinople
against Pope Paul I. i. 228. Charlemagne compels him to resign his crown,
and to retire to a monastery, i. 232.
DIOSCORUS, patriarch of Alexandria. His temporal power ; use which he
made of it, i. 170.
DIPLOMAS of Louis le D^bonnaire, of Otho I., and of Henry II. in favour
of the Roman Church. {See Henry II., Louis, Otho.)
DISPENSATION IN OATHS. {See Oaths.)
DIVINATION," Secret. Prohibited by the laws of Romulus, i. 13. Prohibi-
tion revived by Constantine and his successors, i. 51.
DOGMA. Difference between a Catholic dogma and a mere opinion, ii. 6, 1S7.
Novelty of an oirinion not a sufficient reason for rejecting it, ib. Application
of these principles to the controversy relating to the power of the Church
and of tlie pope in temporals, ii. 5, 11, 218, 255, 260. Arguments urged
in proof of a dogma, not always matters of faith, ii. 261, note.
DOMAT. His principles on the use'of temporal power in matters of religion,
i. 64. His definitions of constitutional and other law, i. 262.
DONATION. I. Donation of Constantine. Ancient authors who cited it,
i. 181, 317. Spurious, i. 181, 318. When and by whom fabricated, i. 321.
How it maintained so great credit during many centuries, i. 325. Conse-
quences of the error of the middle ages on that point exaggerated by many
modern authors, ib. This donation, the original title according to some
ancient authors, of the temporal power of the Holy See, ii. 179, 361. That
opinion false, i. 285, 321, ii. 184. Malignant and improbable conjectures
of some modern authors oii the origin of that document, i. 324.
II. Donation of Pepin to the Roman Church, i. 218, 224. Authenticity
of that deed, i. 224, note. Ratified by Astolphus, king of the Lombards,
i. 224, text and notes. This donation was really a restitution, i. 225, 226,
ii. 277. Object of this donation : Cities and territories included in it,
i. 225. Unavailing protests of the emperor against it, i. 227. Influ-
ence of that donation on the temporal sovereignty of the Holy See,
i. 228, 250. It is confirmed and enlarged by Charlemagne, i. 232. Dona-
tions of Charlemagne and Pepin legitimate, i. 287, 295.
III. Donation of Charlemagne to the Roman Church, i. 232. Its
authenticity, i. 233, 234. It confirms and extends Pepin's donation, i. 232.
How Charlemagne could include in that donation territories and cities of
which he was not yet master, i. 233. This donation, like Pepin's, really a
restitution, i. 234. Possessions of the Holy See before Charlemagne's and
Pepin's donations, i. 235, note. (Src Patrimonies. >
IV. Donation of the Countess Matilda to Ihe Holy See, i. 240,
INDEX, 385
DEAGMA. (See Coins.)
DUBOS, Abbe. His opinion on the great advantages of the temporal power
of the clergy in France under the second and third race of kings, i. 149.
DUCHY OF EOME. {See Eome.)
DUPIN, Ellies, doctor of the Sorbonne. His Traite Historique des Excom-
munications, ii. 82, note. Temerity and impudence of, ib.
DUPUY, author of the Traite de la Jurisdiction Criminelle. His remark-
able admissions on the origin of the temporal power of the clergy,
i. 40.
EDICT OF NANTES. Henry IV. by that edict granted to Protestants the
public exercise of their religion, ii. 314. It was revoked by Louis XIV.
and restored by Louis XVI. ii. 315.
EDWAED, St., king of England. Law of that prince enacting the for-
feiture of the title of king by monarchs rebelling against God and against
the Church, ii. 269. Authenticity of that law ; its real meaning, ii. 271.
Text of that law altered in Howard's edition, ii. 269.
EGYPTIANS. Their respect for religion. {See Eeligion.)
EICHOEN, Frederick, professor of history in the university of Gottingen.
He accounts for the conduct of popes to sovereigns in the middle ages by
the constitutional law of those times, ii. 305. His changes of opinion on
that subject, ii. 306, 307, note.
ELEANOR, queen of England, writes to Pope Celestine III. to obtain the
dehverance of her son Richard I. ii. 120, 136. Importance of that letter as
a proof of the belief then existing in England on the temporal efiFects of
excommunication in the case of sovereigns, ib.
ELECTORS OF THE EMPIRE. Their origin, ii. 285, text and notes.
After their institution the pope still retained a great share in the election of
the emperor, during the whole course of the middle ages, ii. 285. {See
Empire, Pope.)
ELECTIONS of bishops in the primitive ages of the Church, i. 30. Errors
of Mosheim and Guizot on this subject, ib. note. Election of clerics, how
made, i. 31. Influence of the patriarch of Constantinople on the election
of the emperor after the fifth century, i. 172. Oath required of the
emperor elect, ib.
ELIZABETH, queen of England, excommunicated and deposed by Pope
Pius V. ii. 249. {See Pius V.) Her efforts to get that sentence revoked,
ii. 311. In support of that sentence the Enghsh Catholics appealed to the
ancient laws of the kingdom, which excluded heretical princes from the
throne, ii. 310, 372. Works to be consulted on the controversy relating to
Elizabeth's right to the crown of England, ii. 372.
EMERY, Abbe, superior-general of the society of St. Sulpice, contests
Napoleon's pretensions to the states of the Church, i. 235, note. Convinces
him of the importance of the temporal sovereignty of the Holy See, i. 299,
300. Admires the moderation with which Leibnitz judges the conduct of
popes to sovereigns in the middle ages, ii. 307, note.
EMPERORS. I. Roman. Augustus and his successors combine the title of
high priest with the imperial dignity, i. 20. Constantino and his successors
down to Gratian retain that title, without exercising its functions, i. 20, 21.
Moderate conduct of the first Christian emperors to the pagans, i. 52.
They confirm by their edicts the laws of the Church, i. 60. Many of them
protect heretics, i. 89. Transfer to the Christian religion, and to its minis-
ters, the honours and prerogatives formerly enjoyed by the pagan worship,
i. 27, 28, 106, text and notes. Extension given by, to the temporal power
of the pope after the fourth century. {See Pope.) Influence of the patriarch
VOL. II. 2 C
386 INDEX.
of Constantinople in the election of the emperor from the fifth century,
i. 172. {See Elections.) Imprudent conduct of the emperors of Constanti-
nople towards Italy and the Holy See in the eighth century, i. 195. Conse-
quences of that conduct; revolution in Italy under Gregory II. i. 197.
Different opinions as to the time in which the authority of the emperor was
destroyed at Rome and in the Exarchate, i. 241, 242. Causes of the
obscurity of that point, i. 241. Authority of the emperor in those places
definitively annihilated after Pepin's donation, i. 250, 251, 269. {See Pope.)
Protests and useless efforts of the emperor of Constantinople against that
donation, i. 227, 228. {See Pepin's Donation.)
II. Emperors of the West. Meaning and importance of the title of
emperor given to Charlemagne by Pope Leo III. i. 26], 267, 329. Sense in
which that title was taken by kings of France and other princes before
Charlemagne, ib. This title did not confer, either on Cliarlemagne or his
successors, the sovereignty of Rome, i. 258, 275. Pretensions of the
emperors to Italy, ii. 323. Conditions imposed on the emperors at their
election, ii. 154, 308. {See Conditions.) By the usage and constitutional
law of the emi)ire, the emperor elect could not take that title until he had
been crowned by the pope, ii. 104, note, 163, 173, 284. Ancient custom by
which the emperors acted as esquires to the pope, ii. 288.
EMPIRE, Roman. Its deplorable condition under the first Christian
emperors, i. 29, 63. Powerful aid given to it by the Christian religion, ib.
Sustaining it against its foreign enemies, i. 38. Immense revenues of the
empire before Constantino's reign, i. 102. Strange aliuse made of them by
many pagan emperors, ib. Laudable use made of them by Constantino, ib.
Deplorable state of the Western empire after the fourth century, i. 178, 186.
Its perils aggravated after the establishment of the Lombard monarchy,
i. 187. Empire of the West re\'ived by Pope Leo III., in the person of
Charlemagne, in the year 800, i. 235. By this revival the empire was not,
properly speaking, transferred from the Greeks to the Franks, i. 260.
The new empire of the West elective from the commencement and down
to our own time, ii. 28, 277. Conditions in the election of the emperor,
ii. 154. {See Conditions.) Rights of the pope in that election, ii. 104.
{See Pope.) Empire transferred from the French to the Germans by the
pope's authority, ii. 285. General belief of the middle ages in a special
dependence of the empire on the pope, ii. 152. This belief admitted by
sovereigns, and by the emperors themselves, ii. 159, 162, 174. Variations
of some emperors on this subject, ii. 175, 176. This belief not introduced
by Gregory VII. ib. Grounds of that belief, ii. 276. Sense in which the
empire was formerly regarded as a fief of the Holy See, ii. 104, 152, 287.
Di-spute on that subject between Frederick I. and Adrian IV. ii. 170. {See
Law, German ; Electors.)
ENGLAND, Kingdom of. Its monarchy elective under the Anglo-Saxon
kings, ii. 28. Its legislation during the middle ages on the temporal effects
of excommunication, ii. 85, 86, 89. These effects of excommunication
admitted in England, even in the case of sovereigns, ii. 115. (.S'ec Henry II.)
Law of St. Edward, declaring a king deprived of his title when he rebels
against God and the Church, ii. 269. Authenticity of that law, its real
meaning, ii. 271. Still in force at the time of the English schism, ii. 248,
309, 372. Remains of that ancient law in the modem constitution of
England, ii. 316, 318. The kingdom of England considered, during a great
part of the middle ages, as a fief of the Holy See, ii. l.oO. Explanation of
the decrees of the Holy See against Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, ii. 151.
{See Paul III. Pius V.)
ERVIGA. {See Waniba.)
EUPHEMIUS, patriarch of Constantinople in the fifth centuiy, exacts from
the emperor Anastasius an oath to preserve the Catholic faith, i. 172. {See
Oath.)
INDEX. 887
EUSEBIUS, the historian, attributes to Constantine a law ordering all the
temples to be closed, and absolutely prohibiting the exercise of idolatry,
i. 52 ; ii. 303. Difficulty of reconciling him on that point with Libanius, ib.
text and notes. Means of reconciling them, ii. 304. Injustice of
M. Beugnot's censures on Eusebius in this matter, ii. 307.
EUSEBIUS OF VERCELLI, St., introduces into the West the custom of
combining the observances of the clerical and the monastic life, i. 35, 36,
text and notes.
EUTYCHIANS, protected by Justinian and some other emperors, i. 88, 89.
EXARCHATE, EXARCH. Different meanings of these two words in
ancient authors, i. 188, note, 242, note. Ecclesiastical exarchs, i. 388, note.
Civil exarchs, ib. Establishment of the exarchate of Ravenna, ib. Its
geographical position and extent, ib. Provinces subject to the exarch of
Ravenna, ib. His power in those provinces, ib. Extinction of that
exarchate, i. 188, 217.
EXCOMMUNICATION. In what it consists, ii. 81. A sovereign can be
excommunicated as well as a private indiWdual, ii. 107, 135, 136. Tem-
poral effects of excommunication from the origin of Christianity, ii. 81.
These effects extended after the sixth century, ii. 9, 84. Concurrence of
sovereigns in establishing this discipline, ii. 66, 83, 85. Circumstances
favourable to its establishment, ii. 92. Admitted in France, as elsewhere,
by pious and enlightened men, ii. 88, 90, 112. Why excommunications
became so frequent and their effects so comprehensive in the course of the
middle ages, ii. 66, 83. Rigour of the discipline on this matter before
Gregory VII. 's time, ii. 77. That rigour modified by Gregory VII. ii. 78.
The forfeiture of all dignities, though temporal, attached to excommunication
by the usage and general belief of all Christian states of Europe during the
whole course of the middle ages, ii. 79, 102. This effect of excommunica-
tion admitted in France, as elsewhere, under the second race of kings, and
the first kings of the third, ii. 121. Provisions of German constitutional law
on this point, ii. 290. Remarkable admissions of many modern authors
on the fact of this general belief, ii. 133. (See Bossuet, Fleury, Lingard.)
Discussion of some objections on this point founded on the conduct of many
sovereigns, ii. 128. (See Frederick II., Henry IV., king of Germany, &c.)
FACULTY OF LOUVAIN. Difference between the old and new faculty,
ii. 303, note. The old adopted Fenelon's opinion on the constitutional law
of the middle ages relating to the deposition of sovereigns, ii. 302. The
new asserts nothing contrary to that opinion in its answer to the questions
of Mr. Pitt, ii. 303.
FAITH. It must be free, i. 69, 70. Profession of it never to be extorted by
violence, ib. (See Dogma.)
FENELON. His principles on the Church's independence of princes in spi-
ritual matters, i. 68. His mode of accounting for the conduct of popes
in deposing formerly temporal princes, ii. 7. How he explains especially
the sentence of Innocent IV. against Frederick II. ii. 231. How his opinion
differs from Count de Maistre's, ii. 13. (See De Maistre, Constitutional
Law.) Difference between Fenelon's opinion on this point and the theo-
logical theory of the right divine, ii. 12, 366.
FERRAND, author of the Esprit de I'Histoire. Tone of that work, i. xv,
text and note ; ii. 350, 353. He is often misguided by the authority of
Fleury, i. 223 ; ii. 319. Admits the general belief of the middle ages on the
temporal effects of excommunication in the case of sovereigns, i. 137. Admits
the great advantages of the temporal power of the popes during the cru-
sades, ii. 353. Exorbitant pretensions which it attributes to tlie popes of
the middle ages, ii. 321, 325. Inconsistent in the charges which it makes
against these popes, ii. 350. Exaggerates the duration of the contest between
the two powers in the middle ages, ii. 325, 343.
2c2
3S8 INDEX.
FIEFS OF THE HOLY SEE. {See Suzerainty.)
FIRST FRUITS. {See Tithes.)
FLEURY, Abb^. General observation on the spirit of bis Ecclesiastical His-
tory, i. xxvi. Motives of his severe censures on the conduct and doctrine
of the popes of the middle ages, ii. 358. Influence of his opinions on a herd
of modern authors, i. 223, 224 ; ii. 319. Inquiry into his valuation of the
ofiTeriogs made by Constantine to tlie Roman and other churches, i. 309.
His valuation of the 8,000 pounds of gold found by St. John the Almoner
in the treasury of his church, i. 314. He admits that the abuses and dis-
orders of the middle ages have been vastly exaggerated, ii. 49. Inconsistent in
his estimate of the political influence of the clergy in the middle ages, ii. 37, 135.
Admits the strict union of the two powers in the governments of the middle
ages, ii. 194. Erroneou.sly attributes the depo.sition of Wamba to the twelfth
Council of Toledo, ii. 74. His explanation of the enactment of temporal
penalties against heretics in the third and fourth Councils of Lateran, ii.
100, 144. Unjust in his indiscriminate censures of those authors of the
middle ages who used the allegory of the two swords, ii. 218. {See Swords.)
His arbitrary and unauthorized explanation of the words of Innocent 111.
on the res[ifcctive authority of the two powers, ii. 222, 225. His error on
the temporal effects of public penance in the fifth century, ii. 71, text and
notes. Admits the general belief of the middle ages on the temporal effects
of excommunication in the case of sovereigns, ii. 134. Considers it an indis-
putable point of doctrine that a sovereign can be excommunicated as well
as a private individual, ii. 135, 136. Appears, however, to contradict him-
self on that point, ii. 114. Erroneously supposes that many sovereigns
excommunicated and deposed by the pope lost nought of their authority,
ii. 128-9, 133. Are the arguments of Gregory VII. in liis letter to Herman,
bishop of Metz, as inconclusive as Fleury imagines? ii. 204,208. Admires
the providence of God in est;iblishing the tempoial sovereignty of the Holy
See, i. 297. Exaggerates the consequences of the error of the middle ages
on the authenticity of Cunstantine's donation, ii. 322. Unjustly criticises
a letter of Stephen II. to Pepin the Little, i. 223. Unjustly censures the
language and conduct of Pope Paul with regard to the emperor of Const;in-
tinople, i. 230, note. Supposes, without any proof, that Charlemagne was
sovereign of Rome by right of conquest, i. 254, note. His mistake regard-
ing the diploma of Louis le D^bonnaire in favour of the Holy See, i. 263.
Another mistake about the conduct, in 824, of Lothaireat Rome, i. 281, note.
FOLLIS. {See Bourse.)
FOR^IOSUS, Pope, permits the emperor Guy to take his son Lambert as
colleague on the throne, ii. 281. Substitutes Amoul for Lambert, while the
latter wms still living, ii. 93, note, 281.
FRANCE, Kingdom of Common origin of the three races of its kings,
according to many critics, i. 339, text and notes. Ancient constitution of
the kingdom, i. 336. The monarchy elective under the fij-st and second
race of kings, i. 336 ; ii. 28, 144. The authority of the kings moderated by
that of the general assembly, ib. Condition prescribed in the election of
kings of the first race, i. 336, 337. {See Mayors.) General belief in the
kingdom of the supremacy of the spiritual over the temporal power, ii.
141. The king generally regarded as amenabl-e to the council during the
second race of kings, ii. 144, 197. This persuasion was not an error accre-
dited by the policy of Pepin and of his successors, ii. 147. Neither does
it suppose the theological theory of the right divine of the power of the
Church in the temporal order, ii. 197. The custom of France in the middle
ages, conformable to that of the other states of Europe, with regard to the
temporal effects of heresy and excommunication, ii. 90, 91, 101, 103, text
and notes. General belief in France, as in other countries, on the deposi-
tion of heretical or excommunicated princes, ii. 95. This general belief
prevalent even in the time of the League, ii. 258, 312, 373. Rights of
INDEX. o89
sovereignty of the pope over many states, and his special rights over the
empire acknowledged in France under Philip the Fair, ii. 151, 158. The
king of France exempt from feudal subjection, ii. 275.
FRANTIN, author of Annals of the Middle Ages. General observations on
the spirit of his work, Preface, xxvij. The author adopts too inconsiderately the
severe judgments of many modern authors on the conduct of the popes of the
eighth century towards the emperor of Constantinople, i. 286. Inconsistent
in the opinions he pronounces on the conduct of Pope Gregoiy II. and his
successors, i. 206, 253, note.
FREDERICK I. (Barbarossa), Emperor, acts as esquire to Pope Adrian IV.
ii. 289. His quarrel with the same pope on the dependence of the e-aipire
on the Holy See, ii. 170. His pretensions to the sovereignty of Rome and
of Italy, i. 247, text and notes ; ii. 322. Excommunicated and deposed by
Pope Alexander II. ii. 114. Justice of that sentence, ii. 128, 131, 341.
He asks and obtains absolution, ii. 132. Fabulous anecdote in the history
of that reconciliation, ib. note.
FREDERICK II., Emperor. Elected in 1210 by Pope Innocent III. after
the deposition of Otho IV. ii. 159, 165. Confirms the decrees of the third
and fourth Councils of Lateran against the heretics, ii. 101. (See Lateran.)
His crimes, ii. 341, 342. His pretensions to Italy, ii. 322. Deposed in
1239 by Pope Gregory IX. ii. 159, 174. Letter of St. Louis and of the
French lords to the pope on the occasion of this deposition, ii. 95. Deposed
by Pope Innocent IV. in the first general Council of Lyons, ii. 160. Ac-
knowledged the pope's right in that affair, ii. 174. His variations on the
matter, ii. 175.
FULK, of Rheims. His letter to Charles the Simple [dissuading him
from an alliance with the Normans, ii. 147.
GARNIER, continuator of Velly. {See Velly.)
GELASIUS (St.), Pope. His doctrine on the distinction and independence
of the two powers, i. 183; ii. 188. This doctrine utterly opposed to the
theory of the direct or the indirect power of the Church over temporals, i,
184, text and notes.
GERMAIN OF AUXERRE, St. (^ce Lupus of Troyes.)
GERVASE OF TILBURY, an English lord in the court of Otho IV. His
Imperial Recreations, ii. 155, 156, note. Assumes, as a matter of universally
admitted constitutional law, the special rights of the Holy See over the
empire, ii 155. Regards Constantino's donation as the original title of those
ritrhts, ii. 156, 179. {See Constantine's Donation.)
GHIBELLINES. (See Guelphs.)
GIBBON, the historian. Unjust censures on Gregory the Great, i. 189, note.
His inconsistencies regarding the conduct of the popes of the eighth century
to the emperors of Constantinople, i. 291, note. Other contradictions regard-
ing a letter of Pope Stephen II. to Pepin the Little, i. 222, note. His
incorrect notions on the origin of the temporal sovereignty of the Holy See,
and on the sovereignty of Rome after Charlemagne's election to the empire,
i. 243, 244.
GODFREY OF VITERBO, an author of the twelfth century, supposes the
special rights of the pope over the empii-e as a point of constitutional law
universally admitted, ii. 155.
GOTHS ; their accommodation with the emperor Julius Nepos by the media-
tion of the bishops, i. 39. (&e Spain.)
GOVERNMENT, strict union of, with religion in all ancient states. {See
Relio-ion.) Nature of the governments of the middle ages, ii. 27, 264,
Most of the monarchies of the time elective, ib. Authority of the king
limited by that of the general assembly, ii. 31. Authority of that assem-
390 INDEX.
bly, ib. It could prescribe conditions in the election of the sove-
reign, lb. {See Conditions, Oath.) Strict union of the two powers in all
the Christian states of Europe during the middle ages, ii. 33. Influence
of the clergy in the civil affairs the natural consequence of that union,
ii. 37, text and note. Were generally regarded as the first body in the
state, ii. 36. Influence of the pope in consequence of the same circum-
stances, ii. 38. Divine and ecclesiastical laws sanctioned by temporal penal-
ties in consequence of the same circumstances, ii. 67. Political theory of the
middle cages compared witii modern theories, ii. 326, 331. Application of
that theory by the popes, ii. 334. Tendency of modern governments to
restrict the temporal power of the clergy, ii. 363.
GRATIAN, Emperor, refuses the title and robe of high priest, i. 20. Strips
the temples of their property, i. 22. Orders the altar of Victory to be
removed from the senate, i. 55. Pays no regard to the protests of the pagan
senators on that point, i. 55, 56. Tolerates, however, the exerci.se of
idolatry, i. 66, 57.
GRATIAX, canonist of the twelfth century. His Decretum contains nothing
that may not be reconciled with the principle of the independence and dis-
tinction of the two powers, ii. 207.
GREEKS, Ancient. Their respect for religion, i. 7. {See Religion.)
GREGORY THE GREAT, St. His character, i. 189, text and note. Nu-
merous ]jTitrimonie3 of the Rom.an Church in his pontificate, i. 116. Holy
use which he made of them, i. 124, 127. His zeal for the emancipation of
slaves, i. 123. His principles on the submission due to the temporal power,
i. 1!'-. His doctrine on the obligation of paying taxes levied even on Church
lands, i. 131>, 140. Itemarkable clause in the privileges which he granted to tho
mona.steries and hospital of Autun, ii. 141. Authenticity of that clause, ii.
142. Different e.xplanations given of it by critics, ib. Difficulties all solved
by the assent of the French princes given to that clause, ii. 143. His tem-
poral power, i. 189. Embarrassment and difficulty of his position ; hia
prudence, i. 191.
GREGORY II., Pope. Revolution in Italy under his pontificate ; its real
causes, i. 197. Contradiction between Latin authors and the Greek on this
point, i. 202, 204. This contradiction easily explained, i. 205. Importance
of examining tiie authority of the Greek historians on this point, ib. Their
authority of very slight weight, i. 206. Their narrative contradicted by tho
character and principles of Gregory II. i. 207. Principles of this pontiff on
the submission due to the temporal power, ib. ; ii. 190. His conduct to the
emperors of Constantinople approved by modern authors least suspected of
partiality, i. 210. His pontificate, the real epoch of the origin of the tem-
poral sovereignty of the Holy See, i. 248.
GREGORY III., Pope, imitates the prudent and moderate conduct of Gre-
gory II. to the emperors of Constantinople, i. 211. Calls Charles Martel to
the relief of Italy, and offers him the title of consul, i. 212, 213, note. This
step easily justified by circumstances, i. 214. It does not imply the theological
theory of the divine right of the Church over temporalities, i. 312 ; ii. 197.
GREGORY IV., Pope. His political conduct too inconsiderately censured
by a great number of modem authoi-s, ii. 40, 266.
GREGORY VII. (St.) Pope. Disorders of society in the time of this pontiff,
ii. 70. His efforts to retain public penance, and its temporal effects, ii. 79.
Modifies the rigour of the discipline admitted before his time, on the tem-
poral effects of excommunication, ii. 87. His conduct to Henry IV., king of
Germany, ii. 103. {See Henry IV.) Tliis conduct easily justified, ii. 336,
339. His letters to Herman, bishop of Metz, on the excommunication of
King Henry, ii. 107. Oath of fidelity required by him of Henry and of
Rodolph, ii. 169. Threatens Philip I., king of France, with excommunica-
INDEX. 391
tion, ii. 122. His remonstrances with Vezelin, leader of a rebellion against
the king of Dalmatia, ii. 58. His conduct with regard to princes in con-
fomiity with general maxims admitted before his time, ii. 135, note, 154,
176. He never pretended to ground the power which he claimed over sove-
reigns on the di^ane right alone, ii. 106, 201, 274. His language does not
even imply the theological theory of the divine right of jurisdiction, ii. 200.
Why neither of the sentences of deposition against Heniy mentions the laws
of the empire, ii. 202. The maxims called Dictatus Papse, are they the
work of Gregory VII. ? ii. 200, note. Their meaning, ib. Gregory VII.
did not admit Constantine's donation, ii. 184. Injustice of the reproaches
made against him by modem writers on account of the rights of sovereignty
which he claimed over many European states, ii. 197, note, 274.
GREGORY IX., Pope. Excommunicates and deposes the emperor Fre-
derick II. ii. 159, 174. (&e Frederick II.)
GUELPHS AI^'D GHIBELLINES. Purely political origin of those fac-
tions, ii. 323, 342. Religion had nothing to do with their contests, ib.
GUILLOX, Aime, author of a Dissertation, in which he endeavours to prove
that Pepin was a usurper, ii. 330. Extravagant criticism of that author, ib.,
333, note.
GUISCARD, Robert, founder of the kingdom of Naples. {See Robert.)
GUIZOT, Protestant writer, author of various historical works. His error on
the mode of electing bishops in the primitive ages, i. 31, note. His remark-
able admissions on the origin of the temporal powers of the clergy, i. 41.
Equally remarkable admissions on the salutary influence of the Church and
of the clergy on civilization in Europe, ii. 50. His singular opinion on the
notion of the temporal sovereignty of the Holy See after the donations of
Pepin and Charlemagne, i. 246, note. His system on the origin of the tem-
poral power of the Church and of the pope in the middle ages, ii. 4, 5. He
considers unquestionable the union of the hereditary and elective principles
in the infancy of modern monarchies, especially the French, ii. 28.
GUY, duke of Spoletto, raised to the empire by Pope Stephen V. ii. 281.
Takes his son Lambert as colleague in the throne, ib.
HAIRED (LONG). Custom of the Lombards on this point different from that
of the Greeks and Romans, i. 233, 234. Sort of tonsure in use among the
Franks and Lombards, as a sign of alliance and of adoption, ib. Long hair
a distinctive mark of princes of the royal family among the Franks, ii. 84.
HALL AM, English author of a work entitled Europe in the Middle Ages.
Spirit of that work, i. 107, 127. His unjust invectives against the clergy
of the fourth century, ib. Unjust censures on St. Gregory the Great, i. 189,
note. Remai-kable admissions of the enlightenment and virtues of the clergy
of the middle ages, especially the monasteries, ii. 49.
HEBREWS. (See Moses.)
HENRION, Baron, adopts substantially the .system of Count de Maistre on
the temporal power of the Church and of the pope in the middle ages,
ii. 304, note.
HENRY II., Emperor, takes the oath of fidelity to the pope, ii. 169. His
charter in favour of the Roman Church, i. 266. {See Louis le D^bonnaire.)
HENRY IV., king of Germany. Character of this prince ; his disorders, ii.
45, 103, 335, 339. Was not, properly speaking, emperor, ii. 104, 164, 173,
285. Threatened with excommunication by Gregory VII. : his insulting
answer to that menace, ii. 105. Excommunicated and deposed by the
pope, ii. 106. This first sentence was not definitive, ib. It was not
founded on the divine right alone, ii. 107. It does not even suppose the
theological theory of the divine right, ii. 200. Henry asks and obtains
absolution, ii. 108. His fresh disorders, ii. 110. Excommunicated and
392 i^DEX.
definitively deposed, ib. His partisans despise the sentence, ii. 111.
Astonishment witii which it was generally received, ii. 113. Remarkable
admission of the German lords on the pope's power in this affair, ii. 104,
154. Remarkable admission of Henry on the deposition of heretical princes,
ii. 94, 105, 174. (See German Law.)
BENRY v.. Emperor. His disputes with Popes Paschal II. and CalixtusII.
. regarding the investitures, ii. 347, note. {See Investitures.)
HENRY VII., Emperor. His discussions with Pope Clement V. on the
dependence of the emperor on the pope, ii, 172.
HENRY IV., king of France. League formed under Henry III. to exclude
from the throne the king of Navarre (Henry IV.) ii. 313. (See League.)
Henry IV. excommunicated and deposed by Pope Sixtus V. ii. 256. (■S'<^
Sixtu.s V.) The Catholics cite asJiinst Henry the old laws of the kingdom,
which exclude heretical princes from the throne, ii. 312, 372. Works to be
consulted on the controversy relating to the rights of the king of Navarre
(Henry IV.) to the throne of France, ii. 372. The conversion of Henry IV.
puts an end to that controversy, ii. 314. He publishes the edict of Nantes,
which secured to Protestants the free exercise of their religion, ib.
HENRY II., king of England. Did Pope Adrian IV. assume to grant
Ireland to him? ii. 219. His quarrels with St. Thomas of Canterbury,
ii. 213. John of Salisbury expressed a wish that he had had recourse on that
occasion to the same severity against the king of England, as against the
emperor Frederick I. ii. 211. The history of that contest proves that a
general belief then existed in England on the temporal efiects of excom-
munication in tiie case of sovereigns, ib. Bossuet's opinion upon that
matter, ii. 118. Henry II. took his son as colleague on the throne, ii. 119, note.
HENRY VIII., king of England, excommuniaated and deposed by Pope
Paul III. ii. 247. (See Paul III.)
HERESY. Importance of repressing it at its birth, i. 70. Principles
regarding its repression even by temporal penalties. (See Crimes, Religion.)
Imperial constitutions against heretics, i. 77, 86. Heretics disqualified for
all offices and all civil rights, according to these constitutions, i. 81, 83, 173.
Grounds for these constitutions, i. 64, 73, 81, 83. The Roman law on this
point adopted in all the Christian states of Europe during the middle ages,
i. 85, 87 ; ii. 68, 207. Error of some modem writers on this point, i. 85.
Decrees of the third and fourth Councils of Lateran on heretics, i. 87 ; ii. 96.
The temporal penalties decreed by popes against heretics formerly enforced
in France, as well as in other countries, ii. 101, note. Principles on the
deposition of heretical princes, i. 174. Essential difierence between the
constitution of the Roman empire and that of the other monarchies of the
middle ages on this point, i. 1 75. General belief of the middle ages regarding
the deposition of heretical princes, ii. 94. This per.suasion established in
France, as well as elsewhere, ii. 95. Provisions of German law on this
matter, ii. 291.
HERMAN, bishop of Metz. Letters to, from Gregory VIT., on the excom-
munication of Henry IV. king of Germany, ii. 107, 203. Error of Bossuet
and of Nat. Alexander regarding these letters, ii. 107. These letters do not
imply the theological theory of the right divine, ii. 203. Are the arguments
of Gregory VII. in those letters so inconclusive as Fleury supposes ? ii. 203,
204, note.
HINCMAR of Rheims. Notion which he gives of the mixed councils or
assemblies which were then so common, ii. 189. (See Councils.)
HONORIUS, Emperor. His laws in favour of the Christian religion, i. 49.
His laws against heretics, i. 73, 81. His reign appears to be the date of a
considerable increase of the temporal power of the pope, i. 168, 182.
HOSPITALS. They owe their origin to Christian charity, i. 120. Errors of
INDEX. 393
M. de Gerando on this point, i. 119, note. Progi'es3 of tbese institutions
since the fourth century, i. 121, 125. En-ors of some writers who refer
their institution to the time of the Crusades, i. 122, note.
HUGO DE SAXCTO VICTOEE. His doctrine on the distinction of the
two powers, and their mutual independence, ii. 209, note. Does not attri-
bute to the Church, by divine right, a power of jurisdiction, direct or indirect,
in temporalities, ii. 210. Bossuet explains him in quite a different sense,
ii. 235.
HURTER, author of the History of Innocent III. Spirit of that work,
i. 299. Author's opinion on the importance of the temporal sovereignty of
the popes, i. 298. Explains and justifies the conduct of Innocent III. to
sovereigns, ii. 21, 229, 331. Admits the great services conferred on society
by the popes at the time of the Crusades, ii. 67, 351.
IDOLATRY, triumph of Christianity over, certain before the conversion of
Constantine, i. 43, 46. Erroi'S of M. Beugnot on this point, i. 46, note.
Constantine's exertions to discredit idolatry, i. 50. Absolutely prohibits secret
divination, i. 51. Tolerates, nevertheless, the public exercise of idolatry, i. 51,
52, 304, 305. His prudence on this point imitated by his successors, i. 53.
IMMUNITIES of the Clergy. Their origin in the customs and maxims of
antiquity, i. 6, 8, 11, 18, 26, 28, 131. Their grounds, i. 132. 151. Personal
immunities of the clergy under the first Christian emperors, i. 133. Real
immunities, i. 136. {See Asylum.) Ecclesiastical immunities restricted
by Constantine to the Catholic clergy, i. 78. This question carefully
discussed by Bingham, i. 132, note. Variations of ecclesiastical immu-
nities under the Christian emperors, i. 133. Special immunities of some
churches, i. 137. Submission of the Church to even the most restrictive
laws on this matter, i. 138. The theological question of the origin of
ecclesiastical immunities solved by facts, i. 141, 158. Disputes on this point
in England in the twelfth century, ii. 117. {See Henry II.)
IMPOSTS. {See Immunities.)
INNOCENT III., Pope, admits and defines accurately the distinction between
the two powers, ii. 223. He never attributed to himself a power of juris-
diction, direct or indirect, over temporalities, ii. 221. In temporalities he
claimed nothing but the directive power, as explained by Fenelon, ii. 225.
Sense in which he maintains the supremacy of the spiritual over the tem-
poral power, ii. 221. Sense of the allegory of the two great lights as used
by him, ii. 223. Sense of the allegory of the two swords, ii. 224. Nego-
tiates a peace between Philip Augustus and Richard Cceur de Lion, ii. 228.
Interposes as arbiter between Philip Augustus and John Lackland in the
afiair of the murder of Arthur, count of Bretagne, ii. 225. Reasons for that
conduct, ii. 226. Unjust censures against him for it, ii. 227. His conduct
justified by M. Hurter, ii. 230. Expressly acknowledges the feudal indepen-
dence of the crown of France of the Holy See, ii. 275, text and note.
Deposes John Lackland, and gives his crown to Philip Augustus, ii. 150.
Elects, in 1201, the emperor Otho IV. ii. 164. Sustains that prince against
the other candidates for the empire, ib. Deposes him (in 1210) and appoints
Frederick II. his successor, ii. 159, 260. Supposes, as an unquestionable fact,
that the electors of the empire derived from the pope their right of electing
the emperor, ii. 260, 286.
INNOCENT IV., Pope, deposes the emperor Frederick II. in the first general
Council of Lyons, ii. 160. The sentence of deposition approved by the
council, ii. 161. That sentence does not imply the theological theory of the
divine right, ii. 231. Why it makes no reference to the laws of the empire,
ii. 233.
INQLTISITION. Estabhshed again.st the heretics by Constantine, i. 78.
Revived by Theodosius the Great, i. 80. Established in France by Pope
894 INDEX.
Alexander IV. at the request of St. Louis, i. 101. Fundamental principles
on inquiring after and punishing heretics. (See Crimes, Religion.)
INVESTITURES. Notion of investitures in general, and of ecclesiastical
investitures in particular, ii. 345. Ceremony of investiture diflFerent from
that of homage, and from the oath of fidelity, ii. 346. Origin of the dispute
about investitures, ib. Its subject and its importiince, ii. 357.
ITALY. Powerful resources presented to, in the decline of the empire, by the
wisdom and virtue of the popes, i. 179, 187, 1^4. Revolution in Italy
under Gregory II. ; its true causes, i. 197. {See Gregory II.) Progress of
that revolution under Gregory III. i. 212. That revolution jnstified by
circumstances, i. 214. JMunicipal regime of the principal cities of Italy at
that time, and long afterwards, i. 298, note.
IVO OF CHARTRES, The blessed. His doctrine on the temporal effects
of excommunication, ii. 90, 205. Considers these effects as founded both on
divine and human laws, ib. His application of that doctrine to the case of
sovereigns, ii. 91, 125. Does not advocate the theological theory, the right
divine of the Church over temporalities, ii. 206.
JAMES OF NISIBA, St., saves his episcopal city when attacked by the
Persians, i. 38. His paternal solicitude for the good of his flock, i. 162,
note.
JEROME, St. His principles on the use of temporal power in matters of
religion, i. 70.
JERUSALEM. Wealth of its temple, from Pompey's time until the ruin of
the city, i. 313, 314. Wealth and revenues of the Church of Jenisalem at
the close of the fourth century, i. 114.
JJIWS. Laws published against them by Tiberius, i. 24. Provisions of the
Roman law against them, i. 74, 77. Severity of those laws, i. 74, 75,
Reasons of that severity, i. 76. The Jews had themselves provoked it, U>.
Indiscreet zeal of some Christians against the Jews repressed by the
emperors, i. 77. The Jews expelled from Alexandria by St. Cyril, i. 168.
JOHN VII., Pope. The Lombards restore to him the Cottian Alps, i. 117.
JOHN XII., Pope. Transfers the empire from the French to the Germans,
ii. 284. {See Otho.)
JOHN XXII., Pope. Deposes the emperor Louis of Bavaria. {See Louia
of Bavaria.)
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, St. His principles on the use of temporal power
in religious matters, i. 69, 70. His answer to the invectives of some laymen
against the luxury and worldliness of the clergy, i. 129, 131.
JOHN OF SALISBURY, bishop of Chartres in the twelfth century;
object of his work, entitled Polycraticus, ii. 117, 156, 179. Advocates the
theological theory of the direct power of the Church over temporals, ii. 199.
His opinion adopted Ity few in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries,
ii. 199, 362. Appears not to have taught the doctrine of tyrannicide,
ii. 361. Approves the excommunication and deposition of Frederick Bar-
barossa by Pope Alexander III. ii. 115. Wished that the pope would use
the same rigour against Henry II., king of England, ib. His language
manifestly implies a general belief then existing on the temporal effects of
excommunication in the case of sovereigns, ib. and 131.
JOHN THE ALMONER, St. His boundless charities, i. 114, 115. Value
of the 8,000 pounds of gold which he found in the treasury of his church
on his accession to the patriarchal throne, i. 114, 312. His temporal power,
i. 171.
JOHN LACKLAND, king of England. His quarrel with Philip Augustus,
in 1202, on the subject of the assassination of Arthur, earl of Bretagne,
ii. 225. {See Innocent III.) Deposed in 1211, by Pope Innocent III.,
who granted his kingdom to Philip Augustus, ii. 128, 137, 150.
INDEX. S9o
JULIAN, Emperor, proposes the eminent virtues of the Christian clergy as
models to the priests of paganism, i. 37. Admired especially the charity of
Christians to the poor, i. 119. Endeavours in vain to imitate it by estab-
lishing hospitals, i. 120.
JULIUS NEPOS, Emperor, negotiates an arrangement with the Goths by
the mediation of the bishops, i. 39.
JULIUS II., Pope. His quarrels with the republic of Venice, ii. 321.
{See Venice.)
JUPITER CAPITOLINUS. Wealth of his temple in Domitian's reign,
i. 313.
JURIEU. System of the sovereignty of the people advocated by, ii. 329.
Great inconveniences of that system, ib. {See People.)
JURISDICTION, Ecclesiastical. Its origin in the customs and maxims of
antiquity, i. 3, 5, 7, 10, 19, 27, 28. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in temporal
matters under the Christian emperors, i. 135, 149. More or less restricted
under Constantine's successors, i. 155. This jurisdiction much more exten-
sive over clerics, i. 156. Provisions of the Justinian code on that point,
i. 157. Jurisdiction of the Church and of the pope over temporals. {See
Church, Pope, Powers.)
JUSTINA, Empress, selects St. Ambrose to negotiate for the interests of
the empire with the tyrant Maximus, i. 38.
JUSTINIAN I., Emperor, sanctions the four first general councils as laws
of the empire, i. 60. His principles on the distinction and mutual indepen-
dence of the two powers, i. 67. His laws in favour of the Christian religion,
i. 60, 61. His laws against heretics, i. 83. And in fiivour of hospitals,
i. 132. Temporal power of the bishops under him, i. 162. Extraordinary
power given by, to the pati'iarch of Alexandria, i. 171.
LAMBERT, Emperor, succeeds, in 894, Guy his father, ii. 280. Deposed to
make room for Arnoul, ii. 93, 280. (.See Arnoul.)
LAMBERT OF SCHAFNABOURG, author, contemporary of Gregory VII.,
assumes it a.s a point of universally admitted constitutional law that an
emperor obstinately remaining under excommunication for an entire year,
incurs the penalty of deposition, ii. 110, 111, notes.
LATERAN, Palace of, given by Constantine to Pope Miltiades, i. 98, note.
Mosaic of that palace explained in different senses by critics, i. 269, 271.
LATERAN, Councils of. Third and fourth, regarded by many authors as
Diets or States-General of Europe, ii. 100. Principles established in the
third council on the distinction of the two powers, and their competence,
ii. 96. Temporal penalties decreed against heretics in the third and fourth,
ib. Concurrence of the two powers in the publication of those decrees, ib.
100, 221. Their confirmation by the laws of princes, ii. 101.
LAW, Constitutional. What is constitutional law, and what municipal (priv^,
ii. 261, 262. How are they ascertained? ii. 262. Exposition of the opinion
which accounts, by the constitutional law of the middle ages, for the conduct
of popes in deposing princes, ii. 9. Proofs of this opinion, ii. 185, 263.
{See Conditions, Oaths.) It can absolutely be reconciled with the theo-
logical theory of the right divine, ii. 14. Discussion of the principal objec-
tions against this opinion, ii. 292. Why popes, when deposing princes,
appeal to the power of binding and loosing, i. 12, 201, 231, 292. Why they
omit in these sentences any reference to the constitutional laws, ii. 292. Is
this constitutional law opposed to the spirit of the Gospel ? ii. 293. General
tendency at the present day to admit that there was formerly such a consti-
tutional law, ii. 303. That law of the middle ages retained in the constitu-
tion of many modern states, ii. 307. Traces of it in the constitution of
Protestant states, ii. 316. Difference between the modern law of those
states and that of the middle ages, ii. 317. Inferences from this constitu-
396 IKDEX.
tional law regarding the declamations of a herd of modern authors against
the popes and councils of the middle ages, ii. 356. Why those declamations
have been taken up so readily by Catholic writers, ii. 164.
LAW, German. Compiled in the twelfth century from the ancient customs of
the empire, ii. 38, 287. Two different compilations of, ii. 287. Difference
between the two on the power of the Church and pope over temporalities,
. ii. 288. Both admit the supremacy of the spiritual over the temporal power,
ii. 287, 305. Provisions of this law on the temporal effects of excommuni-
cation and of heresy, ii. 88, 107, 112. Its provisions on the election of the
emperor, ii. 289. It specifies three cases in which the emperor could be
excommunicated by the pope, ib. Effects of that excomraunicalion accord-
ing to the ancient laws of the empire, ii. 290. The penalty of deposition
pronounced by the same law against heretical princes, ii. 291.
LAW, Roman. Remarkable provisions of the ancient Roman law on religion
before the establishment of Christianity, i. 12, 24. Its principal enactments
in favour of the Christian religion after Cunstantine's conversion, i. 46. {See
Constnntine, Constantius, and their successors.) Severity of this law
against crimes of impiety. (.S'f« Crimes.) Lawa against the Jews, i. 74, 77.
{See Jews.) Laws against heretics and apostates, i. 77, 84. Roman law in
that matter adopted in all the Christian states of the middle ages, i. 85, 88.
Its princijial enactments relating to immunities and ecclesiastical jurisdic-
tion, i. 133, 153. Attestations of the clergy in the civil administration
according to this law, i. 42, 102. {See Immunities, Jurisdiction.)
LAW, Saxon. {See Law, German.)
LAW, Suabian. {See Law, German.)
LAWS OF THE TWELVE TABLES. Their most remarkable provisions
relating to religion, i. 15.
LAWS OF THE VISIGOTHS. Their wisdom, ii. 51. Severe against here-
tics, i. 87. {See Spain.)
LEAGUE in France under Henry III. Objects of that association, ii. 318.
Manifesto of the League, ii. 314. Results of that act, ii. 315. Dangerous
principles advocated at the time by celebrated leaguers, ii. 373. {See
Henry IV. king of France.)
LEBEAU, authr>r of the Histoire du Bas-Empire. General observations on
the spirit of that work, i. xxvi. He commends highly the conduct of
Gregory II. to Leo the Isaurian, i. 210, text and notes. (See Gregory II.)
Inconsistent in his censures on the successors of Gregory II. i. 252, 290.
His unjust censures on Pope Zachary for his answer to the consultation
addressed to him by the French, relating to the deposition of Childeric III.
i. 292.
LEBLANC, author of a treatise entitled Traite des Monnais de France. He
attributes to the kings of France the sovereignty of the states of the Church
after Pepin's donation, i. 246. Great number of authors influenced by his
authority to adopt the same opinion, ib. Refutation of that opinion, i. 250,
251. Examination of the argument founded on the coins minted at Rome
under Charlemagne and his successors, i. 282.
LEGISLATORS, Ancient. Their unanimous opinion on the strict union of
religion and the state, i. 3, 63. {See Moses, Romulus.)
LEIBNITZ. His principles on the existence and the advantages of the prin-
ciples of the middle ages, which attributed to the pope so great an authority
over sovereigns, ii. 138. Conformity of these principle.i to those of Fenelon,
ii. 8. He dares not absolutely condemn the theological theory of the indirect
power as advocated by Cardinal Bellarmine, ii. 14, 178. Importance of these
admissions, ii. 306.
LEO THE GREAT, St... twice saved Rome by his mediation with the bar-
barian kings Attila and Genseric, i. 39, 186. His principles on the use of
INDEX. 897
temporal power in matters of religion, i. 71- His doctrine on the temporal
effects of public penance, ii. 70. And on the distinction and competence of
the two powers, ii. 96.
LEO III., Pope, implores Charlemagne's protection against a conspiracy,
i. 236. Gives the imperial crown to that prince, ib. This step easily
justified by circumstances, i. 237. It does not by any means imply that
Leo III. attributed to himself, by divine right, a jurisdiction, even indirect,
over temporals, i. 238, note ; ii. 288, 197. He gave to Charlemagne at his
coronation the external homage of adoration, i. 236. {See Adoration.)
His letters to Charlemagne after that time imply the Holy See's indepen-
dence (if the emperor, i. 261. The same independence proved by a document
issued. both by the pope and the emperor, ih.
LEO THE ISAL^EIAN, Emperor, drives Italy to revolt by his imprudent
conduct, i. 197, 202. Letters written to him by Gregory II. on tha*
occasion, i. 207. {See Gregory II.) Other excesses of Leo against
Gregory III. i. 212. {See Gregory III.) He seizes the patrimonies of the
Roman Church in Sicily and Calabria, i. 117, 212. Value of these patri-
monies, i. 117, 315.
LIBAiSTIUS admits the moderate policy of Constantine to the pagans, i. 52,
note, 304, 305.
LIBERTIES OF THE GALLICAN CHURCH. Bossuet generally regarded
as the principal defender of the maxims on which they are grounded, ii. 305.
Abuse made of those liberties in France under Philip the Fair, according
even to Sismondi, and the best French historians, ii. 238.
LINGARD, English historian. Wise principles of this author in judging
our ancestors and their institutions, ii. 25. He considers Pope Zachary's
answer to the French barons regarding Pepin's election, as one of the best-
attested historical facts, i. 333. His mode of accounting for the conduct of
popes of the middle ages on the temporal effects of excommunication in the
case of sovereigns, ii. 136. He acknowledges as a fact, the general belief
of the middle ages on the temporal effects of excommunication in the case
of sovereigns, ib.
LOMBARDS. Establishment of their monarchy in Italy in the sixth century
favours the temporal power of the pope, i. 187. Their i-epeated attacks on
Italy and the Holy See, i. 188, 197, 212, 217. They restore to Pope
John VII. the patrimonies which they had taken ft-om the Roman Church,
i. 117. They restore to Pope Zachary many cities and territories of the
Exarchate, i. 216, 217. {See Astol^jhus, Didier.) Their monarchy destroyed
by Charlemagne, i. 232.
LOTHAIRE I., Emperor. Sent to Rome in 824 by his father (Louis le
D^bonnaire) ; does no act of authority there but at the good pleasure of the
pope, i. 265, 266, 282. Mi.^take of Fleury and of other modern writers on
this subject, i. 282. His revolt against the emperor his father, ii. 77. He
takes his son Louis as colleague, with the pope's consent, ii. 163, 283.
Sends his son to Rome in 844, i, 264. (.See Louis II.)
LOTHAIRE THE YOUNGER, king of Lorraine, son of the emperor
Lothaire I., is threatened with excommunication by Pope Nicolas I. on
account of his adulterous marriage with Valdrade, ii. 221.
LOUIS LE DEBONNAIRE, Emperor. His charter confirming the dona-
tions of Pepin and Charlemagne to the Roman Church, i. 266. Authenticity
of that act, i. 268. Inferences from, bearing on the sovereignty of Rome at
the time, i. 266. Mistake of Fleury and of some other authors on this point,
i. 267. Louis le Debonnaire takes his son Lothaire I. as colleague in the
empire with the pope's consent, ii. 163, 283. Sends his son to Rome in
824 to receive the imperial unction from the pope, i. 282. His public
penance and deposition, ii. 8, 77. Was not, properly speaking, deposed by
the Council of Compeigne, ib, and 196.
898 INDEX.
LOUIS II., Emperor, son of Lothaire I., sent to Italy by his father, i. 266.
Assurance of his good intentions given by him before he was admitted into
the church of St. Peter by the pope, ib. His letter to the emperor Basil,
who contested with him the title of emperor of the Romans, ii. 162.
LOUIS OF BAVARIA, Emperor, deposed by Pope John XXII. ii. 166,
Expressly acknowledged that the pope had a right to do so, ib.
LOUIS IX.. St., king of France. Laws in force in his time on the temporal
eifects of excommunication and heresy, ii. 92, 96, 101. Obtains from
Alexander IV. the establishment of the Inquisition in France, ii. 101.
Authorizes his brother Charles of Anjou to accept the kingdom of Sicily,
which had been offered to him by the pope, ii. 151.
LUDOLPH or LUPOLD, bishop of Bamberg in the thirteenth century, sup-
poses the special rights of the pope over the empire as a point of consti-
tutional law universally admitted, ii. 157, 158.
LUPUS, St., bishop of Troyes, saves by his mediation with Attila his epi-
scopal city, i. 39. St. Lupus of Troyes and St. Germain of Auxerre save
Great Britain from an invasion of the Saxons and Picts, ib.
LYONS, First general Council of. Its share in the deposition of Frederic II.
ii. 160. {See Innocent IV.)
MACHIAVELLI, his principles on the union of religion and the state, i. 18,
note.
M^^CENAS, hia wise counsel to Augustus on the necessity of punishing
crimes .igainst religion, i. 23. {See Augustus.)
MALTE-BRUN, famous geographer, inconsistent with his own explana-
tion of the bull of Alexander VI. JnUr ccctcra, ii. 240, 241, note. {See
Alexander VI.)
M.-\RCIAN, Emperor, confirms the Council of Chalcedon, i. 60. His laws
against heretics, i. 70, note, 82, &c. His laws on donations made to the
Church, to clerics, or to monk^, i. 103. Confirms the pious donations of the
empresa Pulcheria, his wife, i. 111.
MARTIN IV., Pope, gives the kingdom of Arragon to Philip the Bold for
one of his sons, ii. 151.
MARTIN V. modifies the discipline of the middle ages on the effect of excom-
munication, ii. 87.
MARY STUART, queen of Scotland, appealed to the pope's voice in sup-
port of her rights, ii. 310. Intrusts all her rights to the pope and the king
of Spain, ib.
MATILDA, Countess, grants her states to the Holy See, i. 240.
MAURICE, Emperor, remonstrances addressed to, by St. Gregory, on a law
regarding the conscription, i. 192.
MAYORS OF THE PALACE. Their excessive authority under the first
race of French kings, i. 337. Consequences of that disorder, i. 338.
MEASURES, Ancient. {See Weights, Coins.)
MEDIMNA, ATTIC. {See Weights.)
MICHAUD, author of I'Histoire desCroisades. General observations on the
spirit of that work, ii. 19, note. How the author accounts for the deposition
of princes by the popes, ii. 18. He hnd no settled ideas on this subject, ii.
19, note. He adopts too inconsiderately the severe censures of many modern
writers on Gregory VII. and some other popes, ib. Admits the general
belief of the middle ages on the temporal effects of excommunication in the
case of sovereigns, ii. 137.
MIDDLE AGES. Usual meaning of the term, i. xi. Picture of the state of
society in the middle ages, ii. 40. Ignorance and barbarism of that period,
ii. 41. Disorders of society in the time of Gregory VII. ii. 42. These dis-
orders often fermented by the example of princes, ii. 43. Respect for religion
INDEX. S99
still surviving in the midst of all those disorders, ii. 45. The clergy at all times
distinguished by their enlightenment and virtues, especially in the monas-
teries, ii. 46. Disorders of this period often exaggerated by modern authors,
ii. 49. Salutaiy influence of the Church in the amelioration of society,
ii. 50. Political theory of the middle ages, ii. 326. {See Government.)
MOEHLER, professor of theology at Munich. His explanation of the depo-
sition of temporal princes by the popes, ii. 303.
MONARCHIES OF THE MIDDLE AGES. {See Government.)
MONASTERIES. The bishops often elected from monasteries after Con-
stantine's conversion, i. 35. Enlightenment and virtues for which the
monasteries were conspicuous in the middle ages, ii. 46. Remarkable
admissions of many hostile authorities on this subject, ii. 49. On the
ancient usage of offering children to God in the clerical or monastic state,
ii. 47. Many princes of the blood royal of France educated in monasteries,
ii. 48.
MONKS. {See Monasteries.)
MONTESQUIEU, his principles on the union of religion and the state, i. 18,
note. On the use of temporal power in religious matters, i. 64, 65. On the
right of asylum, i. 148. On the origin of ecclesiastical seigneuries, ii. 57.
MOREAU, historiographer of France, considers it indisputable that the
monarch was held accountable to the council during the second race of kings,
ii. 147. Erroneously imagines this was an error introduced by the policy of
Pepin, ib.
MOSES, Strict union established by, between religion and the state, i. 5.
MOSHEIM, Errors of, on the government of the Church and the election of
bishops in the primitive ages, i. 31, note.
MURATORI, Incorrect notions of, on the origin and nature of the temporal
sovereignty of the Holy See, i. 246, 288. His singular opinion on the legi-
timacy of the donations of Pepin and Charlemagne to the Holy See, i. 287.
Defends, nevertheless, the temi:)oral sovereignty of the Holy See on the
grounds of incontestable prescription, i. 288.
NAPLES, Kingdom of. {See Robert Guiscard.)
NAPOLEON, Emperor. His pretensions to the states of the Church com-
bated by M. Emery, i. 235, 299. {See Emery.) He censured severely
Bernadotte's apostasy, ii. 317. ('See Sweden.)
NICOLAS I., Pope. His political conduct too inconsiderately censured by
a great number of modern authors, ii. 40. Modifies the discipline on the
temporal effects of public penance, ii. 78. Threatens to excommunicate
Lothaire the Younger, king of Lorraine, for his adulterous marriage with
"Valdrade, ii. 221. His principles on the distinction and mutual inde-
pendence of the two powers, ii. 190.
NUMA. {See Romulus.)
OATH. In what sense the Church and the pope can dispense an, ii. 12, 13,
365. The sentence by which popes formerly dispensed subjects from their
oath of allegiance was founded both on the Divine law and on human law,
ii. 12, 13. Was that sentence an act of jurisdiction ? ib.
OATH OF CATHOLICITY required of magistrates by Justinian, i. 84. The
same oath taken by the Roman emperors since the close of the fifth century,
i. 172. Also taken by the Gothic kings of Spain, i. 86. Consequences of
this oath in regard to the deposition of an heretical prince, ii. 206.
OATH OF FIDELITY taken by the Romans to the king of France, as
patrician of the Romans, i. 271, 280. That oath does not prove that the
king of France had the sovereignty of Rome, i. 273, Before Charlemagne's
400 INDEX.
elevation to the empire, also, the Romans took the oath of fidelity to the
pope and the king of France, ii. 273.
OATH OF FIDELITY taken by the Romans to the Carlovingian emperors,
i. 265 ; ii. 280. Inferences from that oath as to the question of the sove-
reignty of Rome at that time, (6.
OATH OF FIDELITY taken to the pope by the emperors. This oath
appears not to have been taken by Charlemagne at his coronation, i. 328 ;
ii. 166. It was taken in the ninth and following centuries by the successors
of Charlemagne, i. 318, 329. Ancient formula of this oath, i. 328. Its
different forms since the ninth century, ii. 167. Form adopted by Gre-
gory VII. ii. 169. Form in the eleventh century, according to the Roman
pontificate, ii. 177. Meaning and consequences of that oath, ii. 166, 174.
DiflTerence betv.'een the oath taken by the emperors to the pope and that
taken by va.ssal princes of the Holy See, ii. 153, 167, 272.
OATH OF SUPREMACY required of the English Catholics after the schism
of Henry VIII. ii. 251. Oath of allegiance required by James I. and his
successois, ib. That oath condemned by Paul V. ii. 252. [See Paul V.)
This decision confirmed by Innocent X. ii. 253. Sixty doctors of the Sor-
bonne gave a different decision, which however was put on the Index, ib.
255. Uossuet's embarrassment on this point, ii. 253. Works to be con-
sulted on this controversy, ii. 251.
OFFERINGS. {See Tithes, Property, ecclesiastical.)
OPINION, Theological. (5ee Dogma.)
ORDO, Roman, published by Hittorpius, in 1561 ; its antiquity, i. 328.
Some other editions of that collection, ii. 168.
ORLEANS, City of, saved by the mediation of St. Aignan, its bishop, i. 30.
Decrees of third Council of Orleans, in 538, on the temporal effects of public
penance, ii. 72.
OSTIA, Henry de Suza, cardinal of, often called Ostiensis. (See Suza.)
OTHO I., Emperor, rai-ed to the throne by Pope John XII. ii. 284. Takes an
oath of fidelity to that pope ; foimula of that oath, ii. 168, 284. His
diploma in favour of the Roman Church, i. 265. {See Louis le D^bonnaire.)
OTHO IV., Emperor, elected in 1201 by Pope Innocent III. ii. 163. De-
posed in 1210 by the same pope, ii. 158, 165. Motives of this sentence,
ii. 341. Opinion of Gervase of Tilbury on that deposition, ii. 155. {See
Gervase.)
OTHO, bishop of Frisingen, astonishment of, at the sentence of Gregory VII.
against the king of Germany (Henry IV.), ii. 113.
PARABOLAINS of Alexandria. Object of their institution, i. 169. St. Cyril
employs them in supporting his temporal power, ib. Disputes on the sub-
ject between the patriarch and the governor of Alexandria, ib.
PARIS, Sixth Council of. Its doctrine on the distinction and mutual inde-
pendence of the two powers, ii. 188.
PATRIARCHATES, PATRIARCHS. Origin of the Patriarchates, i. 167.
Attributions of the patriarchs in the temporal order after the fourth century,
i. 166. Use made by St. Cyril of his temporal power, i. 168. And by
Dioscorus, i. 170. Extraordinary power given by Justinian to the patriarch
of Alexandria, i. 171. Temporal power of St. John the Almoner, ib. In-
fluence of the patriarch of Constantinople in the election of the emperor
after the fifth century, i. 172. Oath required of the emperor elect, ih.
From Justinian's time, the patriarchs charged with the promulgation of
imperial constitutions on ecclesiastical matters, and sometimes even on civil,
i. 165.
PATRICIAN, PATRICIA NSHIP. Nature of this dignity in the Greek
empire, i. 219, note. Two sorts of patricians, ib. Patrician dignity of
INDEX. 401
Pepin and Charlemagne, what? i. 218. It did not confer on them the
sovereignty of Rome, ib. 255, 271 ; ii. 278. {See Pepin, Charlemagne.)
Title of patrician then common to the pope and to the king of France, i. 273,
274. In what sense it could be said that this title was given to the pope by
the king of France, i. 274.
PATRIMONIES of the Church; ancient meaning of these words, i. 179.
Patrimony of the Roman Church, i. 115. Holy use to which it was applied,
i. 124, 179. Some of these patrimonies were principalities, i. 115. Origin
o*hose in Sicily and Calabria, i. 118. Their value, i. 117. Seized by Leo
the Isanrian, ib. Patrimonies seized and afterwards restored by the Lom-
bards, ib. Xew patrimonies given to the Church by the emperor Con-
stantine Copronymus, i. 216. Restitution of patrimonies claimed from the
emperor of Constantinople by Pope Adrian I. i. 2-35.
PAUL I., Pope, successor of Stephen II., considers himself sovereign of Rome
and of the Exarchate, i. 229.
PAUL III., Pope. His bull of excommunication and deposition against
Henry YIII. ii. 247. That buU does not imply the theological theory of
the divine right of the Church to jurisdiction over temporals, ii. 248. Letters
to the emperor and the king of France acquainting them with this bull, ii.
249.
PAUL v., Pope. His briefs against the oath of allegiance, ii. 253. (See
Oaths.) These briefs do not suppose the theological theory of the divine
right of the Church in temporals, ii. 254. Good titles for condemning the
oath of allegiance independently of that theory, ii. 255.
PAL'L, Diaconus of Aquileia in the eighth century. His account of the
revolution in Italy during the pontificate of Gregory II. i. 197. This narra-
tive agrees with that of Anastasius the Librarian, i. 198. ('S'ee Gregory II.)
PENALTIES. (See Crimes.)
PENANCE, Public. Ancient discipline of the Church on, ii. 68. Temporal
effects of in the West since the fourth century, ii. 69. These effects attached
to public penance even when performed from devotion, ii. 73. This custom
sanctioned by the two powers in the kingdom of the Goths, ii. 75. Decline
of public penance from the seventh to the twelfth century, ib. Its temporal
effects maintained in France and elsewhere by the authority of the two
powers, ii. 76. This usage gradually fell into disuse after the ninth
century, ii. 78. Not founded on the Divine law alone, nor on the authority
of the Church alone, ii. 80, 81.
PENTAPOLIS. Its geographical position and extent under the monarchy of
the Lombards, i. 188.
PEOPLE, Sovereignty of. Exposition of this system, ii. 328. Its serious
inconveniences, ii. 329, 373. It is more dangerous than the theological
system which attributes to the pope, by divine right, a power of jurisdiction,
direct or indirect, over sovereigns, ii. 332. It is not the fundamental prin-
ciple of mixed monarchy, ii. 31. It is the basis of the present constitution
of Russia, and of many other states, ii. 330, 331.
PEPIN THE LITTLE, king of France. Was he of the royal blood of the
Merovingians? i. 339. Consultation addressed by this prince and the
French barons to Pope Zachary on the deposition of Childeric III. i. 292,
331. {See Zachary.) Discussion on the charge of usurpation made against
Pepin by a great number of modem authors, i. 293, 333. Character of this
prince, i. 340. Character of the principal personages who concurred in his
promotion, i. 341. Respect and submission constantly shown to him by the
French barons and people, ib. The supposition of his usurpation impro-
bable, i. 340. No solid proof of it, ii. 150, 342. (.See France.) Calvin and
the first reformers were the first to blacken his memory by charging him
with usurpation, ii. 346. Is it true that he received from Pope Stephen II.
absolution from that crime ? ib. Was his conduct to Childeric III. ex-
VOL. II. 2 D
402 Ij!fDEX.
cusable? ii. 347. Was be crowned a second time by Pope Stephen II. ?
ii. 348. Stephen II. implores his aid against the Lombards, i. 217. Pepin
complies with the pope's prayer: his first expedition to Italy, i. 218.
His first donation to the Roman Church, ib. Receives from Pope Ste-
phen II. the title of patrician, i. 219. (See Patrician.) Claims from the
Lombards, as restitution due to the Church of Rome, the cities and terri-
tories of the Exarchate which they had seized, i. 220, 324. His second
expedition to Italy. He confirms his first donation to the Roman Church,
i. 224. In what sense that donation was a restitution, i. 226. He dfl not
believe the authenticity of Constantine's donation, i. 324. He acted as
esquire to Pope Stephen II. i. 289. Never claimed sovereignty in the
Exarchate or in the duchy of Rome, i. 251, 271. Influence of the clergy in
the political affairs of France not an innovation of Pepin's, ii. 37, 38. Error
of Sismondi on this point, ib.
PETER DAMIAN, St., Cardinal, contemporary and friend of Gregory VII.
ii. 42. His description of the disorders of society in his time, ib. His
doctrine on the distinction and reciprocal independence of the two powers,
ii. 191.
PETER OF BLOIS writes to Pope Celestine III. in the name of Eleanor,
queen of England, ii. 120. (&c Eleanor.)
PETER III., king of Arragon, deprived of his crown by Pope Martin IV.
ii. 15L
PFEFFEL, a Protestant author, admits the general belief of the middle ages
on the temporal effects of excommunication in the case of sovereigns, ii. 140.
Admits the same belief on the special dependence of the empire on the Holy
See, ii. 176. Not very consistent with himself on this latter point, ib.
PHILIP I., king of France. His crimes, ii. 44, 45, 122. Threatened with
excommunication by Gregory VII. ii. 122. Excommunicated and deposed
by Urban II. in the council of Clermont, ii. 124. This f;vct absurdly con-
tested by Bossuet and some other modern writers, ii. 125. Custom and
belief of the middle ages on the effects of excommunication in the case of
sovereigns proved by the circumstances of this fact, ib. 128, 129. {See
Ivo of Chartres.)
PHILIP II., Augustus, king of France. His contest with John Lackland
(in 1202), on occasion of the assassination of Arthur, count of Bretagne,
ii. 225. {See Innocent III.) Accepts in 1211 the kingdom of England for
one of his sons, after the deposition of John Lackland, ii. 127, 150.
PHILIP III., the Bold, king of France, accepts for one of his sons the
kingdom of Arragon, which was offered to him by the pope, ii. 151.
PHILIP IV., the Fair, king of France. Contests of this prince with Boni-
face VIII. ii. 232. {See Boniface VIII.) Pernicious prejudices existing at
that time in France against the pope, ii. 237, 358. Sismondi's judgment on
that affair, ib. The pope's rights of sovereignty over many states, and his
special rights over the empire then acknowledged in France, ii. 151, 158.
PHILIP II., king of Spain, cedes Belgium to his daughter Isabella, and her
betrothed husband, Albert of Austria, ii. 311. Remarkable conditions in
this cession, ib. {See Spain.)
PHILOSOPHERS, opinion of the most celebrated, ancient and modern, on
the strict union of religion and the state, i. 3, 17. {See Publicists.)
PIUS v., St., Pope. His bull of excommunication and deposition against
Elizabeth, queen of England, ii. 249, 309. That bull not grounded on the
theological theory of the right divine of papal jurisdiction over tempo-
rals, ib. {Sec Elizabeth.)
PIUS VII., Pope. Secret iiutriKtions falsely attributed to this pope in favour
of the theological opinion of the indirect right of the Church over temporals,
ii. 370. Testimony of M. le Chevalier d'Artaud de Montor on the spurious-
ness of these documents, ii. 372.
INDEX. 403
PLATO. His pi-inciples on the union of religion and the state, i. 2 — 4.
POLAND, Kingdom of. Catholicity required as a condition in the sovereigns
of that kingdom, ii, 312.
PONTIFFS. (See Priests, Sovereign Pontiff.)
POPE. Primacy of, acknowledged and sanctioned by imperial constitutions, i. 60.
His temporal power not very different from that of other bishops before the
dose of the fourth century, i. 180. Increase of his power under Honorius,
irl68, 182. This increase authorized by the emperor, i. 183. Motives for
the generosity of the emperors to the Holy See, i. 186. Those motives
acquired additional force after the establishment of the Lombard monarchy,
i. 187. Circumstances which prepared the way for the temporal sovereignty
of the Holy See, i. 177. Temporal power of the popes increased in the
eighth century by the imprudence of the emperors, i. 195. Revolution in
Italy under Gregory II. i. 197. Influence of that revolution on the
tempoi"al sovereignty of the Holy See, i. 197, 224, 248. That sovereignty
only provisional before Pepin's donation, i. 249, 250. Became definitive
by that donation, i. 228, 250. Extended and consolidated by Charlemagne,
i. 231. Its increase under his successors, i. 240.
Questions to be discussed on the nature and extent of the temporal power
of the popes after the fifth century, i. 241. Causes of the obscurity of these
questions, i. 241-2. Different opinions as to the date of the origin of this
power, i. 242. Nature and extent of this sovereignty in the duchy of Rome,
and in the Exarchate, after the pontificate of Gregory II. i. 248. This
sovereignty also independent of the emperor of Constantinople and of the
king of France, both before and after Charlemagne's elevation to the
empire, i. 250 ; ii. 277. Also independent of Charlemagne's successors, i. 262.
Grounds and original titles of this sovereignty, i. 284. Different opinions
on this point, i. 286. It did not take its rise from the theological theory of
the right divine of the Church and of the pope in the temporal order,
i. 288. Nor from the ambition and intrigues of the popes of the eighth
century, i. 286, 290. Founded originally on the most legitimate titles,
i. 295 ; ii. 64. Its establishment a manifest evidence of God's providence
over the Church, i. 296 ; ii. 324. Opinions of Bossuet and Fleurj' on this
point, i. 297 ; ii. 64. Remarkable admissions of Protestant writers on the
same subject, i. 298. Recent experience in support of these observations,
i. 299.
Moderation with which the popes in general exercised their sovereignty,
ii. 320. Ambition and exorbitant pretensions of which they have been
accused ; injustice of that accusation, ib. Object and aim of their policy,
ii. 322. It was eminently praiseworthy, ii. 323. Vain declamations of
some modem authors on this point, ii. 325.
Power of the pope over sovereigns in the middle ages, ii. 1. General idea
of this power, ii. 2. Various systems to account for it, ii, 179, 184.
Systems theological, ib. Systems historical, ii. 6. The principles of the
middle ages on this point not introduced by Gregory VII. ii. 104, 135,
154, 176. On this matter popes and councils were guilty neither of criminal
usurpation, nor of gross error, ii. 177. The whole discussion on this matter
reduced to four principal points, ii. 23-4. 1st. Circumstances that gave rise
to or favoured that power, ii. 26 (Part ii. ch. i.). 2nd. General belief of
princes and people in the existence of this power, ii. 94 (ib. ch. ii.).
3rd. Titles of this power, ii. 185, 261 {ib. ch. iii.). 4th. Its influence on
religion and the state of society, ii. 318 {ib. ch. iv.).
Rights of sovereignty of the Holy See over many states. {See Sovereignty.)
Its special rights over the empire of the West, ii. 276. {See Empire.)
Charlemagne owed to the pope solely the title of emperor, ii. 277. The
pope did not at that time renounce his right of electing the emperor in
future, ii. 278. He retained that right long after Charlemagne's time, ii. 280.
How that right can be reconciled with the conduct of some emperors who
2 D 2
404 INDEX.
took their sons as coUeag^ies in the throne, ii. 284. This right proved from
the old laws of the empire, ii. 287. (See Law, German.) Inferences from
this right of election, ii. 286. Influence of the pope in the political affairs
of different states of Europe in the middle ages, ii. 38. Causes of this
influence, ib. Errors of many modern writers on the subject, ii. 40. This
influence indispensable at the time for the general good of society, ii. 68.
Its increase during the Cru.sades, ii. 60, 67. The pope chosen by the kings
of Spain and Portugal as arbiter of their differences regarding countries
newly discovered, ii. 239. {See Alexander VI.) *
PORTUGAL, Kingdom of. Kings of Spain and Portugal select the pope as
umpire in their disputes regarding newly-discovered countries, ii. 239. {See
Alexander VI.)
POUNDS. {See Weights and Measures.)
POWER OF THE CHURCH and pope in temporals. {See Church, Pope,
Power.)
POWER, Temporal, of the clergy. {S^ Clergy.)
POWERS. The two powers distinct and mutually independent, i. 67, 69 ; ii. 4.
Doctrine of antiquity on this point, i. 182, 185, 192, 289; ii. 188. This
doctrine often admitted by the Christian emperors, i. 67. In what sense
Con.stantine called himself exterior bishop, i. 68. The two powers pro-
claimed independent and distinct in the Capitularies, ii. 188. This doctrine
generally admitted under Gregory VII. ii. 191. The same doctrine ex-
pressed in the third general Council of Lateran, ii. 96. Taught by Pope
Innocent III. ii. 223. Tlie mutual encroachments of the two powers no
proof of ignorance of the true principles, or their respective limits, ib. In
what sense the spiritual power is superior to the temporal, i. 184 ; ii. 199,
221. These two powers not incompatible by their nature, i. 285 ; ii. 199,
221. Necessity of their union, i. 63; ii. 194. (.S'te Government, Religion.)
The mixture of the temporal and spiritual in legislative acts, both civil and
ecclesiastical, the natural consequence of this union, i. 62, 157 ; ii. 193.
Divine and ecclesiastical laws sanctioned by temporal penalties in conse-
quence of this union, i. 63 ; ii. 67. Principles in the use of temporal power
in matters of religion. {See Crimes, Government.) Origin, progress, and
changes of the theological opinion which attributes to tlie Church and the
pope, by divine rigiit, a power of jurisdiction, direct or indirect, over tem-
poralities, ii. 1, 187, 359. This opinion hardly known before the time of
Gregory VII. ii. 186. Did not begin to be generally known until long after
that time, ii. 199. Never sanctioned by any definition or decree of faith,
ii. 5, 218, 260. (See Dogma.) Opinion of the direct power, ii. 360. Why
it did not draw forth more protests at its origin, ii. 363. Opinion of the
indirect power, ii. 1, 364, &c. Modifications made by some authors in that
opinion, ii. 366. How it differs from Fenelon's, ii. 367. Opposition by
Protestants to the theory of the right divine, ii. 3. Opposition, but more
moderate, of many Catholics, ii. 4, 5. Decline of the theological opinion of
the divine right, ii. 369. The Holy See attaches no importance to it, ii. 3,
259, 369. Observations on some arguments urged in favour of that opinion,
i. 184, 203 ; ii. 200, 218. (See Church.) Contest of the two powers in the
middle ages —its real object, ii. 322, 343. Palpable errors of some authors
on the cause of that struggle, ii. 339. On its duration, ii. 325, 343. On
the extent of the wars caused by it, ii. 343.
PREFECTURE, PREFECT, PR/ETORIAN. His power before Constan-
tine's time, i. 41. Restricted by that prince, ib. Who divides the whole
empire into four prefectures, ib.
PRIESTS. Honours and prerogatives enjoyed by in ancient nations, i. 2.
Privileges of pagan priests maintained under Constantine and his successors,
i. 21. Honours and privileges of pagan priests transferred to the ministers
of the Christian religion by the Christian emperors, i. 27, 28. {See Clergy,
Religion.)
INDEX. 405
PRIMACY OF THE HOLY SEE. {See Pope.)
PEINCES. {See Power.)
PROFESSION OF FAITH. {See Dogma, Faith.)
PROPERTY, Ecclesiastical. Its origin, from the custom and maxims of
antiquity on the union of religion and the state, i. 2, 6, 7, 27, 28. Even of
those who deny to the Church the right of acquiring and holding property,
i. 285. Principles and practice of the primitive ages on this point, i. 92.
'^J'^ealth of some churches, even during the persecutions, i. 98. Wealth of
the Roman church in particular, i. 94. Administration of ecclesiastical
property then left \o the bishops, i. 33. Increase of ecclesiastical property
after Constantine's conversion, i. 95. Liberality of that prince to the
Roman church, ib. Source of this liberality in the immense revenues of
the Roman empire, i. 102, 103. Other sources of wealth to the Church :
restitutions, donations encouraged by the laws, i. 106. Tithes, first-fruits,
donations inter vivos and by will, i. 109. Liberality of the faithful excited
by the exhortation of the holy doctors, i. Ill, 112. Who blame, never-
• theless, excessive or indiscreet donations, i. 113. Wealth of the patriarchal
churches after the fourth century, i. 114. Wealth of the Roman church in
particular, i. 115. Its patrimonies, i. 116. Most beneficent influence of
the wealth of society on the good of society, i. 118, 124, 126. Boundless
munificence of the Roman Church, i. 124. Injustice of the invectives against
the clergy on this point, i. 127, 131.
PROTESTANTS. Opinions of Calvin and the first reformers on the incom-
patibility of temporal with spiritual power in the person of ministers of
religion, i. 286 ; ii. 294. These opinions refuted, ii. 294. Declamations of
the first reformers against the Church and the Holy See on this matter,
i. 287 ; ii. 3. Also against Pepin and Charlemagne for the same reasons,
i. 339. These invectives too lightly taken up by a certain number of
Catholic authors, i. 287. Modern Protestants generally not guilty of these
exaggerations, ii. 3, 4, 23, text and notes. {See Eichorn, Leibnitz, Hurter,
Voigt.) Modem Protestant authors who account for the conduct of popes
in deposing princes in the middle ages by the then existing constitutional
law, ii. 304. Importance of these admissions, ii. 306.
PRUDENTIUS, a Christian poet of the fourth century, assumes, as a
notorious fact, that at the lime when Symmachus petitioned for the restora-
tion of the altar of Victory, the majority of the senate were still pagans,
i. 54, 55. Error of M. Beugnot on this matter, ib.
PUBLICISTS. Opinions of the most eminent publicists, ancient and modern,
on the strict union of religion with the state, i. 3, 17, 65. Their principles
on the right which a nation has in certain cases of electing a new sovereign,
i. 215. (<See Aristotle, Bossuet, Cicero, Grotius, Machiavelli, Montesquieu,
Plato, Puffendorf.)
PUFFENDORF. His opinion on the right of a nation in certain cases to
elect a new sovereign, i, 215. {See Publicists.)
PULCHERIA, Empress. Her liberality to the poor and the churches, i. 111.
RAOUL ROCIIETTE, member of the Academy of Inscriptions. Wisdom
and moderation of his opinions in his Discours sur les heureux Efiets de la
Puissance Pontificale au Moyen Age, ii. 354.
RAVENNA, capital of the exarchate of that name. {See Exarchate.) In
what sense Ravenna was classed among the metropolises of Charlemagne's
kingdom, in his will drawn up in 811, i. 279. Error of Marchetti ou this
point, ib. note.
RECEVEUR, M. I'Abb^, professor of moral theology in the Sorbonne. His
History of the Church useful as a corrective for a herd of modern works on
the same subject, ii, 103. The author accounts for the deposition of princes
by the popes by the constitutional law of the middle ages, ii. 303.
406 INDEX.
RELIGION. {See Monasteries.)
RELIGION. I. Religion in general : At all times regarded as the basis of
public order, i. 1, 63. Honours conferred on, by all the ancient nations, i. 2.
By the Hebrews, i. 6. The Egyptians, i. 7. The Greeks in general, ib.
The Athenians, i. 10. The ancient Romans, i. 12, 21. These honours still
continued in the decline of the republic and under the pagan emperors, i. 16,
21. Foreign religions prohibited by the ancient nations, i. 4, 5, 13, 16, 24.
Tliis law enforced against Egyptian and Jewish ceremonies by Augustus
and Tiberius, i. 22 — 24. This prohibition made a pretext by pagans' for
persecuting the Christians, i. 24, 27.
II. Strict Union of Religion and the State : Principles of all ancient
governments on this point, i. 63, 66. These principles admitted by the
most eminent publicists, ancient and modern, i. 4, 22, 66, 58. Application
of these principles often difficult, i. 68. Rules to be followed in this mat-
ter, i. 67, 70. Strict union of religion and government under the Christian
emperors, i. 27, 28, 42, 60. Tliis union still more strict in the governments
of the middle age.s, ii. 33, 194. The laws of God and of the Church sanc-
tioned by temporal penalties in consequence of this union, i. 43, 62 ; iL 68.
{See Crimes, Governments, Powers )
III. Religion, Christian : Its miraculous establishment, i. 43, 46. Its
condition and progress in the empire before Constantine's time, ib. Tri-
umph of, over paganism, certain before Constantine's conversion, i. 46.
Errors of M. Beugnot on this point, i. 45. The protection of princes insuf-
ficient to support the Church, i. 88. Its miraculous conservation after
Constantine's conversion, i. 88, 89. Motives of the favours conferred on it
by Constantine and his successors, i. 28. Powerful aid which it brought to
the empire under the first Christian emperors, i. 29. It was a support to
the empire against foreign enemies, i. 38. It was generally respected
through all the disorders of the middle ages, ii. 45. Powerful resources
which it conferred on society against these disorders, ii. 46.
REPUBLIC, Roman. {See Rome, Senate.)
REPUBLICS, or commonwealths of the middle ages, i. 258.
RICHARD I., king of England. {See Eleanor.)
RICHES of the Clergy. {See Property, Ecclesiastical.)
RHEIMS, Council of. Modifies the temporal eflTects of public penance in
924, ii. 79.
ROBERT GUISCARD, founder of the kingdom of Naples in 1059, feudatory
of the Holy See, ii. 272. Text of the feudal oath which he took to the
pope, ib.
RODOLPH, duke of Suabia. Elected emperor in 1077, after the deposition
of the king of Germany (Henry IV.), ii. 163.
ROMANS, respect of the ancient, for religion, i. 14. (5ee Religion.) Con-
tradiction between their principles and their practice on this point in the
decline of the republic, i. 1,5, 18. Rome and many other cities of the empire
saved by the influence of the bishops on the enemies of the empire, i. 39.
Extent and boundaries of the duchy of Rome under the monarchy of the
Lombards, i. 188. In what sense the cities and provinces of Italy subject
to the Holy See after the pontificate of Gregory II. are called the Roman
republic, i. 216. Disputes regarding the sovereignty of Rome and of the
Exarchate after the pontificate of Gregory II. , i. 243. {See Charlemagne,
Pope, Patrician, Pepin.) In what sense Rome, is mentioned as one of the
capitals of Charlemagne's empire, in his will in 811, i. 278. Marchetti's
error on this point, ib. note. Municipal government of Rome, and of many
other Italian cities, at this time and long after, i. 258.
ROMULUS. His laws and those of Numa in favour of religion, i. 3, 12.
Tliey were probably adopted from the Greeks and Oriental nations, i, 15.
They prohibit nocturnal sacrifices and ceremonies, i. 13.
INDEX. 407
EOSELLI, Nicholas, cardinal of Arragon, an author of the fourteenth cen-
tury, supposes, as a point of law universally admitted, that an emperor
remaining obstinately under excommunication for an entire year, incurs the
penalty of deposition, ii. 106.
SACEAMEXTARY of St. Gregory. Copies of that work in use in France
in the ninth century, ii. 167, 279. Their antiquity, ii. 167, 288, notes.
SACEIFICES, Nocturnal. {See Divination, secret.)
SACEILEGE. Provisions of the Eoman law on that point, i. 84.
SALISBCEY, John of. {See John.)
SAVOXNIEEES, CouncU of. {See Charles the Bald.)
SEE, Holy. (^eePope.)
SEIGXOEIES, Ecclesiastical. Seignories of the Eoman Church under and
after the pontificate of St. Gregory, i. 116. Origin of ecclesiastical seig-
nories in all the Christian states of Europe during the middle ages, ii. 57.
SENATE AXD PEOPLE OF EOME, regard themselves as subjects of the
pope after Pepin's donation, i. 230. Had no share in the sovereignty of
Eome after that date, i. 267 ; ii. 279. The senate was no more than a
municipal body, such as existed in many Italian cities of that time, ib.
SEXCKENBEEG, Protestant author and eminent jurisconsult of the last
century, considers as indisputable the authority of the ten compilations
of German law made in the thirteenth century, ii. 287. Eemarkable admis-
sion of this author on the enforcement b}' the popes against sovereigns of
the principles of constitutional law then generally admitted, ii. 337.
SEEGIUS II., Pope. Prince Louis, son of Lothaire, sent to Eome by his
father during the pontificate of Sergius II. i. 266. Assurance required of
that prince before the pope would admit him into the church of St. Peter,
ib. The Eomans not permitted to take an oath of fidelity to him, ib.
SESTEECES. (See Coin.)
SICILY, origin of the rights of the Holy See over, i. 212, 264. Sicily formerly
regarded as a fief of the Holy See, ii. 150. The pope gives this kingdom to
Charles of Anjou, brother of St. Louis, ii. 151. The Catholic religion
required to this day of the king by the Sicilian constitution, ii. 311.
SISMONDI, Protestant historian. Spirit of his historical works, i. xxvii.
Contradicts himself in his judgments on the popes of the eighth century,
i. 253, 290. Absurdly considers the political influence of the clergy in France
as introduced by Pepin, ii. 37. His opinion on the mediation of Inno-
cent III. between Philip Augustus and John Lackland, in the contest arising
from the assassination of Arthur, earl ofBretagne, ii. 227, note. His opinion
on the quarrel of Boniface VIII. and Philip the Fair, ii. 238. This opinion
adopted more or less by the best French historians, ii. 239, note.
SIXTUS v.. Pope, appears to have held, as his own private opinion, the
theological theory of the direct power of the Church over temporals, i. 259 ;
ii. 364. He put on the Index Bellarmine's work, De Eomano Pontifice, ii.
364. That article of the Index suppressed by Pope Urban VII. ib. Bull
of Sixtus V. against the king of Navarre (Henry IV.) and the prince of
Cond^, ii. 256. That bull not grounded on the theological theory of the
divine right of the Church in temporals, ii. 258.
SLAVEEY. Beneficent influence of Christianity on the condition of slaves,
i. 118, 122, 124. Numerous instances of manumission after Constantine's
conversion, i. 122, 124.
SOCIETY, religion necessary basis of, i. 1. (See Eeligion.) State of society
in the empire under the first Christian emperors, i. 28. {See Empire.)
State of society in the middle ages, ii. 40. {See iliddle Ages.)
SOU. {See Coin.)
♦.
408 INDEX.
SOVEREIGN POXTIFF, honours and privileges enjoyed by, among the
Hebrews, i. 6. Prerogatives among the ancient Romans, i. 19. The
emperor Augustus and his successors combined that title with the imperial
dignity, i. 20. The title retained by the Christian emperors until Gratian's
time, but its functions not performed by them, i. 20, 21. (See Pope.)
SOVEREIGNTY. Sovereignty of the people. {See People.) Sovereignty
of Rome. Importance of that question as connected with the history of
the middle ages, i. 247. {See Emperor, Pope, Patrician.) Imperial sove-
reignty of the Holy See. {See Pope.)
SOVEREIGNS. {See Powers.)
SPAIN, Kingdom of. Its monarchy elective under the Gothic kings, ii. 27.
Wisdom of its laws, ii. 51. Their severe provisions against heretics, i. 87.
Catholicity required as a condition in the election of the king, i. 87 ; ii. 267.
This condition retained in Spain down to our own time, ii. 310. {See
Philip II.) The kings of Spain and Portugal took the pope as arbiter of
their diflferences regarding countries newly discovered, ii. 239. {See
Alexander VI.)
SPOLETO, Duchy of. The inhabitants of, convey through the pope, Ste-
phen II., their wish of placing themselves under the protection of France,
i. 234, note. They place themselves under the Holy See in the time of
Adrian I. i. 233. Title on which Charlemagne and his successors retain the
sovereignty of that duchy, i. 242, 267.
STATE. Its strict union with religion. {See Religion, Government.)
STEPHEN II., Pope. Implores Pepin's aid against the Lombards, i. 217.
{See Pepin the Little.) Gives the title of patrician of the Romans to Pepin
and his children, i. 219. {See Patrician.) Requests a second time Pepin's
aid against the Lombards, i. 221. His urgent letters on that subject un-
justly criticised by some modern authors, ill. Stephen II. regards himself
as sovereign of Rome after Pepin's donation, i. 228. {See Donation.) His
conduct does not imply the theological theory of the divine right of the
Church over the temporalities of kings, i. 228 ; ii. 197.
STEPHEN v.. Pope. His principles on the distinction and mutual inde-
, pendence of the two powers, ii. 190. He gives the empire to Guy, duke of
Spoleto, ii. 281.
STUART. {See Mary Stuart.)
SWEDEN, Kingdom of Remains of the constitutional law of the middle
ages relating to the deposition of sovereigns in the modern constitution of
that kingdom, ii. 316, 318. Apostasy of Marshal Bernadotte, in com-
pliance with that article of the Swedish constitution, i. 317.
SUZA, Henry of, cardinal of Ostia, maintained the theological theory of the
direct power of the Church over temporals, ii. 363.
SUZERAIN, Right of. The meaning of the word, ii. 58, note. Rights of
suzerainty of the Holy See over many states in the middle ages, ii. 58, 150,
271. Origin of those rights, ii. 58, 201, note. Consequences of those
rights according to the usage and general belief of the middle ages, ii.
150, 272. {See England, Sicily, Venice.) Moderation with which the
popes used those rights, ii. 321. Sense in which the empire was a fief of
the Holy See, i^ 104, 152, 231. Dispute on this point between Frederick I.
and Adrian IV. ii. 170. The king of France and some other sovereigns
exempt from all feudal dependence, ii. 275, 306.
SWORDS, Allegory of the two. Different meanings of that allegory in the
authors who used it, ii. 120, 215. Sense in which it is used by Geoffrey of
VendOme, ii. 216. By Hildebert, bishop of Mans, ii. 217. By St. Ber-
nard, ii. 212. By Pope Innocent III. ii. 224. Many modern writers un-
justly blame the iise made by the authors of the middle ages of this allegory,
ii. 218.
INDEX. 409
SYMMACHUS, Pope. His conduct to the emperor Anastasius, protector
of the Eutychians, i. 175. His doctrine on the distinction and mutual
independence of the two powers, i. 185.
SYMMACHUS, Eoman senator of the fourth century. His petition to the
emperors Gratian and Valentinian II. for the restoration of the altar of
Victory, i. 53, 55, 57. This petition resisted by St. Ambrose, i. 56. The
emperors pay no attention to it, i. 57. Symmachus banished by Theodosius
from Rome in punisliment of his obstinacy, ib.
TABLES. {See Laws of the Twelve Tables.)
TALENT. (&e Weight.)
TEMPLES. Prodigious wealth of many ancient temples, i. 312. (&e Belus,
Delphi, Jerusalem, Jupiter Capitolinus.) Pagan temples often preserved
by the Christian emperors, i. 53, 306. Opinion of the holy doctors on this
point, i. 306.
TERTULLIAN. Astonishing progress of Christianity in his time, i. 44.
His remonstrance to the pagan emperors on the injustice of the edicts of
persecution against the Christians, i. 25, 27.
THEMISTIL^S, a pagan philosopher, praises the moderate conduct of Jovian
to the pagans, i. 54.
THEODOSIUS THE GREAT at first tolerates the exercise of idolatry,
i. 57, 58. Gives the final blow to paganism in the empire, i. 22, 58. Does
not enforce the execution of his edicts as severely in Rome as elsewhere,
i. 60, 306. Orders them to be enforced there towards the close of his life,
i. 60. Confirms the first general Council of Constantinople, i. 61. His
laws against heretics, i. 70, 78. His moderation in enforcing those laws,
i. 73. His laws against the Jews, i. 75. His laws on donations made to
the Church and the clergy, i. 108. Confirms the right of sanctuary,
i. 145.
THEODOSIUS THE YOUNGER confirms the general Council of Ephesus,
i. 61. His laws in favour of the Christian religion, i. 60. And against
the Jews, i. 75, 76. Against heretics, i. 81. Against apostates, i. 84.
Laws concerning ecclesiastical property, i. 109.
THEOPHANES, Greek author of the eighth century, i. 202. His account
of the revolution in Italy under Gregory II. ib. This account adopted by
more modern Greek authors, ib. Difierent from the Latin account, ib.
{See Gregory II.) Authority of Greek authors not entitled to much credit
on this point, i. 206. Pepin's absolution from the crime of usurpation by
Pope Stephen II., according to Theophanes, i. 339.
THEOPHILUS, patriarch of Alexandria. His temporal power, i. 167, 168.
THOMAS OF AQUINA, St., appears to hold the theological opinion of the
direct power of the Church over temporals, ii. 365, 366.
THOMAS OF CANTERBURY, St., held the theological opinion of the
direct power of the Church over temporals, ii. 362. His contest with
Henry II. king of England, ii. 117. {See Henry II.)
THOMASSIN, Pfere, exaggerates the temporal power of the bishops and
patriarchs under Constantine, i. 161, 167.
TIBERIUS revives the ancient Roman laws against foreign religions, i. 24.
TILLEMONT, Le Nain de, confounds the true principles on the use of
temporal power in matters of religion, i. 22, 66. Proves solidly the authen-
ticity of Constantine's letter to Ablavius on ecclesiastical jurisdiction, i. 154-
{See Constantine.)
TITHES, OFFERINGS, FIRST-FRUITS. Their origin in the customs
and maxims even of pagan antiquity, i. 68 ; ii. 93. Their establishment in
the primitive Church, i. 93, 109. In what sense they are of the natural
law, and in what of human law, i. 93.
410 INDEX.
TOLEDO, Councils of, in the seventh and eighth centuries. These councils
were mixed assemblies, ii. 38, 191. Their regulations on the temporal
effects of public penance, ii. 72, 75. Decrees of the sixth council of, against
heretics, i. 86. Decrees of the seventh on the election of a king, ii. 38.
The deposition of Wamba, king of the Visigoths, ought not to be attributed
to the twelfth Council of Toledo, ii, 74, 196.
TONSURE of the Lombards and Franks. {See Haired, long.)
TUSCANY. Charlemagne and his successors long retained the sovereignty
of Royal Tuscany, subject to an annual tribute to the Holy See, i. 242, 266.
TRENT, Council of. Its decree against duellists and their abettors does not
imply the admission of the right divine of the Church over temporals,
ii. 245, 246.
TROYES. This city saved hy the mediation of St. Lupus, its bishop, i. 39.
TYRANNICIDE, Doctrine of, not advocated probably by John of Salisbury,
i. 361. Condemned by the Council of Constance, ii. 255. Difference
between this doctrine and that which the oath of allegiance (English)
censured as heretical, ib. {See Oath of Allegiance.) Dangerous principles
advocated in this matter by the most distinguished members of the League,
ii. 372-3. Still more dangerous principles advocated by Protestants, ib.
UNION OF THE TWO POWERS. {See Government, Power, Religion.)
URBAN II., Pope, excommunicates and deposes Philip I. of France in the
Council of Clermont, ii. 124. (See Philip I.)
URBAN VII., Pope, expunges from the Index Bellarmine's work, De
Romano Pontifice, ii. 364.
VALDRADE. {See Lothaire the Younger.)
VALENTINIAN I., Emperor, preserves and increases the privileges of the
p.agan priests, i. 19, 20, 66. Does not remove the altar of Victory which
had been restored by Julian, i. 56. His laws in favour of Christianity,
i. 58. Restricts the immunities and privileges of the clergy, i. 76, 107, 127.
Praises the submission of the bishops on that point, i. 139.
VALENTINIAN II., Emperor, refu.ses to restore the altar of Victory,
i. 57. But tolerates idolatry, i. 57, 58. His laws against heretics, i. 70.
Against Jews, i. 75. Revokes the immunities granted to Jews by Constan-
tine, i. 76.
VALENTINIAN III., Emperor. Laws in favour of Christianity, i. 60.
And against apostates, i. 85.
VAMBA, king of the Visigoths, deposed by the intrigues of Ervigo his
successor, ii. 73. (See Toledo.)
VAN ESPEN, Louvain doctor ; famous canonist. His treatise on eccle-
siastical censures, ii. 82. His temerity, ib.
VAN-GILS, Louvain doctor. His letter on the opinions of the old Faculty
of Louvain with regard to the Gallican Declaration, ii. 301. {See Louvain
Faculty.)
VELLY, author of the Histoire de France, continued by Gamier. Spirit
of that work, i. xxvii. Its incorrect assertion relating to the pope's rights in
the election of the emperor, ii. 283. Inconsistent in its judgment on the
conduct of the popes of the eighth century towards the emperors of Con-
stantinople, i. 287. Gamier's explanation of the origin and progress of the
temporal power of the clergy in the middle ages, ii. 86.
VENICE, Republic of, formerly considered a fief of the Holy See, ii. 151.
Its contest with Pope Julius II. ii. 321.
VERTOT, author of many historical works. Spirit of his work, Origine de
la Grandeur de la Cour de Rome, i. xxvii. 180. Inconsiderately adopts the
calumnies of modern authors on the popes of the eighth century, i. 237.
INDEX. 411
Inconsistent in his judgment on these popes, ib. Refutes conclusively the
opinion which maintains that the crown of France was hereditary before
Pepin's time, ii. 335.
VICTORY. (-S-ee Altar of)
VISIGOTHS. {See Spain, Laws of Visigoths.)
VOIGT, Protestant, author of a History of Gregory VII. Spirit of that
work, ii. 21. Author's explanation of the conduct of Gregory VII. to the
king of Germany (Henry IV.) ii. 20.
VOLTAIRE. Remarkable admissions of, on the importance of the temporal
sovereignty of the Holy See, i. 296 ; ii. 324. On the benefits of the tem-
poral power of the pope during the middle ages, ii. 352. On the utility of
monastic orders, ii. 54. On the real object of the contest between the two
powers in the middle ages, ii. 322. He admits the general belief of the
middle ages on the temporal effects of excommunication in the case of
princes, ii. 140.
"WARS, Holy, among the Greeks. The occasion of. {See Delphi.)
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. Standard formerly kept in the temples
as sacred and inviolable things, i. 165. Justinian intrusts to the bishops
the charge of watching over them, ib. Ancient weights and measures com-
pared with tlie modern — authors to be consulted on that point, i. 309.
Value of the Roman pound, i. 59, 81 ; ii. 309. Value of the ounce, ii. 309.
Of the Attic talent, i. 10. Different meanings of the word talent in the
writers of the middle ages, i. 315. Value of the Attic medimna, i. 99. Of
the centenarium of gold, i. 315.
"WICLIFFE. His errors on the dominion of ecclesiastical property condemned
by the Council of Constance, ii. 297.
WILLIAM of Malmesbury, English writer of the fourteenth century. Re-
markable testimony of this author on Charlemagne's policy in establishing
ecclesiastical seigneuries, ii. 57.
YVO OF CHARTRES. {See Ivo.)
ZACHARY, Pope. His character and his virtues, i. 294. His good under-
standing with the emperor of Constantinople, i. 215. That prince gives
him more patrimonies in Italy, i. 216. The Lombards restore to him many
cities and territories of the Exarchate, i. 215, 216. His answer to the
French lords on Pepin's election to the throne, i. 292. Authenticity of that
answer, i. 330. Unjust censures on the pope for that answer, i. 293.
That answer not an act of jurisdiction in temporals, i. 295 ; ii. 8, 182, 196.
It does not imply the theological theory of the jurisdiction of the Church
by divine right over temporals, i. 289.
ZOZIMUS, a pagan^Jiistorian. His judgment on the policy of Theodosius
with regard to idolatry, i. 60.
FIKIS.
COX (bkothees) and wyman, printers, great queen-street.
^-r^
L. ./ ;
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
BX
1810
G6
1853
V.2
C.l
ROBA
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11